Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 09/26/1991 o2.2Qz V MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Peggy Clark, Chairman Ms. Patricia Atkins Mr. James Catron Mr. Edwin Goodman Ms. Pam Lakhani Mr. Govind Nadkarni Ms. Alclair Pleasant Ms. Bunny Tinker, Advisory Ms. Mary Whitmire Mr. Joe Williams MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Chester Carmer Ms. Mary Ellen Collins Ms. Cynthia Hill-McKinney Mr. Leslie Mabrey STAFF PRESENT: Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison Ms. Linda Williams, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 4:40 p.m. by Ms. Peggy Clark, Chairman. The roll was called and a quorum was declared. ACTION ITEM(S): Approval of August 22, 1991 Minutes: The minutes were approved with the following correction. The minutes reflect "Mr. Joe Catron" and was corrected to "James Catron." Approval of the Master Review Committee's Recommendation: Mr. Joe Williams, Chairman of the Master Review Committee, stated that the Committee met on Thursday, September 26, 1991 at 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department conference room to discuss and formulate a recommendation for placement of the Texas Historical marker in Heritage Park. The Committee's recommendation is that the marker be placed on the right-hand side of the entrance sidewalk close to the sidewalk on the street as indicated on the site plan. There being no comments or questions, the Committee's recommendation was accepted and approved as submitted. DISCUSSION ITEM(S): Dwayne Jones - Texas Historical Commission (THC) : Mr. Dwayne Jones, Preservation Planner for the Texas Historical Commission, addressed commission members. Mr. Jones stated there were several items he wanted to discuss regarding the upcoming CLG program at today's meeting: SCANNED • 'Landmark CommissiQUleetingtwit September 26, 1991 Page 2 Item 1: The CLG conference is scheduled for October 30 - November 1 , 1991 in San Antonio, Texas. The conference is entitled: "Affordable Housing - Forming Partnerships to Preserve Dreams." Mr. Jones continued that this year's conference is a very deliberate departure from the previous three (3) conferences and there were several reasons for this approach. The first is that there are several co-sponsors; the principal one being the San Antonio Conservation Society. The Society was very interested in putting on the conference and they not only contributed funding for some of the speakers, but they are also sponsoring a reception at the Garden of Casa Villita on Wednesday evening. This year's conference is attempting to bridge a very serious and deep gap between people involved in our communities with housing - whether they be non- profit, churches, housing agencies within the city, and those interested in preservation. This is directly intended to address this subject matter. THC has received a large response to the • conference. As part of the conference, participants will be reviewing a number of case studies in the City of San Antonio as well as others across the State. Each participant will receive a complete packet of information including the case studies used for this conference. The keynote speaker for the conference is Mr. Joseph H. Riley, Mayor for the City of Charleston, South Carolina. Mr. Riley spoke at the 1990 National Trust Conference in Charleston. Housing and affordable housing are very important issues for Mr. Riley and he was directly involved with developing and building new low-income housing projects that were designed to fit into the character of Charleston. Item 2: The Preservation Texas Alliance, which is a state-wide nonprofit organization, is establishing a special committee to serve as liaison to local Landmark Commissions/Preservation Commissions state-wide. Many states have full-time non-profits who perform this service throughout some states. Mr. Jones stated it was felt that Texas did not have the leadership or money to support another state- wide nonprofit organization, so the Alliance undertook this activity. The committee would help local commissions and preservation groups set up conferences, work on legal issues that affect preservation commissions, and other issues that are directly inline with local preservation. Mr. Jones stated that if any commission members were interested in serving on the committee to contact him. The committee will be organized at the preservation conference and will have several meetings throughout the year. Item 3: Senate Bill 923 - Mr. Jones stated that Senate Bill 923 was passed in the final days of legislation in the spring and was signed into law by Governor Richards on May 31, 1991. The bill became effective September 1, 1991. This legislation followed the illegal demolition, without a permit, of the Finck Cigar Box Company building in San Antonio, Texas. The building was considered exceptional merit in the City of San Antonio's inventory of historic structures and was part of an urban renewal parcel of several acres 'Landmark Commissic`eeting September 26, 1991 Page 3 that had been set aside approximately twenty to thirty years ago. Mr. Jones provided brief background information regarding the illegal demolition of the Cigar Company. Mr. Jones continued that there was a building located adjacent to the Finck Cigar Company, a multi-story office structure, owned by Vista Verde Company, that Bexar County officials were interested in purchasing. Bexar County officials entered into an agreement with the Vista Verde Company to purchase the multi-story office building on the premise that the Cigar Company be torn down. The Finck Cigar Company was demolished by a contractor without the appropriate demolition permit on a Sunday morning in February 1991. This incident caused a great deal of interest in San Antonio, which probably has the strongest municipal ordinance in the state. A lot of discussion evolved regarding how the property owner should be penalized and how much should be assessed. Mr. Jones clarified that all ordinances contain penalty and enforcement clauses, and most of the fines stated are approximately $1,000. The City of San Antonio's ordinance is very much like what emerged in Senate Bill 923. The ordinance allows officials to fine property owners from $250 up to $300,000. Bexar County officials elected to fine the property owner $25,000, for the illegal demolition, which, in itself, is a significant fine for an illegal demolition. Senate Bill 923 was introduced to the legislature by Senator Frank Tejada from San Antonio and is commonly referred to as the "Tejada Bill." The bill has two basic parts: 1) Section 315 discusses liability for adversely affecting a historic structure or property as defined in Section 442 of the Government Code. The Government Code sets up the Texas Historical Commission. The Code defines any of the following as a historic structure or building: Any building/structure listed in the National Register of Historic Places, any building that is a recorded Texas Historic Landmark (one with a medallion) , any building that is a State Archeological Landmark, any building that has been determined eligible for the National Register, or any building that has been determined eligible on its historic significance by THC to another state agency. The code allows a municipality to reconsider its local ordinance and to amend, as needed, to expand its purview of review for demolitions only to any of the categories outlined. Before this, the review was only for local designated properties. 2) In Subsections (b) , (c) , and (d), the bill explains how damages are assessed and how much can be assessed. If the ordinance is amended, assessed damages can include attorney fees, architect fees, appraiser fees, etc. Subsection (e): Section states that damages recovered for an illegal demolition has to be deposited into a special municipal fund account and can only be used to Landmark Commissioeting September 26, 1991 Page 4 reconstruct, using as many of the original materials as possible, a structure or property that is a reasonable facsimile of the demolished historic structure or property; restore, using as many of the original materials as possible, the historic structure or property; or restore another historic structure or property, as determined by the commission. Subsection (f): The property owner may be required to reconstruct a reasonable facsimile of the building demolished on another lot selected by the commission. This provision of the bill can be implemented only if the ordinance is amended. Subsection (h): Before any action can be initiated regarding illegal demolition of a historic structure or property, the legal description must be recorded in the County Clerk's office of the County Courthouse. Subsection (j) : If a municipality does not take action on an illegal demolition within ninety (90) days of the infraction, the Texas Historical Commission can take action in the municipality's place and recover damages. This section also applies only if the municipality' s ordinance is amended. Mr. Jones stated that SB 923 is very controversial and each community should seriously review and discuss whether or not their ordinances should be amended. The second section of the bill is basically the same language and information, but pertains to areas outside of municipalities that have preservation ordinances and demolition procedures. The section states that the Texas Historical Commission has been set up as a permitting body to review demolitions for outside municipalities and recover damages. Mr. Jones stated that the recommendation submitted by THC at this time would be for the commission to consider SB 923 with the City Attorney and decided whether or not this should be incorporated into the commission's preservation ordinance. After Mr. Jones' presentation, the floor was opened for comments and questions. Ms. Tinker asked Mr. Jones if it was the City of San Antonio's preservation ordinance that prohibited driveway cuts for five years for illegal demolitions and Mr. Jones replied that he was not sure. He continued that the language in San Antonio's ordinance was very forceful. 'Landmark Commissi9eeting September 26, 1991 Page 5 The question was asked if there were other options available in recovering damages for the illegal demolition of the building and Mr. Jones replied that the officials could have assessed a higher monetary fine. The Council 's decision on how much the fine should have been was split. Ms. Clark expressed thanks to Mr. Jones for attending today's commission meeting. Slide Presentation of Historical Survey: Ms. Clark stated she requested Staff to present a slide presentation on selected sections in Phase II of the Historical Survey so that the Commission can begin evaluating the houses that the Consultant selected as being appropriate for historic designation. Ms. Clark continued that the commission could review those that fulfill the age criteria and also decide and establish a priority level (high, medium, or low) as to how they should be ranked for future preservation. At this point, the meeting was turned over to Ms. Macon, Staff Liaison. Ms. Macon stated that she will present half of a residential area -- Saxet Heights, and half of a commercial area -- Leopard Street Corridor. Ms. Macon read the Consultant's recommendation for each slide presented and commission members accepted or revised the priorty level on several sites shown. After the presentation, discussion ensued regarding how the areas should be reviewed at the commission meetings. The remainder of the Saxet Heights area and Leopard Street Corridor will be shown at the next meeting. Update on Task Force Meeting - Nueces County Courthouse: Mr. James Catron, member of the Task Force, stated that the group had an introductory meeting on August 26, 1991 and held its second meeting on September 25, 1991. Mr. Catron continued that at the September 25, 1991 meeting, Anita Eisenhauer, Chairman of the Nueces County Courthouse, requested the Landmark Commission to consider joining the County Historical Commission in writing a letter of request to the Texas Historical Commission for funding of a structural study on the old County Courthouse. Ms. Clark asked if this request was to be included in the Commission's next funding cycle and Mr. Catron answered in the negative, that Ms. Eisenhauer was only requesting the Commission to jointly write the letter of request for funding. Mr. Catron continued that even though it was brought out by Mr. Nadkarni and Mr. Williams that a structural survey was not needed at this time, Ms. Eisenhauer still requested the Commission's participation. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. CATRON AND SECONDED BY MR. WILLIAMS THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION JOIN IN WITH THE NUECES COUNTY HISTORICAL COMMISSION IN WRITING A LETTER OF REQUEST TO THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION FOR FUNDING 'Landmark Commissioleeting Q September 26, 1991 Page 6 OF A STRUCTURAL SURVEY ON THE OLD NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE. After the motion was on the floor, further discussion ensued. Ms. Tinker asked if a document existed that stated the building was structurally sound. Mr. Williams and Mr. Nadkarni concurred that a structural study was conducted by Mr. Robert Kipp and his finding, at the time, was the building was structurally sound. Mr. Nadkarni continued that for the amount of money the County Commission wanted to request would not be enough to conduct an indepth feasibility study to arrive at a true and accurate structural analysis. Ms. Clark asked Mr. Nadkarni if he was to submit a bid to conduct the total structural analysis, how much funding would be needed and Mr. Nadkarni responded that the analysis would cost approximately $20,000. Ms. Tinker asked how much was Ms. Eisenhauer wanting to request from THC and Mr. Nadkarni stated $5,000. Ms. Tinker asked • Mr. patron exactly what was the Landmark Commission requested to do and Mr. Catron replied that Ms. Eisenhauer wanted the Landmark Commission to join them in writing a letter to THC requesting funding for the structural study. Mr. Catron stated at the time he spoke with Ms. Eisenhauer, a dollar amount had not been specified. Ms. Clark stated that in order for the Commission to initiate action, a specific amount was needed and commissioners should remember that the amount would be requested through the CLG grant program. Ms. Clark continued that the Commission should also consider whether or not this is what the grant proposal should be spent on, a structural study. Ms. Macon interjected that at the Task Force meeting, a statement was made that a use plan should be completed before a structural analysis is done. Mr. Nadkarni stated that his comment at that point in the meeting was to find out what kind of program the building will be used for and once the use was known, find an owner or a group who would be interested in implementing the program. Once that is completed, the funding could be used to help the group conduct a total study and make the structural analysis as part of the study. Mr. Nadkarni continued that if the study is conducted now, it would be a waste of money, also if nothing happens after the study is completed and the legal battle continues, another four or five years will be wasted. Ms. Clark asked for clarification on the legal ramifications regarding the county courthouse. Mr. Catron stated that the group was talking about one of the taxing entities, or all of the taxing entities, foreclosing on the structure, which would eliminate the approximate $600,000 lien that Sunbelt Savings has on the property, including what other creditors had with Mr. Bennett. Mr. Catron continued that the problem is that no one wants to assume the liability; even the school district. It was brought out at the meeting that the school district had the least amount of liability, and if the district assumed ownership, it would temporarily serve as trustee for the other taxing entities. Even if the school district took ownership, the other taxing entities would still be liable, and no one wants to assume that risk. Ms. Clark asked how long would the 'Landmark NMI CommissiQeeting September 26, 1991 Page 7 liability period lasts and it was answered that whoever assumes the ownership would be liable. Mr. Williams added he talked with a member of the Texas Historic Attorney's Association and they are interested in utilizing part of the courthouse as a legal museum. Mr. Williams continued that he thinks the State should be encouraged to take over the structure; they would have less liability that any local taxing entity. Ms. Clark stated that before any community groups can begin any fund raising efforts for the courthouse, the taxing entities would have to foreclose on the property before it can be given to or sold to another group. Ms. Macon stated that it was recommended at the September Task Force meeting to have two representatives from the Texas Historical Commission, Stan Graves and Margaret Victor, attend the October meeting. Ms. Macon continued that the suggestion made by Mr. Williams regarding the State overtaking the structure could be discussed at that time. THE VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION FOR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION TO JOIN THE NUECES COUNTY HISTORICAL COMMISSION IN WRITING A LETTER TO THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION REQUESTING FUNDING TO DO A STRUCTURAL STUDY ON THE OLD NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE. MOTION FAILED. After further discussion, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. WILLIAMS AND SECONDED BY THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION JOIN THE NUECES COUNTY HISTORICAL COMMISSION IN REQUESTING FUNDING, WITH MATCHING FUNDS, TO SAVE SOME PORTION OF THE NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE. After the motion was on the floor, further discussion ensued. Ms. Clark asked Mr. Williams for clarification on the motion as to what action the Landmark Commission should take. Mr. Williams stated that it was his understanding that the Landmark Commission was to work together with the County Commission to secure a substantial amount of funding to protect the courthouse. Mr. Williams continued that he thought the purpose of Ms. Eisenhauer's proposal for the two commissions to work together was to have an architectural survey or a survey to protect the structure -- finding a means to protect what is left of the building. Ms. Clark asked if this was not part of the Task Force's purpose in meeting together was to find a solution for the courthouse and Mr. Catron answered yes. The Task Force was to formulate a recommendation to City Council by May 1992 on what should be done with the County Courthouse. Ms. Macon stated that since the County Commission is also a CLG, Ms. Eisenhauer is looking at the possibility of both commissions using Landmark CommissiorLjeting September 26, 1991 Page 8 grant funding, if not for a structural analysis, for developing a plan for the use of the structure. Ms. Clark stated she was not opposed to the Landmark Commission doing this, but the Task Force has not progressed far enough long for either commissions to write a legitimate request as a CLG grant. Ms. Clark continued that maybe by October or November, the Commission may be able to submit a request, but at this point, it would be premature to write a letter of request without a definite plan in mind. The question was asked when will the Task Force meet again and it was answered that the next meeting is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, October 23, 1991 at 12 noon. Further discussion ensued regarding Ms. Eisenhauer's request for the Commission to join in writing the request for funding. Mr. Nadkarni stated that after the meeting was adjourned, Ms. Eisenhauer stated to him the request would be for a structural analysis. Ms. Macon added that the group left the meeting thinking that a structural analysis would not be done. Ms. Clark asked who the chairman of the Task Force and it was answered that Brandol Harvey, Planning Director, was the chairman. Ms. Clark stated that at this point, she personally was not prepared to make a formal agreement with the County Commission in submitting a letter of request. The Commissions should be in communication with each other and possibly by October or November, the commission may have an idea for a grant from CLG in relationship to the Courthouse. The Commission, at this point, is not willing to spend the money for a structural analysis, but at a later date maybe for some other kind of consultant study. Ms. Tinker asked if the Friends of the Courthouse were involved on the Task Force and it was answered yes. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND. Ms. Tinker stated that the Commission should check on the Del Mar Subdivision. The residents are upset with the City regarding placement of sidewalks. The Commission need to follow up and report at the next meeting whether the sidewalk tiles are being saved like the Commission requested. After further discussion, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. WILLIAMS AND SECONDED BY MR. NADKARNI THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION REMIND THE CITY STREETS DEPARTMENT THAT THE SIDEWALK TILES ARE TO BE SAVED IN THE DEL MAR SUBDIVISION. MOTION PASSED. Ms. Tinker stated that she has been receiving the RTC single-family, commercial , and apartment listings and none of the properties listed are in this area. Ms. Clark stated she needed to know who would be attending the CLG conference scheduled October 30 - November 1, 1991. After a brief discussion the commission members attending the conference are ' Landmark CommissioCieting September 26, 1991 Page 9 Govind Nadkarni , Edwin Goodman, Bunny Tinker, and Michael Gunning, staff. The meeting was adjourned at 6 p.m.