Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 08/27/2009 MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION-MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUGUST 27, 2009 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. David Brown,Chairman Ms. Mary Lou Berven Ms. Kris Cardona Ms, Kim Charba Ms. Marie Guajardo Ms.Susan Kesler Dr.James Klein . Mr. Herb Morrison Ms. Susan Rucker • Mr. Craig Thompson Ms. Bunny Tinker Mr.Art Zeitler MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms.Anita Eisenhauer (Excused) Ms. Randy Evans (Excused) Mr. Leo Rios (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Mr.Andrew Dimas, Planning Technician Ms. Linda Williams, Recording Secretary • The meeting was called to order at 4:37 p.m. by Mr. David Brown. The roll was called and a quorum was present. ACTION ITEM: Approve July 23, 2009 Minutes: The July 23, 2009 minutes were approved with the following correction:. Page 6, Third paragraph, first sentence should read: "Ms. Tinker stated the Ward-McCampbell House was • minus one(1)chimney." The minutes read"two(2)chimneys." DISCUSSION ITEMS: Status of Master Review Committee's Review of the Heritage Park Bond Improvements: Mr.Andrew Dimas, Staff Liaison, addressed the commission. Mr. Dimas stated that Faryce Goode-Macon, Assistant Director and supervisor for the planning section, contacted Sally Gavlik via email on August 6, 2009. Ms. Macon's email informed her that per the City Zoning Ordinance, any exterior structural changes, i.e. demolition, additions, changes of paint colors,style of shingles or any removals made to Heritage Park and its buildings must be reviewed and approved by the Landmark Commission; If the bond..program was approved for maintenance only, then a review by the Landmark Commission may not be necessary. It was continued in the e-mail that a building permit could not be issued prior to the Landmark Commission's review and approval by Development Services if such improvements change what currently exist on the property. Also, included in the e-mail was a request to the Engineering Department to submit the plans to Development Services to determine if Landmark Commission review was required. If the commission's review is required, then the plans must go before their Master Review subcommittee and then be schedule for a public hearing before the Landmark Commission for action. Mr. Dimas continued that he found out that it would be a straight replacement of the siding and the hardy plank would be used as originally proposed. Mr. Dimas stated that the roof would be replaced with wood cedar shingles and a roofing permit had already been obtained. Ms. Rucker commented that the when the Gugenheim was painted,the original colors chosen were incorrect and she felt that if the house was going to be repainted, now would be the time to select the appropriate colors as close to the original paint as possible. • • • SCANNED . A Landmark Commission Meeting August 27,2009 Page 2 Mr. Brown commented that if they were just replacing items, there should be no problem, but if windows were being changed out as well as other major changes,that would be a large problem. Mr. Dimas added that as a safely precaution, staff entered a critical note into the HTE system that would flag the Heritage Park property letting staff know that no building permits were to be issued until the Landmark Commission reviewed the construction plans. Mr. Zeitler asked if there were any blockings as to the response to the emails and Mr. Dimas responded that several emails had been exchanged between Ms. Gavlik and Ms. Macon, but the plans still had not been forwarded to the department for review. Mr. Zeitler stated that may be a complaint should be submitted to the Mayor's office to help get a response from the appropriate staff. Mr. Morrison commented that sooner or later, the commission will have to review the plans before bids are sent out. Ms. Breven suggested that the commission approve sending certified letters to Ms. Gavlik and to Mr.Anaya in order to receive a response and Mr. Brown stated he felt that a motion was not needed at this time. Mr. Thompson asked if there was a project manager for the bond program and Mr. Dimas answered that he did not know, but currently all correspondence was directed to Pete Anaya. After all comments were concluded, Mr. Brown stated he would contact Mr. Anaya to see if he could meet with him to find out where they were in the process and when could the Landmark Commission review the plans. Mr. Brown continued he would also contact Ms. Gavlik to see when the next Park Board meeting was scheduled to see if the Landmark Commission group could get on their agenda to present the vision plan for Heritage Park. After further discussion, Mr. Dimas provided the chairman's name of the Park Board. Mr. Brown stated he would contact Hunter Young to see whether the group would be able to attend their next meeting, Establishment of the 501C-3 for Heritage Park & Review "Goals & the Mission Statement" for the Designation: Mr. Zeitler re-emphasized again that it would be great to have an operating organization from the Landmark Commission to qualify for a 501 C-3 designation. Mr. Zeitler stated that after the July meeting, he had received a number of people who were interested in establishing and serving on the board. Mr. Zeitler continued that after the board was established, the next step would be to submit the application to the Secretary of State to get a corporate charter issued. Mr. Zeitler went on to say that by-laws needed to be created and approved in order to comply with the 501 C-3 criteria. Mr. Zeitler stated that Mr. Greg Perks had been very helpful in helping to complete and file the necessary paperwork and also Mr. Perks also agreed to create the by-laws, Mr. Zeitler continued that in addition to establishing the board for 501 C-3,volunteers were needed to serve on the committee. Ms. Tinker asked if a specific number for membership had been established for the board and Mr. Zeitler answered no, but he added that when the Aquarium established their board, it was established with fifteen (15) members. Mr. Zeitler continued that if enough input could be obtained, fifteen (15)to twenty(20) people would be a good number. Mr. Zeitler continued that he wanted to have stakeholders who were interested in what the commission was trying to do. Mr. Zeitler continued that initially the committee members would include representation from the Landmark Commission and the Park Board, and maybe other individuals identified could serve that were interested. Mr. Zeitler stated that since the commission wanted to get something going, he felt the plan should be presented as is, and for the City Council presentation, have a more polished presentation with the professional drawings. After further discussion, no action was taken. Update on Status of the UDC: Mr. Brown stated that the Landmark Commission has been working on the UDC for several years. Mr. Brown continued that the second portion of the document refers to historical preservation, which is what the Landmark Commission is interested in. Mr. Brown asked staff if any meetings had been scheduled before the Planning Commission and Mr. Dimas responded no. Mr. Dimas continued that the UDC was a process whereby all ordinances that were used on a daily basis by the department, now have been • combined into one comprehensive document. Mr. Dimas continued that the "Historical Overlay Zoning" portion of the UDC was originally forwarded to the Landmark Commission through one of the Focus Groups - Base Zoning. After all comments were received from the public from the various Focus Groups;which included signage, platting, shared access, parks, landscaping and base zoning. The appropriate focus group took their particular section for review, The groups included a cross-section of participants from engineers, architects, developers and the business sector. Mr. Dimas stated that the only section not included in the"HO"zoning was tax abatements. All of the other recommendations submitted by the commission were incorporated. • Mr. Brown explained,for benefit of new commissioners,that the commission's recommendations Mr. Dimas referred to were the combined effort of Craig Thompson, Bunny linker and Susan Rucker. The group met with staff to discuss the document and to provide input regarding those recommendations. Mr. Dimas stated that the full document has been reviewed by Development Services staff and the document has been forwarded to the Legal Department for their review to ensure that the document was in compliance to state statutes. Mr. Dimas continued Landmark Commission Meeting August 27,2009 Page 3 that Ms.Annissa Garrett was the staff person assigned to complete the document and she was no longer with the city. Mr. Dimas stated that he has been assigned to the final completion of the document. Aller legal staffs review has been completed,a joint public hearing will be held with the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Brown stated that the commissioner's concern was to make sure that they were not left out. Ms Tinker asked Mr. Dimas if a reason was given as to why the tax abatement was removed from the recommendations and Mr. Dimas responded that he did not know. Mr. Dimas went on to say that once the document was approved,staff would be setting up an amendment schedule to incorporate those concerns at a later date, Dr. Klein stated he was told about a structure located at the corner of South Staples Street and Furman Avenue. At one time, the structure was used as a church, but it has been abandoned and was in an extremely bad shape. Currently,the structure was being used as a hang out for the homeless and illegal activities. Dr. Klein continued that he wanted to bring it to the commission's attention. Ms. Tinker stated that for some time, Mr. Thompson has been talking about the commission being involved in reviewing structures before they were placed • on the'fix up or tear down"listing and she felt this would be a good opportunity for the commission to try to do what has been discussed by contacting the owner of the property to find out what his intentions were. Mr. Thompson added that within three to four months, he called the police regarding the activities that were taking place in the building. After a brief discussion, it was brought out that Mr. Steve Burkett owns the property at that location, as well as several other sites in the city that have also fallen into disrepair to the point they were torn down. Ms. Tinker stated there should be a way in which the commission could appeal to the owners' sense of responsibility for their properties. Dr. Klein stated he had a hypothetical question regarding if a properly owner wanted to demolish his property- what jurisdiction would the commission have in preventing its demolition. Mr. Thompson responded that if the property in question was on the commission's potential listing or was "HC" designated, the only mechanism that the commission has in place was to delay the demolition for ninety(90) days by not signing off on the certificate of appropriateness. After the 90-day delay, the owner would be able to demolish the structure if no alternative plans or agreement were reached between the property owner and the commission. Mr. Thompson continued that back in March,the commission briefly discussed the idea of developing a top "10" list of structures that were in danger of being placed on the fix up or tear down list of the Building Standards Board. Mr. Thompson stated that a team made up of builders/contractors, realtors, architects, engineers and citizens could be established to review structures that are at risk for demolition. The purpose of the team would be to find alternatives to restore or rebuild structures instead of tearing them down. Mr. Thompson went on to say that he likes the idea of have"HC"overlay districts. Ms. Cardona asked again for clarification as to what the commission would be able to do if the owner wanted to tear down or alter their property and it was answered that the only thing the commission would be to do was to delay the process for a maximum of 120 days. After that time period,the owner would be able to do what they originally planned for the property. Ms. Cardona stated that the cost to restore and repair a properly versus using new materials was more costly. Mr. Thompson stated there needed to be some type of tax abatements because if they were available, it would be worth it to the home owner, and at the same time, save some of our historical structures. Mr. Brown added that without good incentives,the commission really has no authority. Mr. Morrison concurred with Mr. Brown's statement and continued that the only way to make anything happen was to have some type of incentives for the property owner to feel the restoration would be worth it. Ms. Rucker stated that since redevelopment was occurring down South Staples Street, may be it would be an incentive for the property owners to fix up their properties. Ms. Rucker continued that may be the commission could draft a letter to Mr. Burkett to find out what his intentions were for the property at Staples Street and Furman Avenue. Ms. Cardona stated that maybe the neighborhood could get involved and the homeowners contacted to see if they would be in support. Ms, Berven stated if Mr. Burkett was continuously obtaining properties and not taking care of them,the letter would put him on notice. Mr, Thompson commented that he realized that Corpus Christi did not have a King William District like the one in San Antonio, but in time, it would be nice to have something like that maybe in about thirty(30)years. There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. 7 Landmark Commission Meeting _. _ August 27,2009 Page 4 lip V, _ /-4- r. i . ' . /0• • i. inoa Williams Andrew Dimas,Planning Technician Rec•rding Secretary Staff Liaison to Landmark Commission )H:PLN-OI12\LINDA\WORD\LANDMARKMAINUTESJAUG2709.MINS) RECEIVED SUMMARY SHEET SEP 2 4 2009 LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 27, 2009 CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE The Landmark Commission continued discussion on the Heritage Park bond improvements. No action was taken. 2. The Landmark Commission continued discussion on obtaining a 501 C-3 designation to establish a non- profit organization topartner with the Landmark Commission. • SCANNED