Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 06/27/2002 19202122 ?4 141 MINUTEScoA LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING ^ 1.1,P co CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Cl/1)74"�jl�.� JUNE 27, 2002 ��c r;^�.c Q/ ,/ MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Alan Belcher, Vice Chairman Ms. Sharon Brower Mr. Michael Cleary Mr. Myron Grossman Mr. Kevin Maraist Dr. Richard Moore Mr. Terry Orf Mr. Elmon Phillips Ms. Bunny Tinker Mr. Alan Wahlers MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Susan Abarca (Excused) Ms. Deborah Douglas (Excused) Dr. Thomas Kreneck (Excused) Grandis Lenken (Excused) Mr. Tom Stewart (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, City Planner Mr. Dan Whitworth, Director of Park & Recreation Ms. Margie C. Rose, Assistant City Manager Ms. Linda Williams, Recording Secretary Mr. Alan Belcher, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order to 4:35 p.m. The roll was called and a quorum was declared. ACTION ITEM: Approval of Minutes for May 23, 2002 Meeting: The minutes for the May 23, 2002 meeting were approved as distributed. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Gold Star Court Update on Appeal to City Council: Mr. Belcher stated Mr. Dan Whitworth, Director of Park and Recreation Department, wanted to address the commission regarding the Gold Star Court project. The floor was turned over to Mr. Whitworth. Mr. Whitworth stated he wanted to speak to the commission regarding the Gold Star Court. Mr. Whitworth continued that he made a similar presentation to the Beautify Corpus Christi Association on Tuesday. Mr. Whitworth stated he was relatively new to the director position, but he has been with the Park and Recreation Department for approximately nineteen (19) years. Mr. Whitworth continued that he had not been directly involved with the Gold Star Court project at the inception, but he was recently educated on some of the intricacies through Ms. Macon and Mr. Gunning. Mr. Whitworth continued he understood that the Landmark Commission's position regarding placement of the monument in the Gold Star Court was either remove it or lay it down flat and that cost estimates for doing so were fairly substantial. Mr. Whitworth stated he was presenting an alternative position, which is staff's position also, for the Landmark Commission to consider. The alternative is to leave the monument in place, but all agree to come back with a definitive time line for the completed development of the plan as was originally approved by the Landmark Commission. Mr. Whitworth continued he had discussed and presented this alternative to SCANNED Landmark Commission Meetingh. IMO June 27,2002 Page 2 the Beautify Corpus Christi Association and it was discussed that a three to four year time line would be sufficient to allow the Association to complete their fundraising effort and complete the renovation. Mr. Whitworth stated that the Park and Recreation Department nor the Beautify Corpus Christi Association currently has the funds needed to remove or lay the monument down. Mr. Whitworth continued that a lot of efforts have been made towards trying to renovate the area and this is the position that the group felt compelled to present to the Landmark Commission and it Is hoped that this alternative would be agreeable. Mr. Grossman stated the option Mr. Whitworth presented was not acceptable to him. Mr. Grossman continued that the Landmark Commission has dealt with the Gold Star Court over and over again and a series of meetings have been held. The fact that the City and the Gold Star Court cannot do anything financially is understood, but to say that the Landmark Commission would agree to let something continue that is clearly in violation of what the Landmark Commission's trust is would not be appropriate either. Mr. Grossman continued he was speaking for himself and he hoped other commissioners agreed with him. Mr. Grossman stated he understood this was kind of a "between a rock and hard place situation; but again, this did not Justify doing the wrong thing. The Landmark Commission is caretaker of the city's historical resources with a responsibility and for the commission to say this would be ok was not ok. Mr. Grossman continued he appreciated what Mr. Whitworth stated, but he could not agree with it. Mr.Whitworth stated he understood Mr. Grossman's statement and he thinks staff's position will be unified on this position, and he did not know of any other alternative to take other than to take it to City Council. Mr. Whitworth continued that he was stating staff's position to the commission and he wanted to take another opportunity to meet with both organizations trying to get the situation resolved in a manner that did not Involve City Council. Mr. Phillips stated that even if the time line was agreed upon and the group raised the $150,000 to complete the project, the monument was still not in accordance with the original concept as presented to the Landmark Commission. Mr. Phillips continued that the monument stuck up like a "sore thumb? The drawings showed the monument barely being above the bluff balustrade that will be placed for the retaining wall and the current placement of the monument was not acceptable. Mr. Phillips stated the Master Review Subcommittee met with representatives of the Gold Star Court on several occasions and different alternatives were offered, but the group has chosen to ignore us. Mr. Phillips continued that if a solution cannot be found and it has to go before the council, then the Landmark Commission is willing to go that route. Mr. Phillips continued that if this was a unified staff position, he was really very sorry that staff felt this way, but it i5 very clear that staff allowed the wrong thing to be installed. Mr. Phillips stated that Mr.Whitworth should review the original drawings and those drawings should be taken to the council meeting so they can be discussed. Mr. Phillips stated the Landmark Commission serves on behalf of the city regarding historical preservation projects and commissioners spend their time to make sure things are done right and now that same board is being requested to allow something wrong to remain in place. Mr. Phillips concluded his comments by stating he was very disappointed in that staff's unified position Is to support something that was wrong. He felt the Landmark Commission has gone over and beyond in trying to work with them, but it Is very clear that those people want to do it their way. Dr. Moore asked what group of people was Mr. Phillips referring to and Mr. Phillips answered he was talking about Mr. Leland Johnson and Betty Black of the Beautify Corpus Christi Association, Gold Star Court Committee, and the Downtown Merchants' District. Dr. Moore commented that he did not feel it was appropriate for Mr. Phillips to refer to the group as "those people"since they were responsible for creating the park. Dr. Moore continued that the Landmark Commission did not raise any money for the project, plant any trees, or make any restorations to the park. It was clarified that the Gold Star Court Committee did not landmark Commission Meeting' IMO June 27,2002 Page 3 create the park. The park was already In place before the Gold Star Court Committee started their project. Mr. Orf stated that what the commission was trying to do was give the Input that we felt was proper for the design of the drawing. Mr. Orf continued the commissioners are frustrated because we were asked for our input on several occasions; which we gave what we thought was the proper response. Mr. Orf stated that It seems that the input was never carried through to the final product. Mr. Belcher stated that the thing that was frustrating to him was that he knew very little about the names of the young men who fought and died in World War I. Mr. Belcher continued that he has gone both ways on the project because he felt it was appropriate to have their names displayed and it would be a discredit to all of us If the monument is hidden away and it dishonors the memory. Mr. Belcher continued he knows that the Gold Star Court Committee did not do what they said they were going to do, but we should be thinking about the men who fought and died for this country whose names are listed on the monument. Mr. Phillips clarified that all of those men's names have been on a plaque since 1930 up at the top of the balustrade where it was originally intended to be. Mr. Phillips continued that the plaque is still there. Mr. Phillips continued that the plaques are in addition to the individual markers that are also placed there with their names on them. Ms.Tinker added the names are engraved in two different places. Mr.Belcher stated he felt that the park was not going to be returned to Its original status of the 1930s and he did not think that was the Intent. Mr. Belcher continued he was not adverse to compromise on this project. Mr. Phillips commented that one of the reasons the marker was so big was due to other items that were added. Mr. Phillips continued that in addition to the names of the thirty-five young men, individual names of the Gold Star Court Committee, manufacturer's name, and the park's history were added. Mr. Grossman stated the marker was inappropriate. Mr. Grossman continued that if an individual is going to set on a board or commission and you are given a charge to do a job, you don't turn that job Into something else, but instead you keep it serious and honorable. Mr. Grossman stated the Gold Star Court Committee was wrong and the commission should not have to compromise any further. When you are given the charge of caretaker of the city's historical resources, that charge is to be taken seriously. Mr. Grossman reiterated that he was also disappointed in staff taking the position that was presented. Mr. Grossman continued that this is nothing new-staff Is always on the wrong side. Mr. Whitworth stated that staff's position is that private funds are being raised to make improvements to an area that is a memorial to those that passed away during World War I. Mr. Whitworth continued that the time line in which he has discussed and the conceptual drawings that he saw, which were approved by the Landmark Commission, are the things they are trying to get resolved In the time line and compromise that was outlined. Mr. Whitworth continued the conceptual plans he saw were not what he would call construction documents, but they would fall under the definition of conceptual plans. Mr. Whitworth stated he felt the biggest difference was that the Landmark Commission had a vision in their mind that perhaps was not the vision the Gold Star Court Committee had. Mr. Whitworth continued that given the time line in which to complete the conceptual plan might have drawn the two together. Mr. Grossman stated to Mr.Whitworth that it did not matter if the plans were conceptual or construction, the finished project should still look like what was drawn and he did not understand how he could defend that position. Mr. Grossman asked Mr. Whitworth since the plans were construction plans, the finished product was ok and Mr. Whitworth responded no. Mr. Whitworth further explained that the design which the Gold Star Court Landmark Commission Meeting 111.0 June 27,2002 Page 4 Committee would end up with would be the one that was approved by the Landmark Commission on the drawings that were provided. Mr. Phillips stated Mr. Cisneros had possession of construction drawings for the project. Mr. Cisneros had a roll of construction drawings that showed details of construction of that monument. Mr. Phillips continued that was the drawing that he took dimensions from. The drawings showed the monument inside the retaining wall, with the monument barely sticking above the wall and It was more than 30" high and it showed to be 4 to 5- above that. Mr. Phillips continued that the drawing clearly showed several feet above that. Mr. Phillips continued that what is there is just inappropriate. Mr. Orf stated, having attended several Master Review Committee meetings regarding this project, the commission has reached a level of frustration in that what we thought were approved conceptual plans turned into contract documents. Mr. Orf continued that as the commission saw those documents, at that point, the plans were marked and the Gold Star Court Committee was told that the plan was not appropriate. Mr. Orf went on to say that what we saw built in the park was more of a reflection of what we didn't want instead of what was approved. Mr. Grossman added that the commission did not approve names of contributors to be added on the monument. Mr. Grossman continued he felt all of the other things added to the monument were a desecration to the men we were honoring. Ms. Tinker stated she wanted the record to reflect that the Landmark Commission has compromised on at least three or four matters regarding the Gold Star Court project for the park. Ms. Tinker continued that the commission has never had an appeal on any decisions that it has made. Ms. Tinker continued if Mr. Whitworth was to talk with several local architects and construction people around town and he would find that the commission has never had a problem in working with them. Ms. Tinker stated the commission provided input and for all of Heritage Park and the two block area behind it and we have been able to work with and compromise on these projects whereby we ended up with a better than original situation. Ms. Tinker continued that Spohn Park is on the National Registry and the commission could have been more stringent and held their feet to the fire when the Gold Star Court Committee wanted to replace the flagpoles, add a sidewalk and move the lollipop down, but the commission did not. Ms. Tinker stated that she wanted everyone that has come Into the situation later to realize that the Landmark Commission has compromised on at least four or five issues having to do with this one project. Ms. Tinker continued that it should not get lost that the commission does appreciate private citizens coming forward and raising money to improve things that are extant, but they should realize when you choose a project, they should be prepared to follow the guidelines for historic structures. Mr. Belcher asked Ms. Macon if this was a discussion item or an action Item and Ms. Macon answered it was scheduled as a discussion item. Mr. Whitworth stated he wanted to take the opportunity to get a resolution to the situation before moving towards City Council. Mr. Whitworth continued he understood the commission's position and he would try to accurately reflect that whenever the item was brought forward. After all comments were received, discussion was concluded. Mr. Belcher congratulated Mr. Whitworth on his appointment as the new director of Park and Recreation Department. Sesquicentennial Committee Video Production Update: Ms. Macon stated that she original thought the commission might possibly take action on this item, but she met with other city staff members concerning carrying out the mission of the Sesquicentennial celebration, Landmark Commission Meeting June 27,2002 Page 5 particularly, the video production. Ms. Macon continued that during this discussion, It was agreed that it would not be a problem In having the video production done and working with the S15,000 budget matched by staff's in-kind services. Ms. Macon stated the city does have a service contract with Quadrant Productions and staff Is looking Into the possibility of having them as a provider in doing a video production with a historical content Ms. Macon stated that the Museum was contacted and they were also interested in producing a historical video that would be in-line with the school districts TEAK history curriculum. Ms. Macon stated that in previous discussions, the landmark Commission recommended that the video also be used as educational video. Ms.Macon staff will be working with the school district to find out what type of information for the video would be incorporated with the TEAK curriculum for local history. Ms. Macon continued that as more information is outlined, members who were originally appointed to serve on the Sesquicentennial Committee were asked to continue to serve on the Sesquicentennial Committee because It had not been disbanded. Ms. Macon went on to say that as of 4 p.m. this afternoon, they were informed by the City Manager that the Committee had not been disbanded. After Ms. Macon's report,the floor was opened for discussion and comments. The question was asked if new members were going to be appointed to the Committee and Ms. Macon answered that the members currently on the committee were still on place and no new appointments were going to be made. Staff will set up a time schedule of meetings between the committee members and staff and the committee will be more staff-driven. Mr. Grossman stated when he was interested In serving on the Sesquicentennial Committee, Ms. Scott made it very obvious that only one or two members from the Landmark Commission could serve. Mr. Grossman continued that it is very obvious that the members appointed to that committee really weren't interested In serving, but were there for the wrong reasons. Mr. Grossman stated he was still interested in serving on the committee and Ms. Macon stated she would contact Mr. Chapa in the City Secretary office. Ms. Tinker added that Mr.Cleary has never been notified of a meeting. Ms. Tinker stated that at their last Sesquicentennial Committee meeting, ten minutes after it was to have begun, Carol Scott announced she was writing a letter to the Mayor the following day stating that this committee would disband. Ms. Tinker continued the letter would also recommend whatever funds were left over should be turned over to the Landmark Commission to pool with the $15,000 grant received from the Texas Historical Commission for the video. Ms. Tinker went on to say that all of the committee members were to receive a copy of the letter that was sent to the Mayor, but the members did not receive a copy. Ms. Tinker continued Ms. Scott stated the reason she was recommending the committee be disbanded was because the committee chairs were not attending the meetings to submit their reports and for each meeting, the minutes reflected 'no reports." Ms. Tinker continued a quorum was present for the meetings, but no activities of the committees were reported. Ms. Tinker stated the members did not receive a copy of the letter sent to the mayor nor were they notified that the committee was not disbanding. Ms.Tinker stated she was not sure where all the blame should be, but it seems that Park and Recreation staff did not do a very good job in providing staff support and notifying members of the meetings. Ms. Macon stated that the committee would be notified of any upcoming meetings and updated on what was being planned. Ms. Tinker requested further clarification regarding the video. Ms. Macon stated that the video is still in tact and staff will be working with Museum staff. Also,teachers will also be contacted to find out more Information about the TEAK curriculum to ensure it will be in line with the display the Museum will be creating that will complement the video. Ms. Tinker stated she spoke with Geraldine McGloin, who informed me that in conjunction with what the Museum was doing regarding the Sesquicentennial Celebration, they wanted Landmark Commission Meeting, W June 27,2002 Page 6 to have a video produced about the 1919 storm. Ms. Macon stated that concept of the video has been expanded and It will include the 1919 storm. Dr. Moore asked who would be producing the video and Ms. Macon answered that the City has a service contract with a local company, Quadrant Productions. Mr. Orf stated this company was very good and his company has used their services on several occasions. Ms. Tinker stated, for informational purposes, the Museum has contacted a lady from Del Mar College as a resource person, who is quite knowledgeable about the 1919 storm. Also, Father Michael Howell has done a lot of research for the Museum and has uncovered new and not before published accounts through letters and diaries regarding the storm. Ms. Tinker asked In regard to the video production-what could be done for$15,000 as opposed to 550,000 and will Quadrant Productions be able to give a presentation to the commission. Ms. Macon answered If the commission would like the company to give a presentation, it might be possible to arrange. Mr. Orf stated he was currently doing a projection with Quadrant Productions for a TxDot project In San Antonio,Texas regarding redoing some of the city's freeway systems. Mr.Off continued Lee Sausley, formerly of Channel III, was on staff with the company and he does the volceovers for the company. Mr. orf stated the company's cost was very reasonable- for a 10-minute video, with detailed input from TXDOt and his company, the production cost of the video was approximately 55,000. Ms. Macon stated that during staff's meeting this afternoon, it was discussed that staff would do the script writing and Patty Murphy of the Museum, along with commission members,would do the editing. Ms. Macon continued that commission members would also review the outline and script to ensure that the historical content was correct. Ms. Macon stated that staff will do a lot of the legwork to reduce the cost in the writing the script. Mr. Phillips stated he thought the lady Ms.Tinker referred to from Del Mar College was Mary O'Rear. Ms. O'Rear did a presentation on the 1919 storm at a Texas Historical Society meeting that was held in Corpus Christi. Mr. Phillips continued she was very Knowledgeable about the storm. Mr. Phillips asked If the video's main focus would be the 1919 storm and Ms. Macon answered that when Rick Stryker first presented his idea of the video for the Museum, the 1919 storm was the sole content for a 5 to 7 minute video because of the cost. Ms. Macon continued that since more funding Is available, the video can be expanded back to the beginning of General Kinney and brought forward to the 60s and 70s. Ms. Tinker asked how much money did the Museum have budgeted for their video and Ms. Macon answered they do not have any money. Ms. Macon continued the video would include the 1919 storm and any other information the commission wanted to include. Ms. Macon stated this would be a joint city venture. Ms. Macon continued that the Museum has enough funding to do the Sesquicentennial celebration display because they have the artifacts, but they do not have enough funding to produce the video. Dr. Moore asked If It was the Sesquicentennial Committee's responsibility to solicit corporate sponsors for the celebration and Ms. Macon answered the Commission was authorized by the City to solicit sponsors, but nothing has been done. Mr. Phillips stated he thought the committee received some funding because of the display that was placed in city hall. Ms. Macon clarified that the Sesquicentennial Committee did not do the display, but a private individual did it. Ms. Tinker stated when talk began about disbanding the committee and the funds coming to Landmark Commission, Ms. Scott was asked about how much money was left from the $10,000 budget and she answered approximately S9,000 was left. Ms. Macon stated that about 5100.00 was actually spent out of the budget. Landmark Commission meeting1110 W June 27,2002 Page 7 Ms. Macon stated she wanted to Inform commissioners about an item that may be coming before the commission for review and approval regarding the Sesquicentennial Celebration. A city In Mexico is considering donating a fountain to the city of Corpus Christi in celebration of its anniversary. In the event that the fountain is proposed for placement in Heritage Park, the location proposal will be reviewed by the Master Review Committee and Landmark Commission. Ms. Tinker stated she heard the fountain would be placed In front of the old South Texas Museum. Ms. Macon stated that at this time, no final location has been determined, but the Mayor will make that determination. Ms. Macon stated the second item she was bringing forth to the commission was Rosie Gonzales, Nueces County Historical Commission member who has worked with the Old Bayview Cemetery Committee, has done veteran research. Ms. Gonzales will receive eight plaques to be placed in the cemetery. Ms. Gonzales will be coming before the commission to request permission to placed the plaques within the plaza of the Old Bayview Cemetery where the flagpole and other markers are located. Ms.Tinker asked if the Mayor was aware that if the fountain was placed in Heritage Park that It should come before the Landmark Commission and Ms. Macon answered that Mr. Whitworth was aware that it has to come before the Landmark Commission. Mr.Whitworth stated that in terms of how this project came to be was that the proposal for this donation was submitted to the Arts and Cultural Commission. The Arts and Cultural Commission recommended that the fountain be placed over at the Antonio Garcia Hispanic Arts facility located on Agnes Street, but there was some discussion that there might not be enough visibility in that particular location. Mr. Whitworth continued that in today's meeting, Heritage Park was mentioned as a possible site. Mr. Whitworth stated a decision has not been made on its location. At this point, they did not have enough information to bring forth a proposal other than the Arts and Cultural Commission's recommendation. If that recommendation is submitted to the Mayor and he determines he wants to make an alternative recommendation, he will certainly be notified of any committee reviews that would be necessary to make those things happen. Ms. Tinker stated she attended the meeting at the Museum when this presentation was made and one of the recommendations discussed was placing the fountain at the entrance of the airport. Mr. Whitworth stated the only recommendation he was aware of was from the Arts and Cultural Commission when they looked at the fountain as a piece of artwork. Ms. Tinker asked what will be the recourse if the Mayor does not accept the Arts and Cultural Commission's recommendation and Mr.Whitworth answered he did not know what would happen. Mr. Belcher stated that some very harsh words were stated at today's meeting, but he hoped no one was thinking about resigning from the commission. Mr. Belcher continued he wanted everyone to leave today's meeting happy and he was glad that all issues could be openly discussed and talked out. Mr. Phillips informed commissioners that a rally was held at the Old County Courthouse. Approximately 1,000 people attended the rally and sixty 160 people took the $50 tour. The $50 tour covered all six floors and was about an hour long. Mr. Phillips stated he did not know how many people participated In the $5.00 tour, which covered the first two floors. Mr. Phillips stated that the People were really interested in the history of the courthouse and all of the paraphernalia that was available for sell. Mr. Phillips continued that overall, he felt the rally was a huge success. Mr. Phillips informed commissioners that the Nueces County Historical Commission just received a $5,000 grant from the National Trust to cover engineering service costs on the courthouse. The firm of McGloin & Sween Architects was selected to perform the work. Landmark Commission MeetngW 1110 June 27,2002 Page e Ms. Tinker asked if there was a time line on the appeal for the Gold Star Court and when would it be on the agenda. Mr.Whitworth stated he received a letter from Beautify Corpus Christi asking If they will be given an appeal to City Council. Mr. Whitworth continued that on tomorrow, he will draft a letter to Mr. Chapa, with the Beautify Corpus Christ letter attached, requesting his advice on how to proceed with the appeal process. Mr.Whitworth continued that as soon as a determination is received, appropriate city staff would be notified. There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. i Lin a Williams Faryce c otle- acon, City Planner Rec ding Secretary Staff Liaison to Landmark Commission IN:WORNUNDMFRKUUNMIN502 000