Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 10/22/1992 our 411, MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 22, 1992 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edwin Goodman, Chairman Ms. Cynthia Hill-McKinney Ms. Pam Lakhani Mr. Govind Nadkarni Ms. Bunny Tinker MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Patricia Atkins Ms. Nancy Bowen Mr. James Catron Mr. Les Mabrey Ms. Alclair Pleasant Mr. Michael Shelly Mr. Donald Victory Mr. Joe Williams STAFF PRESENT: Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison Mr. Michael Gunning, Senior Planner Ms. 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 not present. ACTION ITEM(S)t Approval of September 24. 1992 Minutes. The minutes will be approved at the November meeting. Approval of Master Review Committee 's Recommendation On Location of Public Phone In Heritage Park: Mr. Dan Whitworth, Park Superintendent for Park and Recreation, addressed the Commission. Mr. Whitworth passed around photographs of the public telephone and its signage in the proposed location. Mr. Whitworth stated that Heritage Park consist of several historical houses that have been restored and they provide offices for several non-profit groups in the City. The Park complex has a tenants ' association. Mr. Whitworth continued that because of the increased activity in the park area, the need has come for a telephone that is easily accessible to the public. The proposed location for the phone is on the side wall of the courtyard adjacent to the restrooms. The directional sign is to be of similar design as SCANNED Landmark Commission Meeting October 22, 1992 Page 2 that of the restroom sign and will be placed immediately below the restroom sign, which is planned for relocation near the center entryway wall of the courtyard. The restroom and directional signs will be located on the exterior wall of the courtyard. Mr. Whitworth continued that normally a pay phone would not be allowed in this area, but because this location is the most unobtrusive and cannot be easily accessed at night, Southwestern Bell approved the location. Mr. Whitworth stated the phone would be the standard wall-mounted blue pay phone. After Mr. Whitworth's presentation, the question was asked by Ms. Hill if Southwestern Bell required TDDs and Mr. Whitworth responded no. Ms. Tinker asked if it was possible to build a shadow box around the phone and Mr. Whitworth answered he would check with Southwestern Bell to see if it was permissible and if so, he would let the Commission know at the November meeting when the Commission will approve the site plan. After all comments had been received, it was the consensus of members present to accept and approve the proposed location of the pay phone and directional sign as presented by Mr. Whitworth and recommended by the Master Review Committee. Due to the lack of a quorum, final action will be taken at the November meeting. Mr. Whitworth extended an invitation and passed out fliers to Commissioners and Staff to attend the Folklife Celebration. The celebration will start Saturday, November 7 through Sunday, November 8, 1992 in Heritage Park. DISCUSSION ITEM(S): Committee Report on "HC"Ordinance Review: Mr. Goodman requested Ms. Hill to report the outcome of the meetings with Staff. Ms. Hill referenced a summary sheet provided by Staff. Ms. Hill continued that the purpose of the committee meeting with Ms. Macon, Mr. Gunning, and Mr. Hart was to fine tune some of the references in the ordinance. There were some things that were repetitive and that could have been reworded more clearly. Ms. Hill continued that at the meeting Mr. Hart attended, he indicated that there wouldn't be a problem in making the changes. Ms. Hill suggested that the Landmark Commission have the opportunity to review the revised version of non-substantive changes that were requested other than the "owners' consent for facade review"issue. A great deal of progress was made and the outcome of the meetings was that the Landmark Commission has an ordinance that makes sense and is easier to understand. Ms. Hill continued also that another purpose of the meetings was to eliminate confusing terminology. As far as the issue on owners' consent, which was discussed at the last meeting, there was (10 Landmark CommissioMeeting October 22, 1992 Page 3 a lot of compromising by both City Staff and the Landmark Commission. Both groups were willing to work together to make some changes and concessions. The only item that was being discussed was what structures would the Landmark Commission be able to "HC"designate without owner's consent. At this point, Ms. Hill referenced Figure 1, Page 4 in the proposed ordinance. Ms. Hill continued that the Commission is requesting the right to "HC"designate facades of properties under the classifications of "public and private not opened to the public" and "public and private opened to the public" without owners'consent. Ms. Hill stated the Commission should keep in mind that this designation does not keep the property owner from ultimately doing what they want to do. The Commission can only request the owner to make changes to the facades to conform to the history of the area; but after the specified time frame, they can make whatever changes they wanted initially. The time frame for repair/maintenance is ninety (90) days and for demolition the time frame is one hundred eighty (180) days. Ms. Hill stated some cities have their ordinance where the Landmark Commission can designate without owners' consent and some do not. Ms. Hill continued that initially, the time frame gives the Commission time to work with the property owner if there is a conflict. Ms. Hill stated that after all revisions are made, the next step is to move forward with the ordinance and see if there is Staff support for the ordinance and move on to the next level; which is the Planning Commission, and finally letting Council decide on the ordinance. Mr. Gunning stated he had not discussed the ordinance with staff members or the Planning Director. Mr. Gunning stated he agreed with Ms. Hill that a full commission should have been here at today's meeting so that more input and discussion could take place rather than having to bring the ordinance back at a later date. With the amendment to the definition of"facade,"which was the recommendation submitted by Ms. Tinker, that would restrict the facade to only one view--that being the view from the public right-of-way, or in cases where the facade abuts a park, the park view also. Mr. Gunning asked if the Commission was ready to schedule a public hearing for the ordinance or place it as a discussion item for the November meeting. Mr. Goodman answered that he would like to get the discussion completed between today's meeting (October 22, 1992) and the November meeting so that the ordinance can be voted on at the November meeting. A question was asked if the revisions could be made to the ordinance and distributed to commission members in time to review before the next meeting and it was answered by Mr. Gunning that the revisions would be completed and the ordinance would be mailed to Commissioners by Thursday, November 12, 1992, or delivered on Friday, November 13, 1992. Landmark CommissioMeeting October 22, 1992 Page 4 Retort On Necessity of Signing Affidavit by Commission Members to Abstain From Voting On Agenda Item(s): Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison, addressed the Commission. Ms.Macon stated that at the September meeting, several Commissioners requested affidavits to sign and file with the City Secretary's office regarding possible conflict of interests. To that end, a copy of an affidavit disclosure statement, along with the ordinance that regulates conflicts of interest, were distributed in the packets. Ms. Macon continued that approximately two (2) years ago, City Council appointed an Ethics Commission to review established guidelines and criteria regarding rules of conduct for all council members, board members, and employees. As part of the Commission's task, Article V, Code of Ethics, was rewritten in its entirety, which included criteria defining "conflicts of interest." Ms. Macon continued that for those commissioners signing an affidavit, a brief statement should be included clarifying what the conflict of interest would be. Ms. Macon stated that Ms.Hill and Mr. Nadkarni both requested an affidavit. The question was asked by Ms. Hill if an affidavit had to be filed each time a commissioner wanted to abstain from voting on an agenda item and it was answered no, only if financial or legal interest were involved. At this point, Mr. Gunning explained that he was not sure how the affidavits would apply to the Landmark Commission, but basically they are available for members who meet the definition for conflict of interest whether it is from a legal or financial standpoint. Mr. Gunning stated as an example if an agenda item appears controversial or may appear as a conflict of interest because someone addresses the Commission that is a personal friend, an affidavit may not be needed, an abstention vote will serve the same purpose. Mr. Gunning continued that an affidavit is to be signed by commission members when one or more of the reasons stated in the Code of Ordinance apply. If an agenda item is scheduled and a Commissioner feels that he/she should not vote, that Commissioner has the choice of abstaining. At this point, Mr. Gunning introduced Mr. Norbert Hart, Assistant City Attorney, to the Landmark Commission. Mr. Gunning stated that Mr. Hart is Legal Staff support for the Planning Department, Planning Commission, and the Landmark Commission. Report On Meeting With Habitat Representatives Concerning Acquiring and Restoring Housing of Historical Value For Clients: Ms. Macon stated she did not meet with representatives of the local Habitat Office. A mutual meeting date could not be scheduled before today's meeting. Ms. Macon continued that a committee should be appointed to meet with the Habitat officials to discuss the housing program. After a brief discussion, Mr. Goodman appointed Landmark Commissioners Michael Shelly, Donald Victory, Nancy Bowen, and Faryce Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison, as the committee to meet with representatives of the Habitat Office. Staff will schedule a meeting and inform Commissioners of the meeting date and time. Mr. Gunning asked Landmark CommissioMeeting October 22, 1992 Page 5 what was the function of this committee and Ms. Macon responded that there is a federal program entitled "CHORE," proposed out of Community Development, regarding non-profit organizations restoring/repairing houses in targeted neighborhoods as rental properties for low income clients. The local Habitat office has not been approached to be a part of the program, and the Commission felt this would be a great opportunity to meet with them to see if there is an interest in finding homes from the site survey. Mr. Gunning suggested that a staff member from Community Development attend the meeting to answer any questions that may come up. Report On Status of Jim Belanger's House Located On Mestina Street Regarding Disapproval of House Relocation Due To Non-payment of Taxes; Ms. Macon stated she went to the Tax Appraisal District office and obtained a computer printout of Mr. Belanger's account for the subject property located at 1623 Mestina. According to the computer printout, there is an outstanding balance for back taxes totaling $420.66 and there is a provision that a structure cannot be removed from its premise if there are outstanding taxes due on the property. Ms. Macon continued that according to the printout, the assessed value of the property is $11,300. Ms. Macon stated that staff in the Appraisal Office could not provide any additional information, but they did provide the name of the law firm representing the County who would be able to provide more information on the next step that should be taken. After Staff's report, discussion followed. Ms. Hill asked how did the Landmark Commission get involved with the Belanger property and Ms. Tinker explained that approximately one and one-half years ago, Mr. James (Jim) Belanger contacted her regarding the City wanting to demolish his house. Mr. Belanger had received several letters from Neighborhood Improvement requesting that the house be repaired, bringing it up to City Code, or the house would be demolished. At that time, several commissioners toured the house and were favorably inclined to recommend that the City accept the house. Ms. Tinker continued that at that time, Mr. Belanger was not willing to donate the structure. The current situation is that Mr. Belanger has a buyer for the house, but it can't be moved from its present location because of the taxes owed. Ms. Macon added that she has not contacted the attorney because she really is not sure what the Landmark Commission can do at this point. After all comments and discussion were received, no action was taken. Ms. Hill asked why didn't Mr. Belanger sell the house and pay the taxes owed -- that would be a logical solution. Ms. Macon stated that her suggestion seemed logical, but she did not know all of the legalities involved. Ms. Macon asked if any commissioner would be interested in contacting the County's attorney and Ms. Hill stated she would contact the law firm and report at the November meeting. 161110 IMO Landmark CommissioMeeting October 22, 1992 Page 6 Appoint Members to Subcommittees: The following members were appointed to the subcommittees for the term year of 1992 - 1993: Awards- Pat Atkins, Chair Nancy Bowen Alclair Pleasant Master Review- Bunny Tinker,Chair Les Mabrey Govind Nadkarni Joe Williams, Advisory Ordinance - Cynthia Hill-McKinney, Chair Pam Lakhani Bunny Tinker Research - Michael Shelly, Chair Nancy Bowen Donald Victory Historical Site Survey- Bunny Tinker,Chair James Catron Pam Lakhani Joe Williams, Advisory Mr. Goodman added that he and Ms. Macon were available to work with any of the committees. At this point in the meeting, Mr. Goodman acknowledged receipt of a letter received from Adam Klager, who is interested in serving on the Landmark Commission. Mr. Klager is employed in the office of John Erickson, Appraisers. Mr. Klager will replace Ms. Mary Ellen Collins, who resigned effective at the September meeting. Mr. Goodman stated he would like to suggest that Staff review the possibility of reducing the number of commissioners serving on the Landmark Commission. Mr. Goodman continued that if the number is reduced, it may be easier to get a quorum at the meetings. Mr. Goodman stated it is very frustrating to come to meetings and nothing can be done because there is not enough people to transact the business scheduled. Ms. Hill asked what procedure would be followed in decreasing the number and Ms. Macon answered that part of the problem is that this Commission is certified by the State based on a fifteen (15) member commission. Competencies were based Landmark CommissioMeeting October 22, 1992 Page 7 on the total number of fifteen (15); and of the total, ten (10) are specific competencies and five (5) are regular members. Staff was requested to see what guidelines to follow in possibly having the number decreased and if it was allowed and report at the November meeting. Ms. Hill asked if there wasn't a policy on attendance at the meetings, and Ms. Macon answered that about two years ago under the leadership of Peggy Clark, the City Secretary's office introduced a new directive to all City boards, commissions, and committees regarding absenteeism. The directive stated that each board, commission, or committee had the authority to establish their own policy in deciding whether an absence would be excused or unexcused. Originally, the policy was that a member of any board could not miss more than 25% of the meetings scheduled or a member would be counted absent or tary if they missed were more than 50% of the scheduled agenda items. If a member missed more than the 25% allowed, their term was automatically terminated, but that policy has been replaced with the "Excused Absence Policy." Staff was requested to write a letter to commission members requesting their attendance at the monthly meetings and how importance their attendance is in getting projects accomplished. Mr. Goodman requested to see the letter in draft before it is distributed to the membership. Select Meeting Dates For November and December Meetings. Mr. Goodman stated that the Landmark Commission's regular meeting date for November falls on the Thanksgiving Holiday and the December meeting date falls during the Christmas Holidays; therefore, alternate dates should be selected for both meetings. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of members present that the November meeting date be changed to November 19, 1992 and the December meeting canceled. Ms. Tinker informed the Commission that the Nueces County Historical Society has commissioned an adaptive reuse study for the 1914 Nueces County Courthouse. Ms. Tinker also referenced an article contained in the National Trust Preservation News, which contained an article on a historic district located in downtown Dallas. The district was made of small shotgun houses. "Set Sail For Downtown" 10th Annual Downtown Revitalization Conference will be held in Corpus Christi from November 4-6, 1992. The conference is • sponsored by the Texas Historical Commission and the Texas Downtown Association. Ms. Tinker stated it would be nice if a commissioner could attend the conference since it is here in the city and it would be beneficial. 110 4110 Landmark Commission Meeting October 22, 1992 Page 8 Ms. Tinker requested Staff to obtain a copy of the Affordable Housing Updates as referenced in the Fall 1992 CLG Newsletter, on page 3. The report is a collection of stories of low and moderate income citizens, who were pushed out of the housing market. It includes a set of recommendations for reducing barriers to affordable housing. The meeting was unofficially adjourned at 6 p.m.