Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 09/24/1992 MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEPTEMBER 24, 1992 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edwin Goodman, Chairman Ms. Nancy Bowen Mr. James Catron Ms. Cindy Hill-McKinney Mr. Govind Nadkarni Mr. Michael Shelly Ms. Bunny Tinker Ms. Mary Whitmire Mr. Joe Williams MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Patricia Atkins Ms. Pam Lakhani Mr. Les Mabrey Ms. Alclair Pleasant Mr. Donald Victory STAFF PRESENT: Faryce Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison Michael Gunning, Senior Planner Linda Williams, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 4:40 p.m. by Mr. Edwin Goodman, Chairman. The roll was called and a quorum was present. ACTION ITEM(S): Approval of August 19. 1992 and August 27. 1992 Minutes: The August 19, 1992 minutes were approved as distributed. The August 27, 1992 minutes were approved with the following corrections: Page 6 - First paragraph, last sentence: "Ms. Tinker stated it was thought initially that the program would include single-family residential properties for . . . rental properties only." Last part of sentence should read "but the program requires a percentage of the properties to be for rental." Page 8 - Third paragraph, first sentence: "At this point, Ms. Tinker . . . presented. . . public. The word "presented" was deleted and the phrase "passed out" was added. SCANNED Landmark Commissic teeting September 24, 1992 Page 2 Page 10: Motion No. 3, which was part of Ms. Tinker's written comments, was omitted and should be included in the minutes. The motion read as follows: MOVED THAT IT BE REQUESTED BY THIS COMMISSION THAT THE CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR BE PRESENT DURING THAT PORTION OF THE MEETING OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION AT WHICH A DISCUSSION OF THE STAFF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE IS AN AGENDA ITEM, AND THAT THE DATE OF THIS MEETING BE SCHEDULED AF1hR RECEIVING A RESPONSE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AS REFERRED TO IN MOTION NO. 1. No action was taken on the motion. Approval of RFP Received and Recommendation of Accepting Bid From Consultant for Phase II-A of the Site Survey: Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison, stated that on August 3, 1992, thirty-seven (37) RFPs were sent out to prospective preservation consultants. One response was received by the requested deadline. Ms. Sally S. Victor's bid proposal was received in the amount of $6,270.00 to perform Phase II-A of the survey. Ms. Macon continued that a response was also received from the consultant firm of Hardy, Heck, & Moore stating they would not be submitting a proposal for this phase. Ms. Macon stated Ms. Victor's bid came in much lower than the amount of funding allocated for the project. Ms. Macon continued she and Mr. Goodman discussed the possibility of redirecting some of the funding for future phases of the site survey. At this point, Ms. Tinker asked if Phase II-A concluded the actual survey of the city and Mr. Goodman answered no, and the areas to be surveyed in this phase are Hillcrest/Northside, Longview/Up River Road, Oak Park, North Morgan Avenue and Port Avenue. Ms. Macon added that Ms. Victor's proposal met the specifications as outlined in the RFP. After all comments were received, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. TINKER AND SECONDED BY MS. BOWEN THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE BID SUBMITTED BY SALLY S. VICTOR TO COMPLETE PHASE II-A OF THE SITE SURVEY AS SUBMITTED DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 1992. MOTION PASSED. Landmark CommissiAsti ing September 24, 1992 Page 3 DISCUSSION ITEM(S): At this point in the meeting, Mr. Goodman changed the order of the agenda to allow Mr. Dusty Durrill to present an update on the restoration of the 1914 Nueces County Courthouse. Mr. Durrill stated he wanted to ensure that everyone stay informed of what was happening at this stage of the project. Mr. Durrill continued that one of the major problems regarding the courthouse was what to do with it. Mr. Durrill continued that the first course of action taken was to obtain ownership of the building, and this task has been accomplished. Mr. Durrill continued that there are outstanding liens and taxes levied against the building and it is possible that the first lien out of resolution trust can happen within the next six months. The taxes cannot be forgiven or rescinded. The group will apply for a tax exemption as a non- profit. At this point, the group does not have the money to pay the taxes. Mr. Durrill continued all monies placed in the building have been through donations. Overall, the building has been determined to be solid. There were problems with the brick veneer falling off the exterior of the building, but that problem has been eliminated. Mr. Durrill stated the group's position at this point is to secure the building. The covers of the building will be placed back on, the grounds cleaned, and lighting will be added to the building. Mr. Durrill continued that with the Fire Department moving into to its new quarters across the street should also help in providing security for the building. The annex portion of the building is to be restored and used for rental opportunities. By providing rental spaces, this will help offset costs. Mr. Durrill stated the action that prompted his addressing the Landmark Commission was that letters were sent to various taxing entities stating that a reuse study for the building was being initiated. Mr. Durrill continued that this action appears to be a divisive way to cause unrest between the various historical groups involved. Mr. Durrill added these types of devices are counter productive and there should be unity between the historical groups in saving the building. Before a reuse study is done, it should not noted that the building has a 1931 addition to the rear of the structure; which has approximately 20,000square feet, and it tilts toward the freeway. This portion of the building does not have a good base and most likely will not be included in the long-range planning for the building. The total square footage of the structure is 80,000. Permission will be sought from the Texas Historical Commission (THC) to remove the 20,000 square foot annex before a long- range planning use can be made for the building; which will leave 60,000 • Landmark Commissio�Vleeting September 24. 1992 Page 4 square feet to work with. Mr. Durrill continued he does not believe a reuse study is needed at this time until the group can find out if the 1931 annex can be removed. Mr. Durrill stated flood lights were donated by Whataburger. Inc. and will be placed around the building. After the lights are installed, placement of the fence will run from the freeway to the front of the structure, and connect at the corner of the annex over to the freeway. The fence will allow access to the annex for rental purposes. The main water line that services the entire building has been completely destroyed and all power plants have been removed and the interior of the building has been gutted out. Mr. Durrill continued that the interior of the building will not be addressed in this time frame. The main priority at this time is to clean up the debris from around the building and begin security measures until scaffolding can be obtained to start removing the brick and cornice work. This work can take a long time to complete. Mr. Durrill continued he did not want to place a time frame on the project because the work was being done by private enterprise and donations. When people are volunteering their time and services, it is hard to give a time deadline. Mr. Durrill stated the fence will be a green vinyl slats chainlink for the front and the back of the fence will be a regular six foot fence. A sprinkler system will be installed at the front of the building. Mr. Durrill went on to say that people cannot be allowed inside the building for tours at this time because the group does not have insurance. Once the structure is declared safe to enter and insurance is in place, it is possible that the tours can commence again. Mr. Durrill stated the restoration of the courthouse is a joint effort between the City, County, and private enterprise. There are no secrets or hidden agendas regarding what is happening with the project. Mr. Durrill continued any input or suggestions can be directed to him or to any member in the group. Mr. Durrill stated he knows the building can be saved. Mr. Dunill stated there are many things that can be done with the building, particularly as the land across the street from the structure is vacant and available. The Texas Highway Department owns the land, but the City has an agreement with them to maintain it. Mr. Durrill continued that if a promenade mall could be placed at that location, the entire area will open up many good things for that location. Because of its location, it would be the mainstay of the area and a moneymaking venture for tourism. Ms. Tinker asked if the property in question was privately owned and Mr. Durrill responded he was unsure if the City or the State owned the property. Mr. Durrill continued that if the image of the area can be changed, some things can begin happening and the building is the key to all of this. Mr. Durrill stated if he is going in the wrong direction, he would like to know. At the • Landmark Commissi0400.4eeting September 24, 1992 Page 5 conclusion of Mr. Durrill's presentation, the floor was opened for comments and questions. Mr. Williams, Landmark Commissioner, stated Mr. Durrill has done a good deal for the City and the Landmark Commission should support Mr. Durrill's efforts. Mr. Durrill added that the completion of the project would be an asset to the tourists industry for the city. Ms. Tinker asked how soon will nets be in place to catch falling debris and Mr. Durrill answered there are two problems the group is concerned with and one is a photographic survey which will cost approximately $15,000 to have done and the second one is to decide what material will replace the cornice work. Some of the things are falling off so slowly. The group's priorities at this point are to secure the grounds and the building. The cornice boards are held in place by steel rods. Ms. Tinker asked who was involved in Justice Building, Inc. and Mr. Durrill named several members: Alex Harris, Bill Bates, Marvin Warner, private law firm, Scott Turner, CPA, Terry Orf, Jim Rome, Bill Skrobarczyk, Matthieu Electric, Gentry Plumbing, and Berry Contracting. Mr. Durrill continued that people are available and willing to help, but it has not been coordinated yet. In an effort to buy time, the courthouse has been removed from the City Council's agenda to be demolished. Mr. Goodman expressed thanks to Mr. Durrill for attending today's meeting and giving an update on the progress of the courthouse. Mr. Goodman emphasized again that the Commission does endorse Mr. Durrill's efforts and if Commission members had questions or concerns, they should be directed to Mr. Durrill or to any member of Justice, Inc. Ms. Tinker informed Mr. Durrill that it is on record that the Landmark Commission does not object to removing the 1931 addition. Mr. Durrill commented that he wanted to go on record and state that there is not one person that has not worked hard on the project. Mr. Durrill continued that both Margaret Walberg and Anita Eisenhauer are dedicated to the project and Justice, Inc. is trying to get the message across that we are not turning them away, and they cannot be a part of the project. There is room and work enough for the historical community to be involved. Mr. Catron asked if the north end was Belden Street and does the City own some of that property where the old Park and Recreation Department was Landmark Commission 1eeting September 24, 1992 Page 6 located and Staff answered she was not sure if the property was city owned. Mr. Catron added that if the property was city owned, it could open the doors to many things happening. For the record, Ms. Cynthia Hill-McKinney stated she will abstain in voting on any agenda items pertaining to the 1914 County Courthouse. Staff will follow-up to see what procedures should be followed or any affidavits should be filed. Review "HC"Ordinance: Ms. Macon provided background information for the benefit of those commissioners that were not present at the August meeting. Ms. Macon stated at the August meeting, copies of Staff's proposed "HC"ordinance, along with the Landmark Commission's ordinance of 1989, were distributed. After Staffs presentation and a lengthy discussion, a motion was made and approved that the Landmark Commission table, until the October meeting, taking action on Staff's proposed "HC"ordinance to allow the Commission adequate time to review it. Ms. Macon continued the proposed "HC" ordinance incorporated policy statements contained in the Preservation Plan that was approved by the Landmark Commission, Planning Commission, and adopted by City Council in March 1992. Two items were included in the proposed "HC" ordinance that were of concern to the Landmark Commission --Staff retained the definition of "facade"and owner's consent is still required on private property under private ownership. At the August meeting, Ms. Tinker requested that the Landmark Commission be given the opportunity to review their 1989 ordinance in order to make a comparison with Staff's new ordinance. Ms. Macon concluded that Staff was ready to receive comments on the two ordinances. Mr. Goodman asked if the Preservation Plan was the document the Commission worked on last year and has since been approved and Staff's proposed "HC"ordinance ties in with the adopted plan and Ms. Macon answered yes. Mr. Goodman continued it was his feeling that the Commission should move forward with Staff's ordinance. Mr. Goodman asked if there were any amendments or additions the Legal Department should review and Ms. Macon responded that at this point, if the ordinance could be finalized at this level, Legal Staff would still need to review the ordinance. Legal staff would not change the policies of the ordinance, but maybe the legal jargon would be changed. Ms. Tinker asked if the Staff could meet with the Landmark Commission to review and discuss some line by line items in Staff's ordinance so that a lot of time will not be wasted at the meeting. Mr. Nadkarni concurred with Ms. Tinker's suggestion to meet with Staff to further discuss some of her concerns regarding Staffs proposed ordinance. Mr. Goodman expressed concern that if Ms. Tinker met with Staff, the rest of the Commission would not know what • Landmark Commissi9leeting1110 September 24, 1992 Page 7 had taken place. Mr. Nadkarni suggested establishing a special committee to meet with Staff and report back at the next meeting. Mr. Gunning stated Staff does not have a problem meeting with Ms. Tinker, but it would be helpful to have her comments in writing before the meeting is scheduled in order to expedite time. Mr. Goodman stated that he does not have a problem with Ms. Tinker meeting with Staff, but he is concerned with the delay and time wasted in trying to get things accomplished. Ms. Macon asked Ms. Tinker if one of her items of concern regarded requiring owner's consent for private ownership and Ms. Tinker responded no that is not what she is talking about. Ms. Tinker stated in terms of the "big issue,"that has not been discussed. Ms. Tinker continued that every member seated on the Commission should have an interest in preservation; which is one of the basic criteria for serving as a member. The ordinance proposed by Staff does not give the Commission the tools in which to do its job. The basic tools needed for the job are regulations and money. The City does not have the money and the Commission will not have the regulations. Ms. Tinker stated if the Commission approves this ordinance, she is not sure what the Commission feels can be accomplished. At the end of next year, the survey will be completed and basically it will end there. The City no longer has the money to keep accepting houses, buying land to expand Heritage Park, or maintaining them. Ms. Tinker continued she does not intend to keep rehashing the big issues, but it is not hard to change the Preservation Plan if the Landmark Commission or Staff wanted to adopt a good preservation "HC" ordinance. One page could be attached to the charts (Figures 5 and 6) to amend them in the Preservation Plan. Ms. Tinker continued she cannot believe that the Landmark Commission is willing to approve the ordinance as it is currently written. There will not be any structures to designate. Ms. Macon stated that under the proposed ordinance, the Commission would still be able to designate "public structures opened to the public" and "private buildings opened to the public," as well as archeological sites. Mr. Gunning stated he felt that between Staff's initial recommendation and what the Landmark Commission presented to Staff, the proposed ordinance was very close. There were major issues regarding owner's consent that still need to be resolved. Staff has gone back and reviewed the Preservation Plan, which this Commission approved and recommended approval to Council, and extracted policy statements in formulating the ordinance. If there are still problems, they should be resolved. After further discussion, it was agreed that Staff will meet with Ms. Tinker, Ms. Hill, and Mr. Nadkarni to discuss the proposed "HC" ordinance. Staff will schedule the meeting and inform Commission members of the meeting date and time. Landmark Commissic 1eeting September 24, 1992 Page 8 Guidelines For Naming of Donated Historical Properties to the City: Ms. Macon stated Staff was directed at the August meeting to draft a memorandum and a disclaimer statement for the Landmark Commission to review and approve. The memorandum and statement would be distributed to City officials and other entities that would be involved in accepting donated properties to the city. After a brief discussion of the guidelines and disclaimer statement, it was decided that the words "expressly"should be deleted from the disclaimer and the last sentence was reworded. Tinker stated the disclaimer should give the Landmark Commission some leeway if it was needed. After all comments had been received, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. GOODMAN AND SECONDED BY MS. TINKER THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE GUIDELINES AND DISCLAIMER AS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH THE NOTED CHANGES. THE WORDS "EXPRESSLY" WERE DELETED AND THE LAST SENTENCE WAS REWORDED TO READ "THE PROPERTY WILL BE NAMED AFTER THOROUGH RESEARCH HAS BEEN PERFORMED BY A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT." MOTION PASSED. Update On Non-profit Agencies Aonlving For Rehabilitation of Rental Properties: Ms. Macon stated she spoke with Chris Gorham of Community Development, and was told they have not received any more applications since the original four were submitted. The four non-profit agencies that responded to the public notice were the Corpus Christi Housing Authority, Nueces County Community Action Agency, Metro Ministries, and the Women's Shelter. Ms. Macon continued she was not able to contact a representative from the local Habitat office, but Ms. Tinker was also going to try to contact someone from their office. At this point, Ms. Macon asked Ms. Tinker if she was successful in contacting anyone and Ms. Tinker answered yes. Ms. Tinker stated she spoke with Wilson Calhoun of the local Habitat Office (888-5551) and they did not participate in the affordable housing program (HOME). Ms. Tinker continued that at the August meeting, she read a list of cities that received federal monies through the community investment program for federal loan banks through their local Habitat offices; which were handled out of the Dallas regional office. Mr. Calhoun is interested in meeting with the Landmark Commission to see if there are mutual areas of interest that can be pursued. Ms. Tinker stated Mr. Calhoun informed her that the local Habitat office received $60,000 in CDBG funding Landmark CommissidltAleeting 11111110 September 24, 1992 Page 9 with which to acquire housing. They do not have their minds fixed on any particular area. Mr. Calhoun was informed of the area that the Landmark Commission was interested in. Ms. Tinker stated she would like for Mr. Goodman, and a member from the Commission, along with Ms. Macon, to meet with Mr. Calhoun to discuss what our mutual interests might be. Ms. Tinker also suggested contacting the four non-profit agencies to see if they would be interested. Ms. Macon stated she did inform Mr. Gorham that the local Habitat organization would be a good prospect for the program. Mr. Gunning added that when the meeting is scheduled, someone from Community Development should be invited to answer any questions the groups may have. Mr. Goodman requested Ms. Macon to schedule a meeting and inform those members involved of the date, time, and place. Review and Comment on Reauest for Additional Information from the Texas Historical Commission Regarding Richard King National Registry Nomination: Mr. Goodman stated the Texas Historical Commission (THC) has forwarded the nomination for the Richard King House nomination to the Landmark Commission to receive additional information. The pages involved are from 14 to 19. Ms. Tinker was requested to complete the research to be submitted to THC, since she and Mr. Williams researched the original application. Ms. Tinker stated the information submitted was based on the architectural significance of the house rather than Mr. King himself. Ms. Tinker asked if her original comments submitted had been incorporated into the nomination and Ms. Macon stated some of the changes had been made. Ms. Macon continued she had called the THC office, but everyone was attending a conference and no one returned the call. Ms. Tinker stated that the additional information is basically about the life of Richard King and what he meant to the community. Ms. Tinker stated she has a difficult time seeing why they are not looking at the nomination as a person of significance rather than architectural significance. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. TINKER AND SECONDED BY MR. WILLIAMS THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVE STAFF RESUBMITTING THE RICHARD KING NOMINATION AS IT IS WRITTEN FROM PAGES 14 TO 19. MOTION PASSED. • Landmark Commissio'leeting September 24, 1992 Page 10 Confirmation Of Attendees to CLG Conference in Brownsville. Texas (October 27-30. 1992): Commissioners attending the conference will be Bunny Tinker, Pat Atkins, and Faryce Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison. Ms. Macon stated she will make the travel arrangements. The group will leave on Wednesday (October 28, 1992) instead of Tuesday (27th). A rental car will be provided and all arrangements will be finalized by Friday, October 23, 1992. Update On Indian Burial Grounds On Botanical Garden 's Pronerty: Ms. Macon stated she contacted Malcolm Matthews, Director of City Park and Recreation, and was told that the City does not own the property in question regarding the Indian burial grounds on the Garden 's property line. Mr. Dusty Durrill stated that they recently purchased three hundred seventy-four acres of the Botanical Garden 's site and the burial grounds are located at the southeast corner right up against the King Ranch fence. Mr. Durrill continued that according to the survey stake, the burial ground is located within five feet of the City's parkland area. Several weeks ago after a heavy rain, bones and skulls were left exposed. Ms. Tinker asked who surveyed the property and Mr. Durrill answered that the survey was done by Maverick Engineering and based on their survey, it placed the burial ground five feet from their property. ITEM(S) TO BE SCHEDULED: Ms. Tinker stated she received a call from Mr. Dela Garza who purchased one of the condemned houses that the Commission recently reviewed. Mr. Dela Garza has expressed interest in restoring old properties and has looked at the house on Mestina Street owned by Mr. Belanger. Mr. Belanger had given the house to someone who was going to move the house to Mathis, Texas, but that project did not work out. Mr. Dela Garza met with Mr. Belanger and offered him $4,000 for the house. Mr. Belanger owns the entire block from the Crosstown Freeway to Mexico Street. The story is that there are curb and sidewalk liens against the entire block. For benefit of new commission members, Ms. Tinker stated that Mr. Belanger has received numerous letters from Neighborhood Improvement to fix up or tear down the house. Mr. Belanger has offered to give the house away if that would save it and property taxes have not been paid. Mr. Dela Garza contacted Neighborhood Improvement and was told that they would not release an individual property. Ms. Tinker asked if the Commission could initiate an inquiry as to why the City will not all allow a prospective buyer purchase the Landmark Commissic�neeting September 24, 1992 Page 11 house and move it to another location. After a brief discussion, Staff was requested to contact the Neighborhood Improvement Department and report at the October meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. (A:106MINS.SEP-LMC2)