Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 12/19/1991 at-a MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS DECEMBER 19, 1991 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Peggy Clark, Chairman Ms. Patricia Atkins Mr. James Catron Mr. Edwin Goodman Ms. Cynthia Hill-McKinney Ms. Pam Lakhani Mr. Govind Nadkarni Ms. Alclair Pleasant Mr. Michael Shelly Ms. Bunny Tinker Mr. Donald Victory Ms. Mary Whitmire Mr. Joe Williams MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Mary Ellen Collins Mr. Leslie Mabrey STAFF PRESENT: Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison Ms. Linda Williams, Recording Secretary Mr. Michael Gunning, Senior Planner The meeting was called to order at 4:35 p.m. by Ms. Peggy Clark, Chairman. The roll was called and a quorum was declared. Mr. Michael Shelly, new commissioner, was welcomed and introduced to Landmark Commissioners. Mr. Shelly moved to Corpus Christi approximately two and one-half years ago from Dallas, Texas and is Branch Manager for Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation. Mr. Shelly was appointed to the Landmark Commission on November 19, 1991 and fills the competency of a title searcher, vacated by the resignation of Chip Carmer. ACTION ITEMS(S): Approval of November 20, 1991 Minutes: The minutes were approved as distributed. Review and Approval of CLG Grant Request: Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, provided brief background information regarding the CLG grant process for the benefit of Mr. Victory and Mr. Shelly. Ms. Macon stated that the Landmark Commission received "Local Government Status" from the Texas Historical Commission (THC) approximately three years ago. Since the City has been certified as a CLG, the City is eligible to apply for grant funds through THC. The deadline for this funding cycle is Friday, December 20, 1991. The funds will be used as_matching funds through in-kind services provided by City Staff and funds from the CDBG grant process. Ms. Macon continued SCANNED Landmark Commissioveting December 19, 1991 Page 2 that the total amount of the grant request is $14,447.50 and three (3) items are included in this grant application: 1) Phase II-A of the historical site survey. This is a continuation of Phase I. Five (5) targeted areas included in this phase are Hillcrest/Northside, Longview/Up River Road, Oak Park, North Morgan Avenue, and Port Avenue totaling approximately 320 sites - the amount requested - $8,000; 2) CLG Conference - requesting funds for three (3) people to attend the State Conference - Amount of request - $697.50; and 3) Proposal to initiate a historical plaque/marker program. One hundred (100) plaques will be ordered - amount of request - $5,750.00 (this amount also includes installation costs). Ms. Macon stated that the grant request had been reviewed by Staff and she would like ratification on the submittal of the request. Ms. Clark asked if the application had already been submitted and Ms. Macon answered yes, since the deadline submittal was Friday, December 20, 1991. Ms. Clark stated that even though the request had been submitted, if the commission had strenuous objections to any part of the request, an amendment could be submitted to THC. There being no further discussion, Ms. Clark requested commissioners to ratify the grant application as outlined and submitted to THC. The following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. TINKER AND SECONDED BY MS. PLEASANT THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION RATIFY THE SUBMITTAL OF THE CLG GRANT REQUEST, AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, TO THE TEXAS HISTORICAL CONtt1ISSION. MOTION PASSED. DISCUSSION ITEM(S): Report On CLG Conference: Ms. Clark requested Mr. Goodman to give an overview of the conference. Mr. Goodman stated that he, Govind Nadkarni, and Bunny Tinker, from the Landmark Commission, Michael Gunning, Planning Department, and a staff person from Community Development, attended the two-day conference. Mr. Goodman stated that he found the conference worthwhile. Mr. Goodman continued that his interest came from two directions -- one as a member of the Landmark Commission interested in historic preservation and Landmark Commission`eting December 19, 1991 Page 3 banking side. Mr. Goodman stated that banks are becoming involved through the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in putting monies back into the restoration of those properties and/or financing the sale to individuals. Mr. Goodman continued there was one project from the City of Beaumont or the City of Galveston where the Resoltuion Trust Corporation (RTC) , which takes over properties from S&Ls, joined forces with NCNB and restored several four (4) block houses. NCNB handled the long-range financing part of the joint venture. Ms. Tinker added they requested additional information from the Enterprise Foundation on how to get public/private ventures going and what procedures to follow to obtain funding. Ms. Tinker informed commissioners that she checked the last list from RTC and there is nothing in Corpus Christi on the list that is of interest. Mr. Goodman added that properties do not have to come from RTC or FDIC -- they can be old properties in the community. Mr. Goodman stated they learned different ways in which to initiate a joint venture on a particular historic project by working with the City and various lending institutions, once a specific project has been selected. Nueces Task Force - Nueces County Courthouse: Ms. Clark stated she was adding an unscheduled item to the agenda, a report from several members of the Nueces County Task Force for the County Courthouse. Ms. Clark requested Mr. Joe Williams, Landmark Commissioner, to give an introduction to the report. Mr. Joe Williams stated he was waiting for Mr. Dusty Durrill , who initially generated the idea being presented at today's meeting. Mr. Williams introduced Mr. Terry Orf, Staff Architect for Whataburger, Inc. , and Mr. Jim Rome, Architect, also members of the Task Force. The floor was turned over to Mr. Orf. Mr. Orf stated that he, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Rome have been working with Mr. Dusty Durrill on this particular program. Mr. Orf stated he is a member of the Task Force and, for the past few months, the Task Force has been trying to decide how to best recoup the title to the Nueces County Courthouse. At this point, Ms. Clark explained that Dusty Durrill is head of the Durrill Foundation who donated money to the City for construction of the miradors erected on the bayfront. The Foundation money came from a lawsuit that resulted through the death of his daughter. Mr. Durrill has become very interested in the courthouse as his next project and is trying to get all of the pieces together. Mr. Orf explained that they have been working with Mr. Durrill for approximately a month and he has opened various doors in trying to find a workable solution for the courthouse. Through Mr. Durrill 's efforts, Mr. Charles Bennett, owner of the courthouse, has been located. Mr. Orf continued that Mr. Durrill 's general idea is to get something started on the courthouse -- once a viable revitalization program is started, more Landmark Commissioeting December 19, 1991 Page 4 people will become available to aid in this effort. Mr. Orf stated that Mr. Durrill has found a means to accomplish this objective -- through the State Criminal Justice System. At present, the State Criminal Justice System has mandated a "Boot Camp" type program, where first-time offenders, who are not the hardened criminal type, are placed in a program where they can work off their sentence in a civic type environment. This program is two-fold -- it provides a function that heeds the community in a civic way and, at the same time, the community is providing a training program for the prisoners or "boot campees" to bring them back into society. The program has been successful in other states and Texas has now joined the bandwagon. The program is set up such that monies are appropriated to provide a facility to provide housing for the "campees. " The mandate is written as such that properties that are abandoned such as the courthouse, community properties, are prime targets for this kind of project. There are other counties in Texas that have implemented a similar program -- Hidalgo County, located south of Corpus Christi , and Travis County. In Hidalgo County, the program was implemented where the campees' labor was utilized to restore a county historic building. Mr. Durrill 's idea for the program is to use the courthouse facility to house these people; thereby using their labor to tear down what needs to be torn down, take apart what needs to be taken apart, and to revitalize components that are remaining and can be reused, such as the brick work. By using this type of labor, the cost will be drastically cut for revitalization of the building. Mr. Orf continued that it is at this point where he, Mr. Rome, and Mr. Williams became involved. They are helping Mr. Durrill promote the program concept to various authorities and to get a feel from other public entities whether they would be supportive of the project. Mr. Orf stated that this proposal is not a long-term solution -- it is set up as a five-year project. The idea is to move the people into the facility, start the renovation process, and then as the five years progress and the building's exterior is corrected, and the interior prepared for revitalization, the people would be removed and relocated to another facility. Once this part of the project is completed, another structure could be possibly used for the same type of program. State funds appropriated for this type of program startup can be utilized in this manner and this five-year program is acceptable to the State. At this point, Mr. Orf presented a slide presentation showing schematic drawings of the floor plans for the facility. The first scheme proposes utilization of the first floor spaces in the older structure to provide the required functions of a one-hundred forty- four (144) bed facility. Renovation of the first floor would provide administration offices, dormitories, dayrooms, and kitchen facilities. Landmark Commissiolispeting • December 19, 1991 Page 5 The second scheme proposes rehabing the annex structure to provide similar functions for a forty-eight (48) bed facility. Either proposal would allow the historic courthouse to be the work place for civic duties and an excellent environment for vocational education. Once the program is underway in either of the facilities, work can begin on the other more historic floors. Once the floors are renovated and brought back to usable form, the facility could accommodate private and public occupants. Mr. Orf continued that it is their belief that once the exterior of the building has been restored, the interior will be much easier to do. Mr. Orf stated it is being considered to pull down the 1931 addition to the building. A lot of the brick in that area can be reused in renovating the remaining portions of the structure back to its original character. Mr. Jim Rome, Architect, addressed the Commission. Mr. Rome stated that his area of expertise is that of restoration and reconstruction of historical structures. Mr. Rome continued that the community is extremely fortunate to have two people who have committed themselves to this particular project. For the last ten years, it was considered the kiss of death if the county courthouse was mentioned. Mr. Rome continued that this picture is changing somewhat in that two community leaders are stepping forward and saying that they are in favor of saving the courthouse. Historic structures in the city have traditionally meant only the restoration and the acceptance of historic residences; but there is another aspect of restoration and that is of public buildings. Mr. Rome continued that it seems that the governmental entities, the City and County, have never thought that this was an important aspect of our history; and most people who are involved in the historical aspects of their community, recognize that if you don't have a history, the city is in trouble because you can't have a good handle on the future. Mr. Rome stated that Corpus Christi looks to the City of San Antonio for guidance. There are a lot of new things in San Antonio that are exciting and they have been able to put together wonderful programs to draw the public and tourists. One of the key elements to San Antonio's successful preservation program is that the city has a history -- it has an identity. Corpus Christi has that same identity but it has been kept a secret. There has not been a lot done to promote the area's history. Mr. Rome continued that an effort has been made during the past two years to educate the public and our children in school as to what the historic aspects are in the city, but there is a long way to go. Until there has been a public structure or a tangible project completed, the City will never be able to establish its identity. Mr. Rome stated that the City has never established an architectural identity -- everything that is thirty-five (35) years old, or older, has been torn down. This type of mentality has to be changed and in doing so, some of the structures that need to be preserved should be; which will help identify the City's past. Mr. Rome continued that is why the preservation of the Old County Landmark Commissionting • December 19, 1991 Page 6 Courthouse is extremely important -- it is the last public building in the city that is historical . The old city hall would have attained that capability had it been left up. The structure had enough historical interest and qualities that would have qualified it as an historical landmark. Mr. Dusty Durrill was introduced to the Commission. Mr. Durrill apologized for being late to the meeting and expressed thanks to Ms. Clark for allowing him to address the commission. Mr. Durrill began his presentation by stating that on this afternoon, he spoke with a staff person in Congressman Ortiz' office and they are working on getting the first lien out of Resolution Trust for the title of courthouse. Mr. Durrill continued that the San Jacinto Title Company is also assisting this effort. Mr. Bennett's group is willing to surrender the residual rights to the property and a tax foreclosure that was filed several years ago, which does not include taxes accrued for 1990 and 1991. Mr. Durrill continued that a tax foreclosure sale will eliminate the taxes of $190,000, but another $100,000 of taxes have accrued since that time. Mr. Durrill contended that if a lawsuit was filed for the second set of delinquent taxes, it would take too long to file and do a foreclosure in the time frame that he is working under in trying to obtain the funds from the Criminal Justice System. Mr. Durrill continued that it has been discussed to file a foreclosure for the first set of delinquent taxes and first lien; which would leave the second set of taxes outstanding. Mr. Durrill stated that by filing the foreclosure on the first lien, the residual and redemptive rights of Charles Bennett would be cleared and then the group would have ownership and control of the redemptive rights. After obtaining redemptive rights, a foreclosure suit would be filed on the first set of delinquent taxes totaling $190,000, leaving the second set of taxes for $100,000; which will have to be eliminated also. Mr. Durrill state that he spoke with several City Staff members to see if it would be possible for the taxes to be paid and then the City could pay the group $5,000 a month to manage the property and do a washout to clear the book. The taxes cannot be abated once they are on the books. There is quite a few suggestions on what to do with the building. Mr. Durrill continued that he and several other individuals have walked through the building and feel that it is safe and sound and it does have commercial market value. After Mr. Durrill 's presentation, the floor was opened for questions and comments. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Durrill to give a more detailed explanation of the project. Mr. Durrill stated that the people that would be living in the facility are known as "probationers" and not criminals that were removed from jail or prison. Currently, the program is not designed to be permanent, but it will be for five years. This is a control program for self respect and not a redemptive program for a hard core criminal or someone who has real mental problems; but it is for those individuals where the presiding judge thinks would benefit in a Landmark Commission4seting December 19, 1991 111110 Page 7 condition of probation outside the prison system and the system is set up to relieve the prison system. At this point with the prison's overcrowding conditions, this type of program has received a lot of support. In Texas, there are two programs already established -- one in Hidalgo County and Travis County. Mr. Durrill continued that he spoke with the sheriffs from both counties who administered the programs. Hidalgo County used this program to rehabilitate a building in the downtown area. The program was successful and they were happy with the outcome. After the program was over, the contractor hired a lot of the people who worked on the building because they were good workers. The program was positive for the participants in that they got jobs and received good training. Another big benefit derived from the program was that after the building was rehabilitated, the workers were used on other projects throughout the county. By using this type of work force, the county's operating cost decreased drastically. Mr. Durrill continued that in Travis County, the program is used in the outside of town primarily for road maintenance, in the City of Austin to clean up public areas and perform work on public buildings. They have not rehabilitated a building as such as being proposed for the county courthouse or as was done in Hidalgo County. In the United States, approximately twelve (12) programs have been successfully implemented, and the programs are viewed as a new way to attack the criminal justice rehabilitation problem in getting individuals back into the mainstream. Travis County uses surplus military uniforms for the participants. Ms. Clark asked Mr. Durrill what was the time frame for the program and Mr. Durrill answered that after the funds are allocated, the program has to be in place by August 1992. The program is for three years. There is no indication that the program would not be continued. Each program is administered by the county sheriff and it is set up to be implemented in the best way possible to run the program. Ms. Clark asked at what point would he like for the Landmark Commission to give an endorsement and Mr. Durrill replied that at this point, it is undecided as to what is needed from any of the groups. Mr. Durrill continued that at this point, the problem is to determine where the title of the building should be. Neither Nueces County or the City of Corpus Christi want the building. Mr. Durrill continued that he spoke with Mr. Tom Utter and was told that the title could be placed in the County's name and then maybe sell or lease the building to a private entity for $1 a year for a specified time frame. Mr. Durrill stated that in order to get the tax foreclosure, the procedure will have to go through a taxing entity's ownership before it can be placed in permanent ownership. Mr. Durrill stated that the proposal has not been publicly disclosed. He wanted to compile as much information and try to foresee any problems that might arise once the proposal is announced. Mr. Durrill stated that some people would have a problem Landmark Commissioeting December 19, 1991 Page 8 with the community service academy being located in the downtown area. Mr. Durrill continued that he feels that once the proposal is announced with as much information available, the opposition will be minimal . Mr. Orf stated that the group would like the Landmark Commission's blessings on the project. Mr. Orf continued that the proposal has not been publicly disclosed. After all comments had been received, Ms. Clark stated that the program is very exciting and she expressed thanks to Mr. Durrill for addressing the commission and presenting the proposal and expressed thanks to commissioners serving on the Task Force. Mr. Nadkarni asked if there were any expectations expected from the Commission and Mr. Durrill answered that at this point, an endorsement is not needed. Ms. Tinker asked if there were going to be any problems about removing the 1931 addition to the courthouse and if it would be feasible to house some of the participants in that part of the building and Mr. Rome answered that he does not think the Texas Historical Commission would have a problem with removing that portion of the building being torn down if the major structure would be saved. Mr. Durrill added that the Texas Historical Commission stated their only concern was for the 1914 original structure. Ms. Clark requested Mr. Orf to elaborate on the alternate plan of housing inside the main part of the building rather than tearing down the annex addition. Mr. Orf stated that the proposal met with some opposition. Mr. Orf continued that the building still has to meet today's building code requirements and they have to talk with the fire marshall to be ensure that all of the proposed can be accomplished. Mr. Orf continued that part of the problem with the 1931 addition to the building is that after it was built and the highway was installed, the constant rumbling of the highway and traffic have attributed to the problem of the structure. Although the addition could be possibly brought into sound condition, there is no guarantee that the restoration will last because the highway still exists. Architecturally, if the 1931 addition can be cleared away from the freeway and provide a buffer zone it might make a big difference. Ms. Tinker clarified that she meant if any damage was done, it would be in the 1931 addition which would eventually be torn down. Mr. Orf stated that the proposed plan for the bottom floor, other than bringing the plumbing facilities, mechanical and ventilation systems, and electrical wiring up to code standards, is to remove some minor removal of interior walls to open up the space would be accomplished. A majority of the interior spaces, with the exception of the courtrooms that still exist, would probably be cleared out, except the substructure, and prepared for the new usage. Landmark Commissioeting • December 19, 1991 1411, Page 9 Ms. Clark again expressed thanks to Mr. Durrill , Mr. Orf, and Mr. Rome for attending today's meeting and giving the Landmark Commission an opportunity to share in the proposed program for the courthouse. Ms. Clark stated that the Landmark Commission will prepare a letter of endorsement of the proposed program in January 1992. Report on Planning Commission's Action on Preservation Plan: Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison, stated that the Preservation Plan is being submitted for review by City Council . Staff has requested that a cost analysis be prepared for the policy statements. A question was asked what was the purpose of the cost analysis and Mr. Gunning clarified that Mr. Bill Hennings requested Staff to provide costs analysis for the policy statements to see what the economical impact would be to the City in implementing the policies. Mr. Gunning continued that most of the recommendations have no costs identified and some of them do. Ms. Macon added that once the costs analysis is completed and Staff has reviewed, it is hoped that the packet will be forwarded to City Council in February 1992. Slide Presentation on Old Irish Town (Part II): Ms. Macon presented the remaining portions of the slide presentation for the Old Irish Town addition. The remaining properties were reviewed and rated as follows: 1409 Mesquite Street - The Wilkerson House was built in 1903, residential use, Queen Anne style, current property owner is Frank Garza; low priority rating changed to high. 1415 Mesquite Street - Was the home of Dr. W. E. Willis, built in 1894, residential use, present condition - fair; medium priority rating. 1416 Mesquite Street - This structure is part of the Woods' Estate; built in 1910, Classical Revival style; low priority rating. 1419 Mesquite Street - Shirley Wilkerson is current owner, house was built in 1914, Queen Anne style, condition - fair; medium priority rating. Mr. Charles Mew once resided in this house. Mr. Mew was a night watchman for the railroad - high priority rating. 1420 Mesquite Street - House was built in 1910, Bungalow style, low priority rating because of extensive alterations that are not consistent with the original style. 1421 Mesquite Street - Structure was built in 1940s, no stylistic influence, was commercial/trade use in the area, rectangular plan, medium priority rating, changed to low. Landmark Commissiolheeting • December 19, 1991 Page 10 1601 Mesquite Street - Moore's Auction Arena, structure built in 1939, commercial/trade use, owned by Ed Moore, no stylistic influence, low priority rating, changed to medium. 1621 Mesquite Street - Structure built between 1920-1940s, Moderne Stylistic influence, fair condition, commercial/trade use, rectangular plan, medium priority rating. 304 Palo Alto Street - No documented information available. 1409-1/2 Palo Alto Street - Laurel Apartments, poor condition, built between 1910-1930s, residential stylistic influence, Bungalow style, L-plan, medium priority rating changed to high. 1413 Palo Alto Street - Structure was built between 1900- 1910s, Bungalow style, residential use, rectangular plan, low priority rating. Jalufka Twin Houses - Built between 1890-1910, Classical Revival style. One of the structures had fire damage - low priority rating changed to high. 304-310 Power Street - Surf Apartment built in 1920s, Art Deco, rectangular plan, residential use, high priority rating. 511 Power Street - No style, no estimation of year built, low priority rating. 1218 North Water Street - Water Street Stormwater Pump Plant, built in 1948, governmental function, no style, high priority rating. 1401 North Water Street - Structure was built in 1910s, A- symmetrical , Bungalow style, residential use, fair condition, high priority rating. There being no further business, the meeting was officially adjourned at 6:15 p.m.