Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 08/27/1992 (6110 Id MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUGUST 27, 1992 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Cynthia Hill-McKinney, Acting Chairman Patricia Atkins Ms. Nancy Bowen Ms. Pam Lakhani Mr. Govind Nadkarni Ms. Alclair Pleasant Mr. Michael Shelly Ms. Bunny Tinker Ms. Mary Whitmire MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. James Catron Ms. Mary Ellen Collins Mr. Edwin Goodman Mr. Leslie Mabrey Mr. Donald Victory Mr. Joe Williams STAFF PRESENT: Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison Ms. Linda Williams, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 4:45 p.m.by Ms. Cynthia Hill-McKinney, Acting Chairman. The roll was called and a quorum was not present. Upon arrival of Ms. Patricia Atkins, a quorum was declared. ACTION ITEM(S): Approval of July 23. 1992 Minutes: The July 23, 1992 minutes were approved as distributed. DISCUSSION ITEM(S): Committee 's Recommendation On Adopting State and National Guidelines For Naming Historical Designated Structures: Mr. Shelly stated the committee met and discussed possible recommendations, incorporating some of the guidelines currently being used, for naming historical designated structures. Mr. Shelly provided a brief recap of the discussion at the June 25, 1992 meeting with representatives from the Nueces County Historical Commission. Mr. Shelly continued that Ms. Anita Eisenhauer, Chairman of the Nueces County Historical Commission, referenced a small rule handbook publication by the Texas Historical Commission (THC) for County Historical SCANNED Landmark Commission Kiting .. August 27, 1992 Page 2 Commissions to use in naming historical structures. The concern voiced at the June meeting was that neither group wanted a repeat of events that happened in naming the Jalufka-Govatos House. Mr. Shelly continued that he reviewed the handbook and it contained very interesting facts about the programs sponsored by the Texas Historical Commission. Mr. Shelly went on to say that the Medallion Program was established in 1962; and at that time, THC was known as the Texas Historical Committee. The first medallions approved for historical sites were in 1936. Mr. Shelly continued that in order for any site to be approved for a marker, it must be first approved by the County Historical Commission or a City certified historical commission, and they, individually or jointly, submit the application to the Texas Historical Commission. Mr. Shelly stated that according to Ms. Tinker, what has happened in the past is that property owners contacted the City stating they have properties to donate to the City, but they would like the transaction to be completed before the end of the year. In most cases, because of the time element involved, the houses are accepted and the Landmark Commission did not have adequate time to thoroughly research the properties. Once the transaction was completed, the name associated with the house remained and, if at some future date a marker was pursued, any discrepancies would be discovered during extensive research on the property. Mr. Shelly continued that in order to avoid future occurrences, the Committee submits the following recommendation: 1) When a house is suggested for donation to the City,all parties involved, City officials, Landmark Commission, etc., should refer to the property by its legal description (lot and block number and subdivision name). This reference will help during initial research of the property and it can also be noted that the property is "popularly" referred to a specific name. By placing this statement as part of the disclaimer, it would indicate that the "popularly referred name" is a suggested one, but the actual name would not be placed on the property until the research is completed. Also, the property owner would be notified that the property would be referred to by its lot and block number until research was completed. After the committee 's recommendation was presented, the floor was opened for discussion. Ms. Hill asked for clarification on the recent problem encountered with the house with two names in Heritage Park and Ms. Tinker stated that the Landmark Commission referred to the property as one name IMO Landmark Commission Meeting August 27, 1992 Page 3 and it should have included two. Ms. Hill asked did the marker get its official name after the application was submitted and Mr. Shelly answered that THC has final approval on marker applications and naming of such structures. Mr. Shelly continued that sometimes the outcome of an application is based on how thorough the research is and what information is available on the property. Ms. Farcye Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison, added that in the past, the City depended on the Nueces County Historical Commission to submit the application for the markers, purchase them, and the City installed them once they were approved and received. Ms. Macon continued that this had been the norm mainly because the County Historical Commission has the funding to do it. The Landmark Commission could perform the same function as the County Historical Commission in submitting marker applications, conducting the research, etc., but the Landmark Commission does not have the money allocated in its budget to purchase them. The cost for each marker is approximately $700. Ms. Macon continued that technically the only role the Landmark Commission (City) has in the process is to accept the house, review, and approve the structure's renovation if it is zoned "HC." Ms. Hill stated she wanted to make sure she understood how the process was done -- the City accepts the houses, all of the available information is forwarded to the County Historical Commission, if requested, the County does detail research if a marker is to be pursued and initiates the application and Ms. Macon stated that has been the process is some cases. Ms. Tinker added that the owner(s) signs off on the property, and in all of the transactions, the owner has been the City, the Landmark Commission signs off on the research, but if the property was not owned by the City,the Landmark Commission would not be involved. Mr. Shelly stated an example of a private owner contacting the City stating he has property that he is willing to donate to the City for a tax credit. Once the property is accepted by the City, the City relies on the Landmark Commission's recommendation as to its historical significance and whether or not a marker can be obtained for the property. NIS Landmark Commission .tting August 27, 1992 Page 4 Mr. Nadkarni asked if the Landmark Commission had the authority to name structures and it was answered no. Mr. Nadkarni asked why was the Commission concerned with guidelines on naming structures if it this was not part of the Commission's function. Mr. Shelly stated that because in the past, when a donor passed on the property, they would request that the name associated with the property be retained. Mr. Shelly stated the Commission is trying to get away from using any names on structures until the research has been completed. Ms. Tinker added that everybody involved, including the City, and the previous owner, will be advised that the Commission will refer to properties, donated to the City,by its lot and block number with a statement that the property is "popularly known as" so that everybody involved (City, previous property owner, or the group doing the restoration), will not assume that this is what the property will be named when references are made during discussions. Mr. Nadkarni commented that when the property is donated to the City, the owner requests that the name be associated with it and it comes with the property and that is why references are made to that name. Ms. Macon stated usually when the house is accepted, the name associated with it has been part of the name on the marker. Ms. Macon continued that the problem is when further research is completed, the "popularly known name" along with another name is revealed and the Commission does not want to promise that the name associated with the house will be the only official name on the marker. Mr. Shelly stated that the Landmark Commission needed to be sensitive to the fact that it does not have the authority to label the houses. Basically, the house labels itself based upon its historical significance. Ms. Tinker stated that the recommendation should be distributed to the City Manager and request him to send it anyone else that might be involved in the future. Ms. Hill concurred with Ms. Tinker in that City Staff should be notified of the Commission's recommendation and understand what the recommendation is stating for future property donations. Ms. Macon stated that the recommendation should be also forwarded to Mr. Tom Utter, Director of Development Services, and Brandol Harvey, Planning Director. 1✓ Landmark Commission Meeting August 27, 1992 Page 5 Ms. Lakhani suggested that when the recommendation is distributed to City Staff, it should be noted that the house may not be known by its common name in the future. After all comments were received, Mr. Shelly recommended that a disclaimer be placed on any report to the City stating that the final determination of the name to be placed on historical markers, signs,and brochures will be determined and approved by the Texas Historical Commission and not the City of Corpus Christi. Ms. Tinker asked if there was a standard contract form that could be incorporated with the disclaimer statement and Ms. Macon responded each contract was different. Ms. Tinker stated the problem with the disclaimer not being in some form of record is that if current leadership is not in place, it could possibly get lost. The memorandum should be circulated at least every three (3) years if it is not in some permanent record. Ms. Hill asked what action should be taken and Ms. Tinker responded that a motion was not needed because it was a committee recommendation. Ms. Hill asked how could the recommendation be placed in a permanent form and it was answered that a memorandum stating the Landmark Commission's guidelines on naming donated property should be prepared and distributed to City Staff. After all comments and discussion concluded, Staff was directed to bring back a draft of the Committee 's recommendation for guidelines on naming historical designated structures to the September meeting. Status Report On Response to Community Development 's Advertisement For Non-Profits: Ms. Macon stated approximately one month ago, several commissioners met with Mr. Kelly Elizondo, Director of Community, to discuss an advertisement placed in the paper for non-profits to become sponsors for rehabilitations and restoration of properties in danger of being demolished. Ms. Macon stated since that meeting, she spoke with Mr. Gorham, Assistant to Mr. Elizondo, and was told that the department received responses from four (4) non-profit organizations. At this time, the project is in preliminary stages --no action has been taken. Ms. Macon stated she would keep the Commission updated as more information becomes available. voif Landmark Commission sting August 27, 1992 Page 6 Ms. Tinker referenced an August 1992 issue of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas Housing update; which is a community investment program for federal loan banks. Included in this issue was an announcement of the recipients of applications for Texas. The recipients were: American Federal Dallas Bank with the City of Harlingen, Bluebonnet Savings of Dallas of Permian Basin, American Savings of Bedford with Fort Worth, direct subsidy, First Federal Savings of Tyler with Habitat for Humanity, First Gibraltar of Irving with Habitat for Humanity, First Lakewood National Bank of Dallas with Habitat for Humanity, First Savings of Arlington with Habitat for Humanity of Fort Worth. Ms. Tinker stated there is a chapter of Habitat for Humanity in the City, and it might be possible that they are one of the four non-profits that responded. Ms. Tinker suggested that Staff contact the local Habitat for Humanity office to see if their program is large enough to integrate our goals in establishing the Community Investment Program for low cost affordable housing; which is what was discussed with Mr. Elizondo. Ms. Tinker added that the specific areas discussed are located around South Bluff Park. The City needs a non-profit organization to serve as the vehicle in implementing the program. According to the guidelines, a certain percentage of the housing has to be rental properties -- not homeowners and; therefore, an ongoing entity is needed to oversee the rental properties. Ms. Tinker stated it was thought initially that the program would include single-family residential properties for private ownership, but it is for rental properties only. After Ms. Tinker's presentation, Staff was requested to contact the local Habitat for Humanity office to see if they expressed an interest and also contact Mr. Elizondo's office to find out the four (4) non-profit organizations that responded and report at the September meeting. Discuss Incorporating Preservation Plan Policies Into Staff's Proposed "HC" Ordinance; Ms. Macon, Staff Liaison, presented a preliminary draft of Staff's proposed "HC"Historical/Cultural ordinance. Ms. Macon stated before the "HC"ordinance could be written, the Preservation Plan had to be adopted and in place. The Plan offers direction through policy statements that are to be incorporated into the proposed "HC"ordinance. The Preservation Plan was presented and accepted by the Landmark Commission with final adoption by City Council in March 1992. The basic elements of the ordinance is what was remaining from Staff's proposed ordinance three (3) years ago, including the majority of the Landmark Commission's recommendations. Based on what remained from the previous ordinance, Staff incorporated the policy statements outlined in the Preservation Plan. Ms. Macon summarized the policy statements incorporated into the new ordinance: 4.+ rI Landmark Commission Meeting August 27, 1992 Page 7 Pages 2 & 3: The Landmark Commission was concerned with the types of "HC"designations that would be given to different properties. In the Preservation Plan, the types outlined were "Public open to public," "Public not open to public," "Private open to public," and "Private not open to public." Each "HC"designation address what was included in the Preservation Plan. A designation was also included for archeological findings as well as facade review. The ownership requirement agreed upon by the Landmark Commission and Staff will remain the same for the ordinance as in the Preservation Plan. Ms. Bowen asked for clarification on Figure 2 as to how the Landmark Commission will be able to restrict a private owner from doing anything to his property and Ms. Macon offered the following information. Ms. Macon stated that if the structure is privately owned, but opened to the public, the Landmark Commission will have some input as to what changes can be made to the grounds, building exterior and interior, facade abutting a viewable right-of-way, and any archeological findings and that the owner's consent is not required to initiate a zoning application for a "HC"designation. If the structure is private, but not opened to the public, owner's consent will be required to initiate a zoning application. Page 6: The zoning classifications are more clearly defined and what is permissible in each designation. Page 9: Section 28A-5 - Procedure For Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness. There were no changes to this section. Ms. Macon stated that two years ago, the Commission agreed to a reduction in the waiting period from one hundred-eighty days (180) to one hundred- twenty (120) days from the date of notice of disapproval on an application. Page 12: Section 28A-6 - Removal or Demolition Of Landmark, Including Permanent Landscaping. This section was added. A question was asked what was the difference between Section 28A-6 and Section 28A-7 and Ms. Macon stated Section 28A-6 covers designated landmarks with historical zoning and Section 28A-7 includes potential historical sites that are covered in the "Corpus Christi Historical Site Survey" and Section 28A-7 was taken out of the Preservation Plan policies. .i Landmark Commission lAe&ing August 27, 1992 Page 8 Page 14: Section 28A-10 - Public Safety Hazards and Emergency Security Measures. This section was added. Ms. Macon stated concern was voiced about the Landmark Commission not being notified of potential or designated properties that were being reviewed by other boards/commissions for possible rehabilitation or demolition. Section 28A-10 would afford the Landmark Commission the opportunity to address any board/commission and request an extension of thirty (30) days to review the property and try to find a workable solution in saving the property. If at the end of the thirty (30) day extension a solution could not be found, the demolition could occur. Page 15: Section 28A-11 - Preservation Plan. This section addresses the Preservation Plan policies that were adopted by City Council. The Preservation Plan is to be annually reviewed and updated. Page 15: Section 28A-12- Penalties. This section remained basically the same. Item B was added which states that if demolition of a "HC" Landmark occurs without a permit, then any permits (including permits allowing a curb cut) on the subject property will be denied for a period of twelve (12) months from and after the date of such Demolition. Item E - the amount of the fines cannot exceed $1,000 and not less than $75.00. The fines are consistent with the City's penalties that are on record. After Ms. Macon's presentation, the floor was opened for comments and discussion. Ms. Tinker addressed the Commission. Ms. Tinker distributed an attachment containing written comments with a copy of the August 1, 1989 City Council draft minutes regarding the Landmark Commission's zoning ordinance. The written comments are as follows: The Landmark Commission drafted an ordinance which enabled the City to designate landmarks with "HC"zoning on building facades and archeological sites without owner's consent by adding new designations. Three public hearings were held by the Planning Commission to review and take action on the ordinance. By the end of the third reading, the Planning Commission and City Staff had developed an alternate ordinance. Both versions of the proposed "HC" ordinances were presented to City Council. As described by Staff's Exhibit A included in the Council packet, there were four (4) areas at issue: it Landmark Commission Meeting August 27, 1992 Page 9 1) Designation without owner's consent; 2) The time-line connected with demolitions; 3) Where the section on Certificates of Appropriateness should be placed; and 4) Penalty for demolition without a permit or by neglect. It was made known to Council members that the Landmark Commission felt that the Staff/Planning Commission ordinance was of such poor quality that they should either leave the current (1974) ordinance on the books or approve the Landmark Commission's ordinance. The Council voted unanimously to adopt the Landmark Commission's proposal and requested the Landmark Commission, Planning Staff, and Legal to meet and iron out and clarify the issues of dispute. Three (3) meetings were held: August 3, 9, and 15, 1989. Members present were: Landmark Commission - Peggy Clark, Chairman, at that time, Bunny Tinker, Chairman of the Ordinance Committee, and Robert Kipp, Architect; Planning Commission: Tom Shirley; City Staff: Brandol Harvey, Planning Director, Ruben Perez, City Attorney, and Faryce Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison. The ordinance was placed in the hands of the City Legal Department to rework the definition of "demolition." In the interim, a Preservation Plan has been adopted by City Council as part of the City's Comprehensive Master Plan. The ordinance distributed in the Commission packets was the same ordinance that was presented to City Council on August 1, 1989, which was unanimously turned down by City Council. At this point, Ms. Tinker stated the ordinance presented at today's meeting does not allow for designation without owner's consent for facades and private buildings not open to the public; only public buildings or private buildings open to the public. After Ms. Tinker's comments were presented, she requested the following actions: MOTION NO. 1 IT WAS MOVED BY MS. TINKER AND SECONDED BY MS. LAKHANI THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION CHAIRMAN ATTACH A NOTE TO THE COPY OF THESE Landmark Commission 101Kting August 27, 1992 Page 10 MINUTES DISTRIBUTED TO THE CITY MANAGER, MAYOR, AND CITY COUNCIL DIRECTING THEM TO THE PAGE NUMBER CONTAINING THIS AGENDA ITEM AND REQUESTING THAT THEY ADVISE THE COMMISSION OF THEIR OPINION(S) CONCERNING THE POLICY OF AN ALLOWANCE FOR DESIGNATION OF FACADES AND PRIVATE BUILDINGS NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OWNER 'S CONSENT BEFORE THE COMMISSION BEGINS THE TIME AND EXPENSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. MOTION NO. 2 IT WAS MOVED BY MS. TINKER AND SECONDED BY MS. ATKINS THAT STAFF PRESENT, TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, A FULL, COMPLLIE, UNALTERED COPY OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPROVED BY THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, AND AS PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 1, 1989, INTEGRATING STAFF'S CURRENT PROPOSAL BY NOTING SECTIONS WHICH (MAY) HAVE BEEN DELETED AND NEW OR CHANGED PORTIONS UNDERLINED (OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED) RESULTING IN A SINGLE DOCUMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NEW COMMISSIONERS BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM TAKES PLACE. After the motions were read into record, the floor was opened for discussion. Ms. Hill asked for clarification as to which ordinance Ms. Tinker's written comments referenced and Ms. Tinker responded that the comments addressed the ordinance distributed in the August 27, 1992 packets. Ms. Atkins asked if the ordinance requiring owner's consent was the Landmark Commission's proposal presented in 1989 and Ms. Tinker answered no, the ordinance requiring owner's consent was Staff/Planning Commission's proposal. Ms. Tinker continued that in 1989, two separate ordinances were presented to City Council -- the Planning Commission and Staff stated that the owner's consent was required and the Landmark Commission's ordinance stated that for "facade only,"which is the front of the structure that is viewable from the street right-of-way, and archeological sites could be designated without owner's consent. 4119 �► Landmark Commission Meeting August 27, 1992 Page 11 Ms. Macon stated that approximately one year ago, the Landmark Commission undertook the task of developing a new Preservation Plan. At that time, Staff emphasized repeatedly that whatever was placed in the Preservation Plan policies would be serve as a directive in writing the "HC"ordinance. It was also discussed, in great lengths, if owner's consent should be or should not be required. The Landmark Commission agreed and accepted the policy statements stating owner's consent should be required for certain properties; and based on the policy statements, the ordinance was written accordingly. Ms. Macon stated she wanted to clarify one statement that Ms. Tinker made in reference to Figure 1 regarding archeological findings. Ms. Macon stated in all four (4) categories, archeological findings can be designated without owner's consent. The statement in Ms. Tinker's comments regarding this subject is invalid. Ms. Macon continued that as far as facades, the reason that the facades of structures public/open to the public and public/not open to the public did not have facade requirements is because the Commission felt it was possible to get the entire structure designated rather than just the facades, since owner's consent was not required. As far as owner's consent required for structures private/not open to the public, this was one of the concessions made. Ms. Hill asked when will the "HC" ordinance be presented to City Council for the first reading and it was answered that before the ordinance could be forwarded to Council, it had to be approved by the Landmark Commission first and then scheduled before the Planning Commission. Ms. Tinker stated the reason she wanted to request feedback from the Council is to avoid expending a great deal of time and energy in rehashing the ordinance if the support is not there for designating without owner's consent. After a lengthy discussion, Ms. Macon asked if the Commission really wanted to undertake the task of basically starting over in developing the "HC"ordinance. Ms. Macon continued that she was not requesting the Commission to approve anything today, but she wanted to present at least the first draft so that everyone can get re-oriented with it. Ms. Hill commented that in order to be fair to everyone, she felt the Commission should address the ordinance Staff presented at today's meeting. Ms. Tinker stated that basically, the ordinance presented today still does not address the problem of designation without owner's consent for all categories. Ms. Macon stated she wanted to make sure yel Landmark Commission meeting August 27, 1992 Page 12 she fully understood what Ms. Tinker wanted specifically in the ordinance, which is for the Landmark Commission to have complete facade control and designation of structures private not open to the public without owner's consent and Ms.Tinker affirmed the statement. Ms. Macon stated this is not what the Landmark Commission approved in the Preservation Plan. Ms. Macon stated that Staff developed a "HC"ordinance based on the Preservation Plan, that was approved and accepted by the Landmark Commission. Ms. Tinker stated that the problem is that since 1972, the Landmark Commission has not initiated designations on any property that was not owned by the City, except for one structure in which the owner contacted the City. Ms. Tinker continued that there can be no historic districts if owner's consent is required; but you will not be able to get 100 percent or even 50 percent of the owners to consent. Ms. Tinker continued that the Commission decided to make it easier on the property owner by designating just the facade of the structure; which meant the owner would be restricted on one or two sides of the structure rather than all four sides. Ms. Tinker added that the definition of "facade" in the ordinance should be redefined. Ms. Bowen stated that anytime the City designates a property without owner's consent, the property owner should be granted some type of tax incentive and Ms. Macon added there was a policy in the original Preservation Plan recommending tax incentives; but the City was not financially ready to make this commitment. Ms. Macon continued that it is hoped in the future this type of incentive can be offered. As the Preservation Plan is updated annually, this policy can be reconsidered. Ms. Hill stated that if the Landmark Commission felt so strongly about owner's consent, the chart in the Preservation Plan should not have been approved last year. After all comments and discussion ended the following actions were taken on Motions 1 and 2: MOTION NO. 1 IT WAS MOVED BY MS. LAKHANI AND SECONDED BY MS. WHITMIRE THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION TABLE, UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER MEETING, TAKING ACTION ON MOTION NO. 1, AS PRESENTED BY MS. TINKER, TO ALLOW THE COMMISSION TIME TO it Landmark Commission Meeting August 27, 1992 Page 13 REVIEW STAFF'S PROPOSED "HC" ORDINANCE PRESENTED AT TODAY 'S MEETING. MOTION PASSED. MOTION NO. 2 A question was asked if the old Landmark Commission's ordinance was needed to review and Ms. Tinker stated it would be easier to review and make a decision if both ordinances were available to compare. Ms. Hill stated that before the Commission takes action on the motion, she wanted to state that it was not fair to request Staff to go back and generate a new document by showing deletions by overstrikes and additions by underlining text. Even though the document is in the computer, this would be a time consuming task. Ms. Macon stated that Staff can make copies of the old ordinance for comparison. After all discussion was concluded, Ms. Tinker requested to amend Motion No. 2: IT MOVED BY MS. TINKER TO AMEND MOTION NO. 2 BY REQUESTING STAFF TO GIVE THE LANDMARK COMMISSION A COPY OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S ORDINANCE WHICH WAS PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 1, 1989. MOTION PASSED. Ms. Tinker requested Staff to attach the draft copy of "Page 17 of the City Council Minutes dated August 1, 1989" to the Landmark Commission's permanent minutes for August 27, 1992. Update On RFP Submittal For Phase II-A of Site Survey: Ms. Macon stated that thirty-seven (37) RFPs were mailed to preservation consultants. The deadline submittal for response is Friday, September 11, 1992. Once the bids are received and opened, the proposals will be presented at the September meeting. Landmark Commission Ivting August 27, 1992 Page 14 CLG Conference - Brownsville. Texas: Ms. Macon stated two commissioners and one staff person are budgeted to attend the CLG conference. The conference is scheduled October 28-30, 1992. Mr. Goodman requested Staff to get a confirmation of what commissioners would be attending so that travel arrangements can be made. After a brief discussion, Ms. Tinker, stated she would attend, Ms. Atkins, and Ms. Hill stated they might be able to attend, but they would call Staff to confirm it. Ms. Tinker stated approximately two or three years ago, the Commission contacted the Board of Directors at the Botanical Gardens because of an important Indian burial ground that was found on their property. Ms. Tinker continued that the Botanical Society is relocating to another site further down the Oso. Ms. Tinker asked if the new owners should be contacted to see what will happen to the burial site. After a brief discussion, Staff was requested to find out the ownership and the future intent for the Indian burial ground site. Ms. Tinker stated she attended her first Heart of Corpus Christi meeting as the official liaison. The Heart will sponsor their "Christmas in September" fund raiser for Harbor Lights on Friday, September 18, 1992, from 7 p.m. to 12 midnight at the Bar-B-Que Man Restaurant. Ms. Tinker stated if any members were interested in attending, she was selling tickets. Ms. Tinker informed the Commission that in the Heart's minutes, there was an interesting excerpt from a speech given by Dusty Durrill at their luncheon meeting which stated that Mr. Durrill's organization would be applying for grant monies in order to renovate the 1914 County Courthouse. It was also stated in the minutes that Mr. Durrill would be happy to organize the program, but he would be needing donations of money to actually get it off the ground. The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.