Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 01/27/2005 ���g2027222? Ihr • IMES i',L7 VI IANDIMARK MCOIUISSION MEE1ING a ��,-6,2OOS t CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS rysFcn VE'� JANUARY 27, 2005 �! o4 f4"': 0`6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr.Myron Grossman,Charman 499b EZyf Ms. Michelle Geiger Dr.Thomas Kreneck Ms.Grails Lenten Dr. ftichad Moore Mr. Herb Monson Ms. Nita Selby Mr.Crag Thompson Ms. Bunny tinker MEMBER ABSENT: Ms, Susan Abaco (Excused) Mr.Janes Bight (Excused) Mr. David Brown (Excused) Mr. Elmon Phaps (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon,City Planner Ms. Linda WXlams, Recording Secretary ROLL CALL: Mr. Myron Grossman. Chute, kir, called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m. The roe was called and a Quorum was declared. Ms. Michelle Geiger and Ms. Nita Selby were welcomed to The Landmark Commission and commissioners issioners and staff introduced themselves. Ms. Geiger Is a market and sales representative with First American title and Ms. Selby is a recta with Selby Properties. Ms. Faryce -Macon, Staff Liaison, was asked to give a brief overview of the unction and responsibility of the Landmark Commission. Ms. Macon stated that the Landmark Carmnisskn is charged with historic preservation of buildings, structures a at object, a an engineering feature of the city. Their charge also includes catdogirg an identifying those type of uses and by contacting properly owners who might be Interested in pursing some type of 'HC designations for those duchies; With world be afforded some protection. Ms. Macon continued that the city has a 'HC ordnance that offers knifed protection for hhistaicd structures hon removal or demolition for up to 120 days. The line 120 day lime period allows the Landmark Commission time to initiate didogue with the properly owner to see If other dternatve can be found other than demolition or removal. Ms. Macon continued that there are properly owners who are interested in preserving aid saving their historical resources ad have graved designations of'Potential landmarks*and 11C-designations. Ms. Macon stated that on today's agenda, there were three properties that were being proposed for 'HC: designations aid the owners have shown definite interest in obtaning the designations and helping to preserve their ccr mrnrlly. Ms. Macon went on to say that the Landmark ark Co mr iss on has been Involved In the creation of a histaled video depicting the early history of the City of Corpus Christi rp to present day. We video was tended by a grant received from the Texas Historical Commission matched by City staffs In-Idnd services. The finished video production has been used as part of the school districts history curriculum for elementary students. Ms. Macon cited other projects that the commission has been involved in over the past several years -tie historical site survey, which was a project That was completed In live phases. The SCANNED tandmakCornmle6br Maetirgll" uahuay 27,2005 Page 2 survey cataloged and rated approximately 1,200 structures that were historically significant or hod historical potential. fie ratings were categorized as low, medium,or high. ACTION ITEMS Aoorovil of the September 23, 2004 Minutes: The September 23, 2004 minutes were approved as dsMbuted. Roomed for 'HC'M Designations of property located 319 313, aid 324 Clifford Street: Ms. Macon stated that Glen Peterson has been very active in pursing IC designations for properties on Cifford Street. The Landmark Commission approved designations for several of Ns properties on Clifford Street, Ocean Drive, and one in the downtown area. Mr. Peterson stated he has other properties that he was Interested in designating, but at Ms lime, he was submitting applications for three. Ms. Macon continued that Mr. Peterson told her that atter his properties were designated and the plaques were instilled, several home owners an the sheet voiced interest in pursing the designations. Ms. Tinker asked if the 310 Clifford Sheet properly was the city one listed in the site survey and Ms. Macon answered yes. Ms. Macon continued that the consultant did not list every shuclue on the sheet, but rather Identified a random sample of the architect nal sMes of the structures, since they were similar In style. Ms.Tinker asked what the priority rating was for the structures since it was not Indicated.on the survey sheet and Ms. Macon stated all of the properties on CNfad Sheet were rated high. Mr. Grossman asked for clarification as to what the ratings meant and Ms. Macon explained that the high priority rating indcated that those properties would be highly pursued far designation. After all comments anddscussiont concluded,the fellow ng action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. TINKER AND SECONDED BY MS. LENTEN THAT THE PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE STRUCTURES AT 310. 313. AND 324 CLIFFORD BE FORWARDED TO THE MASTER REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND THE COMMITTEE WILL SUBMIT ITS RECOMMENDATION AT THE FEBRUARY MEETING. MOTION PASSED. Mr. Thompson asked how criteria of the 'HC ordnance compared In relation to structures that hove had additions added on which were not apart of the origins' shuctue and Ms. Macon answered that verifying and researching the properly was pat of the task of the Master Review Committee's function. Ms. Macon continued that the committee would do In-depth research and make a physical review of the property to substantiate their findngs, after which, their findings would be presented to the full commission. Ms. linker added that during the review process of the shuclues, notations would be mode and included In their review. Ms. linker continued that If the additions were to the back of the properly, most likely it woad not have an adverse affed on the findings since the designation would be for facade review of the sides of the structure that can be seen from the street. Mr. Grossman stated, for benefit of new commissioners, that it was difficult to get people involved in historic preservation because they ore under the assumption that once the properly is designated, it prohibits them from doing anything to their properly from a setting perspective. Mr. Grossman continued that the designation allows the commission additional time to by to find a workable solution that will result In saving the properly rather than demolishing it. Mr. Grossrhah stated the commission tries to encourage properly owners who ore interested in puling the designation by accommodating them as much as possible. Mr. Grossman added that properly owners who request the designations have a tendency to take better care of their properties. • Landmat Commission Morello Jany 27,2005 Page 3 Dr. Moore stated when he was traveling to Ms. linker's place, which was where the October workshop meeting was held, he saw at least two neighborhoods that contained houses that were*Ma In architectural style as the houses on ClIffad Sheet. Dr. Moore asked if my commisdorwr cold Initiate contacting home owners to see If they would be iterested in having their houses TIC desig ed and , Ms. Macon stated Yea Mr.Grossman added that in his situation, one person has been the greatforce behind the push for the 'HC designations. Mr. Grossman sided tat generally what Fncppem.d was indviduds horn vaious neighborhoods cane forth slating their interest in pursuing 'I C' dedgallons and that was how the commission was Involved. Ms. Macon stated that several yeas ago, the Landmark Commission initiated caftact with approndrnately five hunted (500) property owners, though written correspondence, Inviting them to attend a meeting and to find if there was interest among the owners to pursue the*potential Iandmar dedgnatlon for their properties. The properties were already listed on the Commission's she any. Ms. Macon continued that as react of the massmall out, cpprn+dmateN twenty-eight (28) letters were received from properly owners staling their interest in the designation. Ater al comments and discussion concluded, no action was taken. Ms. Teter stated that she wanted to say that when the Master Review Cormtittee approved the other properly on Clifford Street, a note was added tat the committee was awae that an addfah had been added to the original shuchure. The addition was located at the rea of the property. Proposal for Historical Plaaue Proaan: Ms. Macon stated that about tree yeas ago, the Landmark Commission received fuming for its historical plaque program. Ms. Macon continual tat because of the increased interest in 'HC dedgralbns, as plaque appy has decreased. Ms. Macon continued that during the last CDBG furring cycle, a grant application was submitted requesting funding for the plaque program, but the grant request was not funded. Ms. Macon went an to say that she had been hying to find other funding sources to replenish the apply and she had several options she was presenting for the commission to approve: a) initiating an application of request for funding through CMG: a b) Pursue the possibility of using remaining federal grant monies that the t anctnak Cormtssion received from prior fuming cycles horn the Texas Historical Commission that have been in a federal grant account. Mr. Grossman asked Ms. Macon is the had an idea of how much money was remaking aid Ms. Macon stated she wasn't sure of the anent, but she thought it was appradmatety$5,000.00. Ms. Taker staled that with the options presented by Ms. Macon, she cid not wait the commission to exclude either one, but to pursue both options,with the possbility of funding other possible projects. Ater hither discussion,the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. LENIBI AND SECONDED BY MS.SELBY THAT STAFF PURSUE BOTH OPTIONS OF SECURING FUNDING FOR THE HISTORICAL PLAQUE PROGRAM. OPTION 1 WAS SUBMITTING A GRANT APPLICATION THROUGH THE CMG PROGRAM MID OPTION 2 WAS PURSUING WHETHER FEDERAL GRANT MONIES WERE REMAKING FROM PRIOR YEARS FUNDING RECEIVED FROM THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED. OTHER MATTERS: Ms. linker asked if staff could provide the list of projects that were discussed at the October workshop and Ms. Macon stated the list would be included in the February pockets. • Landmark CamhSdonM Jaruay 27,2005 Page 4 • • Ms. Macon expressed thanks to Dr. Kreneck for his assistance in collecting background information regarding Dr. Hecto P. Garcia for the grant application. Ms. Macon asked Cc Kreneck if he world be avcik2Ne to write a 200-word description for tie plaque wading for the Dr. H. P. Garcia maker. Ms. Macon stated she was trying to see if the Nueces County Historical Commission and the Landmark Commission cold work together in a joint effort in getting the Texas maker completed. Dr. Kreneck responded to Ms. Macon's request that he world wrtte the verbiage for the plaque, but it is normally much lengthier than 200 wads, but he would be honored to provide the wording. Dr. Kreneck staled that he received several calls from local preservationists asking him to confirm whether a not Dr. Garcia's collection, currently archived al the University. Is being moved away from the University. Dr. Kreneck stated he was not sae how the nrror was stated, but he dispelled the rrmha. There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. f �J . erre.. �1ac� •. Williams rnyce�, City Planer .... .' . Secretary Staff Liaison to ah mankCommission SUMMARY SHEET LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 27, 2005 1. The Landmark Commission welcomed new commissioners Ms. Michelle Geiger, a marketing and sales representative with First American Title and Ms. Nita Selby, a reattor with Selby Properties. 2. The Landmark Commission approved sending a proposal to designate structures at 310, 313, and 324 Clifford Street to the Master Review Commission for further review and the Committee will submit its recommendation at the February meeting. 3. The Landmark Commission approved Staff to purse options of securing funding for the historical plaque program through submitting a grant application through the CDBG Program and pursuing possible federal grant monies remaining from prior years' funding received from the Texas Historical Commission.