Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 08/28/2008 MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUGUST 28, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. David Brown, Chairman Ms. Randi Evans Mr. Myron Grossman Ms. Marie Guajardo Dr. Richard Moore Mr. Herb Morrison Mr. Craig Thompson Ms. Bunny Tinker Mr.Art Zeitler • MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Michelle Braselton (Excused) Ms.Anita Eisenhauer (Excused) Mr. Leo Rios (Excused) Ms. Susie Rucker (Excused) Mr. Reagan Sahadi (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Mr,Andrew Dimas, Planning Technician Mr. Wes Vardeman, Park&Recreation Ms. Shelly Shelton,City Planner Ms. Linda Williams, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 4:40 p.m. by Mr. David Brown, Chairman. The roll was called and a quorum was declared. Mr. Brown informed commissioners that Sister Brigid Anne Schlegel, newly appointed commissioner,verbally resigned from the commission citing school commitments would not allow her to serve on the commission at this time. Sister Schlegel's filled the competency of a regular member. Shelly Shelton, new City Planner,was introduced to the commission. ACTION ITEMS: Approval of June 26, 2008 Minutes: The minutes were approved with the following correction: Page 2, second paragraph, third sentence: "Ms. Tinker commented that over $1 million CDBG, , . further." The word"funds"was omitted from the sentence. Approve Master Review Committee's Recommendation Whether to Rescind "HC" Designation on the James Belanger House at 1613 Mestina Street& Possible Removal from the Historical Listing: Mr. Brown stated that this item has been on the agenda for too long and he would for action to be taken on this item to either remove it from the table and vote to remove it from future agendas or approve to not remove the rescission of the "HC" designation. Mr. Brown continued he sent a letter to Mr. Bob Nix, Director of Development Services, requesting his assistance in obtaining the information the commission requested several months ago. Mr. Brown stated he had not received a response from Mr. Nix, but he did receive a copy of a notation made on the letter sent to Mr. Nix by Faryce Macon. The note was addressed to Joe Elliott requesting him to follow up on the commissioner's request, and as of today's meeting date, no response has been received. Ms. Tinker responded to Mr. Brown's comment that she was still waiting for staff to provide a more in-depth report on the structural assessment of the house and she felt the commission should not make a decision until that information was provided. Ms. Tinker continued that as long as the"HC"designation was still in place, federal funds could not be used to demolish the house. Ms. Tinker continued that for the commission to make a decision without all of the facts would set a precedent. Dr. Moore added that he felt the renovation of the house would be too oostly even if a buyer was found. Dr. Moore continued that he felt the commission should make way for the structure to be demolished. SCANNED Landmark Commission Meeting ' August 28,2008 Page 2 Mr. Thompson stated he understood the position of Neighborhood Services and it was their job to pursue structures that were not up to standards and were considered to be a safety hazard, but it was also the commission's responsibility to make informed decisions; and unfortunately in this situation, the decision was possibly taking too long, but he understood Ms. Tinker's position. Ms. Tinker added that since a response had not been received from Mr. Nix, a copy of the letter should be sent to Margie Rose, Assistant City Manager, responsible for Neighborhood Services and Ms. Tinker emphasized again that she felt staff was ignoring the commission's request and the commission would be setting a precedent in making a decision without staff's report. Wes Vardeman addressed the commission. Mr. Vardeman stated that before anything is done with the house, he would still like to do an architectural salvage on the house and simply remove some of the materials from the house that could be possibly used in future repairs or renovations to the existing historical homes in Heritage Park. Mr. Vardeman continued that he received a call from Martin Ramos, Liaison for the Operation Clean Sweep Program,wanting to know if another tour of the house had been scheduled. Mr. Vardeman maintained that at this point, Neighborhood Services staff was getting impatient with the indecisiveness of the commission. The Building Standards Board was still waiting on a response as to what was going to happen with the house. Mr. Vardeman added that the neighborhood the Belanger House was located was one of the neighborhoods selected to participate in the Neighborhood Services Initiatives Program. According to neighborhood services staff, the police department initiated the request for the house to be included in the next operation clean sweep citing the house was a hang out for transients and other illegal activities as well as being a public hazard. Mr. Grossman asked what affect would staff's report have on the outcome of the Landmark Commission's decision to rescind the designation and it was answered that the report would not affect the commission's decision, but it was staff's lack of response that has precipitated this situation. After further discussion and all comments concluded,the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. ZEITLER AND SECONDED BY MR. GROSSMAN THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION REJECT NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES' REQUEST TO RESCIND THE "HC" DESIGNATION" ON THE JAMES BELANGER HOUSE LOCATED 1613 MESTINA UNTIL THE WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION REQUESTED HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVAL IN ORDER TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. MOTION PASSED. Proposed Street Name Change of State Highway 361 to "The Island Road": Mr. Charlie Cardenas, City Traffic Engineer, addressed the commission. Mr. Cardenas stated he was at today's meeting to get the commission's input on the proposed street name of State Highway 361, Mr. Cardenas continued that currently State Highway 361 was under the Texas Department of Transportation guidelines and a municipality could not change a state highway by a council vote. Mr. Cardenas went on to say that the proposed name change was a lithe unique in that the request was submitted by another municipality. The recommendation for the name change was submitted by the city of Port Aransas. Mr. Cardenas stated he has met with Development Services, Postal Service, water department, utility department and now he was here at the Landmark Commission meeting to open the discussion of whether the name change would have an historical impact on changing from State Highway 361. Mr. Cardenas continued that once that had been decided, a public hearing would be scheduled to consider the name change proposal. The street name change would start from Park Road 22 to the city limits of Corpus Christi. After meeting with the Postal Service, it was found there were several different districts involved, but there were only four (4) addresses that received city mail delivery. Mr. Cardenas continued he did not need an answer today, but he wanted to open up the discussion. Mr. Zeitler stated he had no problem with the proposed name change, especially since the name of FM 624 to Northwest Boulevard was a favorable change. Mr. Zeilter asked if the city received a negative response to the name FM 624 name change and Mr. Cardenas answered no. Mr. Zeitler continued he felt the proposed name change of The Island Road or Boulevard would be more appealing rather than State Highway 361. After further discussion and all comments concluded,the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. TINKER AND SECONDED BY MR. GROSSMAN THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE RELATED TO THE STATE HIGHWAY 361 DESIGNATION, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED NAME CHANGE TO"THE ISLAND ROAD." MOTION PASSED. Landmark Commission Meeting - August 28,2008 Page 3 Mr. Cardenas expressed thanks to the commission for their quick and favorable response to the proposed street change and Mr. Brown expressed thanks to Mr. Cardenas for attending today's meeting to keep the commission informed of the proposal. Discussion Items: Update of UDC Revisions with Landmark Commission Ordinance Subcommittee Regarding "HC" Historical-Cultural Designations&Overlay Districts: Mr. Brown stated that after the June 26th meeting, commissioners Bunny Tinker, Susie Rucker and Craig Thompson met with Development Services staff to review and compare the UDC proposed document along with the existing "HC"ordinance. As a result of that meeting, the subcommittee created a companion document that would be forwarded to the Planning Commission along with the UDC document with the intent that the finished document incorporated the commission's recommendations. Mr. Brown continued there was a timeline in which all of this had to be completed and the committee completed its recommendations and will be presented at today's meeting. At this point in the meeting,the floor was turned over to Craig Thompson. Mr. Thompson stated that after staff's presentation at the June meeting, the commission felt the proposed document left out vital portions of the existing ordinance that were important to the preservation function and several questions were posed regarding those omissions, As a result of that discussion, the subcommittee was charged with meeting with staff to reach a consensus of what The commission felt should be included in the new proposal. Mr. Thompson went on to say that the subcommittee met with staff in early July and the document presented this afternoon was a combination of the commission's recommendations requested at the June meeting that staff incorporated and the recommendations generated by the subcommittee. Recommendations submitted at the June meeting were in "pink" and the subcommittee's recommendations were in "red." The subcommittee's recommendations are underlined as follows: Article 3: Development Review Procedures, Section 3.4 Historic Overlay District or Landmark Designation: Page 3 of 33: 3.4.1 Applicability-Item A Verbiage was added to first sentence of Item A to read: ". . . if at least 51 percent of the principal structures within the pro_posed district are contributing structures when the Assistant City Manager for Development Services certifies that the zoning or rezoning application is complete." 3.4.2- Review Process Item B-"Landmark"Commission Review 1. "Planning Commission"was added to the sentence. 4. In the event an agreement on a recommendation cannot be reached by a majority of the Landmark Commission present and voting of if the Landmark Commission fails to take action on an application within the time limits prescribed in paragraphs 2 and 3 above. . . Planning Commission/City Council with a recommendation denial. Item D-City Council Final Action 1. Following notice in accordance with Section§7274598.53.4.2,the City Council shall hold a public hearing and approve, approved with conditions. . . ,landmark designation. If a proposed district or landmark hass been recommended for disapproval by the Planning Commission or if a notice owner of the property files a written . statement protesting the changeor fails to file a letter of consent. . City Council. Item E-Removal or Amendment of Designation Whenever a designated landmark or a contributing structure in a historic overlay has been demolished, removed or altered in whole or in part,the Landmark Commission . , .to the Planning Commission/. . removed. 3.13-Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition Landmark Commission Meeting ,� August 28,2008 Page 4 3.13.5-Public Safety Hazards and Emergency Securing Measures Item B-Emergency Security Measures The phrase"landmark or structure"was added throughout the paragraph. Article 6: Special Zoning Districts Section 6.1.2 - Definition Section was added. Section 6.1.9-Tax Incentives was added. Section 6.1.13-Variances or Special Exceptions was added. Section 6.1.14-Preservation Plan was added. After Mr. Thompson's presentation,the floor was opened for discussion. Discussion ensured regarding if the commission's recommendations would be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Mr. Dimas responded that staff would forward the recommendations for planning commission review, but he was unsure if the commission's submittal would make the packet deadline. The UDC proposal was tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission review at the September 17, 2008 meeting. Mr. Dimas continued that Mr. Nix has already given a presentation on the status of the UDC proposal to City Council. Ms.Tinker stated she had several questions that she would like answered: • If there was a chance of placing "owner's consent in the ordinance since it was not included or was it omitted because it was not required; • If"HC"zoned properties would be exempted from IBC codes if the structure was new. Mr. Dimas responded he did not know, but he would research the codes to find out. Mr. Dimas continued that there were conflicts between the 2003 and 2006 editions; • If a reference would be inserted in the ordinance proposal regarding owners that did not require a building permit if they would be required to come before the Landmark Commission;and • If the Preservation Plan was included in the proposal. Mr. Dimas answered he would address Ms. Tinker's questions and report at the next meeting if the above items would be incorporated into the UDC document. After all discussion concluded and comments received, it was the consensus that Mr. Brown, on behalf of the Landmark Commission, write a letter to the Planning Commission requesting the commission to review the Landmark Commission's recommendations along with the proposed UDC proposal. Other Matters: Wes Vardeman addressed the commission. Mr. Vardeman informed commissioners that he was now working with the Parks and Recreation Department and his office was located in Heritage Park. Mr. Vardeman continued that he would still be working with the Landmark Commission on various projects, especially the future expansion plan for Heritage Park. Mr. Vardeman stated he had been contacted by Mr. Garrett Dorsey who is with the local AIA Chapter. The local chapter will host the 2009 AIA conference in March 2009. For their project, the chapter was interested in constructing an eco-friendly structure for placement in Heritage Park. Their first thought was to construct a replicate of a Victorian style of architect similar to the James Belanger House, but he felt that would not be a good choice since that style was currently located in Heritage Park. The chapter is looking at the possibility of constructing a school house or a fire house. Mr. Vardeman continued that another option was for the commission to find a picture of previous existing structures, approximately 1600-1800 square feet or smaller for them to consider. The AIA would like to use the house as an architectural museum of facts and examples offered to the public. Mr. Zeitler stated he thought the proposal was a great idea and the architectural museum would provide another project that would create more pedestrian traffic to the area. It was disclosed that the sale of the Ward Building had been closed and it was suggested that a letter be written to city staff requesting that the building be stabilized and preserved. Landmark Commission Meeting - August 28,2008 Page 5 There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m . Oki � ;� ind• Hams •ndrew Dimas, Plan ;% -chnician Recordi • Secretary Staff Liaison to Land '• k Commission (H:PLN-DIR\LW DA\WORDHANDMAIMMINU1ESAUG2808.MINS( SUMMARY SHEET LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 28, 2008 1. The Landmark Commission approved rejecting Neighborhood Services' request to rescind the "HC" designation on the James Belanger House located at 1613 Mestina Street until the written documentation requested from Development Services staff has been submitted for Landmark Commission approval in order to make an informed decision. 2. The Landmark Commission approved a proposal to change the street name of State Highway 361 to "Island Road." The proposal was submitted by Mr. Charlie Cardenas, City Traffic Engineer. 3. The Landmark Commission's ordinance subcommittee presented their recommendations to the UDC proposal regarding historical preservation and for inclusion in the final document.