Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 11/19/1992 P zl_ lir Ifori MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOVEMBER 19, 1992 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edwin Goodman, Chairman Ms. Patricia Atkins Mr. Joe Dove Ms. Cynthia Hill-McKinney Mr. Adam Klager Ms. Pam Lakhani Mr. Les Mabrey Ms. Alclair Pleasant Ms. Bunny Tinker Mr. Donald Victory Ms. Mary Whitmire MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Nancy Bowen Mr. James Catron Mr. Govind Nadkarni Mr. Michael Shelly Mr. Joe Williams, Advisory Member 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 4:35 p.m. by Mr. Edwin Goodman, Chairman. The roll was called and a quorum was present. Mr. Joe Dove and Mr. Adam Klager were introduced to Commissioners and welcomed to their first Landmark Commission meeting. Mr. Dove is a CPA with the firm of Dove, Thompson, and Company and Mr. Klager is a real estate appraiser with John Erickson Appraisers. For benefit of the new commissioners, Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison, provided background information regarding the Landmark Commission, its function, and current projects undertaken: 1) Ms. Macon continued that one of the items the Commission is reviewing today is a draft "HC" ordinance. The proposed ordinance will allow more latitude in historical preservation/restoration of potential historical structures. Ms. Macon stated she hoped that each commissioner read the ordinance before today's meeting to be familiar with its content. 2) The Commission is working on a five-phase historical site survey. The survey is compiled of researched information on potential historical sites throughout the city. The SCANNED Landmark Commission Meliti.mg November 19, 1992 Page 2 Commission has completed Phases I and II of the site survey and the consultant for Phase II-A will begin work after the Thanksgiving Holiday. 3) The Awards Ceremony is hosted by the Landmark Commission and is a means by which individuals or organizations are honored whose projects have preserved or revitalized historic structures through restoration, renovation, adaptive reuse, or continued use. In addition, individuals or organizations are also honored that have created an awareness of local history and/or culture through sponsorship of projects or events, education programs, publications, films, or video productions. 4) The Master Review Committee is a subcommittee that is responsible for reviewing restoration plans of properties with the "HC" overlay zoning to ensure that the historical integrity of the structure is maintained. 5) Ms. Macon stated that Staff will be reviewing the possibility of a new funding source in early 1993 through a federal transportation program. More information on the program will be provided at a later date. ACTION ITEM(S) Approval of Minutes - September 24, 1992 and October 22. 1992: The minutes for September 24, 1992 and October 22, 1992 were approved as distributed. Approval of Site Plan Location For Public Phone In Heritage Park: Mr. Dan Whitworth, Superintendent of Parks, addressed the Commission. Mr. Whitworth passed out a sketch of the design plan of the phone and case that will be mounted on the exterior wall of the courtyard in Heritage Park. Mr. Whitworth continued that as he indicated at the October meeting, he did not know if Southwestern Bell would mount the phone without their standard case, but if they will mount the phone without it, the design presented will be adapted to include some side walls to match the existing wood work. (At this point in the meeting, for benefit of the new commissioners, Ms. Macon explained that a public telephone was being installed in Heritage Park and the Commission's input and participation were requested because of the "HC" zoning for Heritage Park.) Mr. Whitworth added that due to the increase in tourist traffic in the area, there has been a need to have a public telephone available. Mr. Whitworth continued that the phone will be placed in the courtyard area; which is the only new construction added to the park. The placement of the phone will be in an area where it faces the courtyard itself so that it will not take away from the ambience of any areas outside the courtyard. Mr. Whitworth passed around several photographs for review. The first photograph showed the Landmark Commissiorlgeting111110 November 19, 1992 Page 3 approximate location of the informational signs indicating the restrooms and telephone. The second photograph showed the smaller wall where the telephone will be located. Mr. Mabrey asked if Southwestern Bell would be providing the phone at no cost to the city and Mr. Whitworth answered yes. After all comments and discussion ended, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. HILL AND SECONDED BY MS. TINKER THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVE THE PLAN AND SKETCH DESIGN FOR MOUNTING A PUBLIC TELEPHONE IN HERITAGE PARK ON THE EXTERIOR WALL OF THE COURTYARD WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF SOUTHWESTERN BELL DOES NOT APPROVE MOUNTING THE PHONE WITHOUT THEIR STANDARD BOX, THE CITY WILL BUILD A SHADOW BOX TO PLACE AROUND THE PHONE THAT WILL MATCH EXISTING WOOD WORK. MOTION PASSED. Mr. Whitworth indicated that Southwestern Bell has given approval of the City building a shadow box around the phone. Mr. Whitworth added that it would be nicer and easier to install the shadow box if the telephone was mounted without the standard casing. Approval of "HC" Ordinance: Mr. Goodman asked if there were any questions or discussion regarding the ordinance before the Commission took action and Ms. Tinker asked Staff to explain the difference between the ordinance that was included in the packets and the one distributed at today's meeting (November 19). Ms. Macon stated that Staff made several grammatical corrections and changed some of the legal jargon. Ms. Macon stated that Ms. Hill called her and pointed out several word items that should be clarified. The changes made were: Page 1 - First indented paragraph of the ordinance, Legal Staff added the phrase "providing for severance and publication" to end of the statement. Page 4, Definition "HC-F" - The ordinance was changed to read ". . .designate the facade of any structure" and the old ordinance read ". . .designate the facade of any structure open to the public." Page 5 - Figure 1: Level of Restrictions Which Are Appropriate - The caption for column six was changed to read "For Facade" and the wording "Abutting Viewable Right-Of-Way View" was deleted. After presenting the changes, Ms. Macon stated that if the ordinance was passed, the Landmark Commission will have the opportunity to "HC" zone structures for facades only without owner's consent. Landmark Commission Meng November 19, 1992 Page 4 Owner' s consent will not be required to apply for a zoning change. The existing "HC" ordinance requires owner's consent. Ms. Hill added that on page 3, "HC-IV" the sentence should read . . .private structure not open to the public as a Landmark." The sentence reads "open not to the public. . . " Mr. Klager stated that the ordinance seems equivalent of a "taking" by the Commission being able to control the facade of a building without owner's consent and it seems there would be some unconstitutional issues involved. Ms. Hill stated that originally, this was one of her concerns regarding the Commission having the authority to initiate a zoning change without the owner's consent, but the ordinance does not allow a "taking." There is no constitutional infirmity involved or the City's Legal Staff would not have endorsed the ordinance. The Commission will not permanently change the zoning with this ordinance. The ordinance will allow the Commission to initially request "HC" designation for facade only of a structure without owner's consent, which is the front of the building, and if the owner does not want to comply with the designation, there is a process by which the owner can go through. Ms. Macon went on to explain that if the property owner wanted to make changes to the facade of his/her structure, the application would be reviewed by the Landmark Commission. If the Commission does not agree with the proposed changes, the Landmark Commission could delay the property owner for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days. If at the end of the 120 days an agreement could not be reached, the property owner would be able to do whatever the initial plans were for the structure. Ms. Tinker stated, as a point of information, that a designation could be permanent and still not be considered as a "taking. " Mr. Klager stated that it seems the owner's rights are being taken by restricting the use of their property. Mr. Michael Gunning, City Planner, addressed the commission. Mr. Gunning stated that the Planning Department addresses the issue of "taking" often because of rezoning. Mr. Gunning continued that as the law states to date, as long as a property owner is allowed reasonable use of the property, it does not necessarily constitute a taking. With regard to the "HC" ordinance reviewed today, it favors the property owner. There are several safeguards in place. One of the things that Staff has done is to reword the definition of "facade." The definition was amended to apply to only one building side and, prior to that, it applied to any side viewable from a street right-of-way. City Staff is willing to support initiation of "HC" zoning for facade only without owner's consent. Once the application has been initiated, there will be a public hearing process before the Planning Commission after which they will make their recommendation to City Council . If the subject property owner is in opposition to the "HC" zoning change, seven (7) votes are required by City Council to Landmark Commissionheeting November 19, 1992 Page 5 approve the request. The property owner will not be restricted. Ms. Macon added that the "HC" zoning designation is an overlay zoning and the underlying zoning will not change. Ms. Macon emphasized that the property owner does not lose the usage of the property, future rehabilitation of the front of the property is reviewed. Mr. Klager asked how does the new ordinance replace the existing "HC" zoning classification or zoning and Ms. Macon answered that the current ordinance in place has only one category which basically states that "HC" zoning for the exterior of the structure and owner's consent is required. Because of the way the current ordinance is written, the Landmark Commission has been limited in which structures can be designated. Mr. Mabrey asked what other cities have this type of proposed "HC" ordinance and Ms. Macon answered that the Cities of San Antonio, Forth Worth, Dallas, El Paso, and Austin. After all comments and discussion concluded, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. LAKHANI AND SECONDED BY MS. HILL THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVE THE PROPOSED "HC" ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF AND FORWARD IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED. Mr. Gunning stated that Staff will try to schedule the "HC" ordinance as a discussion agenda item at the next available Planning Commission public meeting. The Landmark Commission will be informed of the public hearing date once it is confirmed. Ms. Tinker asked if any feedback was received on the Preservation Plan at the Planning Commission level and Mr. Gunning answered that the plan did not receive any feedback from the Planning Commission, but feedback was received from City Council with regard to the policy on "tax abatement" and the sixty-six (66) properties listed on the inventory analysis. DISCUSSION ITEM(S): Report On Tax Information Regarding Mr. Jim Belanger's Property - 1623 Mestina: Mr. Goodman stated that at the October meeting, the Commission was informed that Mr. Belanger had a buyer for the house and it was to be relocated, but because of back property taxes owed, the house could not be moved from its current location. Ms. Macon stated she think the sale of the house has been canceled because of the entanglements involved with the back taxes. Ms. Hill apologized for not contacting Mr. Shelly requesting him to conduct a title search on Mr. Belanger's property. Ms. Hill Landmark Commission Mevng November 19, 1992 Page 6 property, but the title search can still be conducted and filed on record and, if and when a buyer is found, the title search will already be completed. Ms. Hill stated there is no reason why Mr. Belanger can't sell the property to pay the back taxes. Ms. Tinker stated that part of the question that should be answered was if there was any value to the improvement itself and, if so, what would that value be. Ms. Tinker asked that if Mr. Belanger was willing to donate the structure in order to save it would it be possible to obtain a release from the back property taxes owed in order to move the improvement and it was answered no. Ms. Tinker asked for clarification if the paving lien was the only thing outstanding and Ms. Hill answered that the assessed value of the improvement should be more than adequate to pay the back taxes since they are less than $400. Ms. Hill continued that even with the paving lien against the property, the perspective buyer could agree to assume to pay the lien by purchasing the house subject to the paving lien. Ms. Hill continued that the paving lien should not prohibit him from selling the property. Mr. Goodman stated it is his understanding that Mr. Belanger has been told that he could sell the house and, at the closing, the amount of back taxes could be deducted from the sale. Mr. Goodman continued he is still unsure what the problem is. Ms. Tinker added that in the past, Mr. Belanger has received demolition letters from Community Development and the Landmark Commission has been working with Community Development Staff to not issue the demolition order. Ms. Tinker continued that the last call she received was from a perspective buyer, who wanted to purchase the house and relocate it out of town. Ms. Macon stated that the next time Mr. Belanger has a buyer for the house, he should proceed with selling of the house and pay the back taxes out of the money received. Ms. Tinker added that it is still unclear as to how much the paving lien is against the house. Ms. Hill stated she will talk with Mr. Shelly about conducting a title search on the property and report at the January meeting. Report By Staff On Pros and Cons of Decreasing Number of Membership From Fifteen (15 to Twelve (12): Mr. Goodman stated that at the October meeting he requested Staff to research the feasibility of decreasing the number of members on the Landmark Commission and report at today's meeting. Mr. Goodman continued that he felt if the number of members on the commission were decreased, it might be easier to get a quorum for the meetings. Ms. Macon commented that Staff realizes that serving on a city board, commission, or committee is strictly a volunteer service. There are approximately fifty-six (56) different boards, commissions, or committees and they are served solely by citizens volunteering. Ms. Macon stated that the Landmark Commission has fifteen members, which is not considered a very high number. There are some boards with as many as fifty members. Ms. Macon continued the membership has always been fifteen (15) and she does not know the reason why; other than the fact that Landmark Commissiodleting November 19, 1992 Page 7 when the commission was established, it was to be a working commission. It was felt with more people involved, more things could be accomplished. Ms. Macon stated that during the past five (5) years, the number of members on the commission has taken on a new meaning since the City received its Certified Local Government (CLG) status from the Texas Historical Commission (THC). To retain the CLG status, certain competencies have to be filled, i .e. , architects, civil engineers, title searchers, real estate, historians, and general members. The membership consists of ten (10) members who fill specific competencies and give general memberships. Mr. Mabrey asked if it was required that the Commission meet monthly. Mr. Mabrey also asked if it was possible that an executive committee could meet monthly and take action on agenda items and present them to the full commission for ratification every other month. Ms. Macon responded that she did not know if that would be beneficial to the Landmark Commission since there would be ongoing projects that would require action, or if it would be allowed. Ms. Tinker added that once the "HC" ordinance is in place, the Commission would need to meet on a more timely basis than every sixty to ninety days. Mr. Mabrey asked if it would be possible, since the commission is required to have such a diverse membership, to reduce the number required for a quorum. Ms. Macon stated that a majority vote would still be needed or at least three-fourths (3/4) of the membership present for any action item. Mr. Gunning stated he was with the City prior to 1976 when the ordinance was created. The bylaws for the Landmark Commission, which are now incorporated into the City Code of Ordinances creating the Landmark Commission, require a quorum of nine members. Any proposed changes to decrease the number of members or the quorum would require an amendment to the Code of Ordinances. Mr. Gunning stated that at this point in time, the original number of fifteen members was based on the number of members the City of Austin has on its commission. It was also the consensus of the people involved in establishing the Landmark Commission that it be a working commission and additional members were needed to serve on various committees, i.e. awards, educational , and master review, etc. Since the City has received its CLG status, if the membership is reduced, it could jeopardize the certification and possible future funding. Ms. Tinker asked how many other boards or commissions were having problems in obtaining quorums at their meetings and Ms. Macon stated that the Landmark Commission was not the only city board that was experiencing a problem with attendance. Mr. Mabrey stated that he had been on several boards and committees whose members were polled by telephone on upcoming agenda items prior to the meeting, if they had indicated they would not be attending the meeting, and proxy votes were obtained prior to the meeting. Mr. Goodman asked Staff Landmark Commission Me#ng November 19, 1992 Page 8 if this procedure was allowed and Mr. Gunning stated he would follow-up with an opinion from the Legal Department and report at the January meeting. Mr. Gunning continued that he felt this procedure voting by proxy over the telephone was prohibited because of the open meetings law. Mr. Goodman stated that there has been a problem in getting a quorum for the last several meetings and it is counterproductive in trying to get things accomplished. As the commission moves forward on various action items, it will be very important to have members present. Report on CLG Conference: Ms. Macon stated she and Ms. Tinker attended the CLG conference in Brownsville, Texas and it was very informative. Ms. Macon continued that a new federal program was introduced at the conference that will be administered through the Texas Department of Transportation; whereby federal funds will be tunneled through historic preservation due to the termination of construction for new interstate highway systems. Once current highway systems are completed, there will be no new systems built; which will leave a surplus of federal funds to be expended. The program states that a percentage of these funds has to be used through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); which the City of Corpus Christi is a part of. The Landmark Commission would have to submit an application request outlining specific city projects that the funds will be utilized for. City Council approval is needed. Ms. Macon requested each commissioner to focus on a specific project that may be worthy of restoration. Ms. Macon continued that she and Mr. Goodman discussed the program and it was thought it would be better if the project selected was one that could be an expansion of a renovated area now in place. Ms. Macon cited as an example the reopening of the bluff tunnel as part of the Rotary Club's fountain renovation and the development of the vest- pocket park at the old library site. Ms. Macon went on to say that the project had to be related to transportation or pedestrian traffic. Ms. Macon continued that Mr. Goodman cited several examples that could be considered: Heritage Park area, Water Street, Lexington Floating Museum, and the railroad trestle in Blucherville Park. Ms. Tinker added the trolley car located near the old Tex Mex Railroad station would be a good project for the program. The Commission has been trying to get the trolley car rehabilitated for a long time. Ms. Tinker stated that the Winger Family owned a hotel that was located across the street from the railroad track and behind that location is the trolley car. The trolley car was purchased in the 1920s. Ms. Tinker stated that a family is currently living in the trolley car. Landmark Commissioeting November 19, 1992 Page 9 Ms. Hill asked how much money could the Commission apply for and Ms. Macon answered that she was not sure how much money the Commission could receive from the City's share, but the City's MPO section received into the millions. Mr. Goodman stated that this new funding source would be a great tool in which to get several projects going. Mr. Goodman added that more houses could be placed in the Heritage Park area and it would be nice to bring back the ferry boat water transportation service that provided transportation between the Texas State Aquarium and North Beach. The ferry boat project was done as a private venture and it was not very successful because it relied on the tourist market during the summer. The owners talked to representatives of the City and the Regional Transit Authority offering them the opportunity to purchase the project, but the project was later moved to Houston. Mr. Goodman stated that the ferry boat provided a needed service in transporting people from their hotels and restaurants to the tourist attractions on North Beach. Ms. Macon stated she will send a summary of the proposed program for commissioners to review during the holidays to become familiar with the program. Ms. Macon stressed that the Landmark Commission will be competing with other city projects for the MPO funds. Mr. Gunning suggested that the Commission invite Mr. David Seiler, City Traffic Engineer, to the January meeting to discuss the MPO program and the available funding. Mr. Seiler is serving as the interim MPO Coordinator and will be able to answer any questions the Commission might have regarding the program. Staff was requested to contact Mr. Seiler to see if he could attend the Commission's January meeting. Ms. Macon reported that she met with Ms. Loretta Shaw, a board member of the local Habitat office, regarding the Landmark Commission's ideas on rehabilitating houses listed on the historical site survey for potential home buyers in their program. Ms. Macon stated she was informed that the houses the organization has received thus far were donated. The group received $60,000 in CDBG funding from the City for rehabilitating the houses they already own. According to Ms. Shaw, they are interested in working with the Commission, but they have not received any houses that are located within any of the specific survey areas. Ms. Tinker informed commissioner members that lights have been installed around the Nueces County Courthouse and the grounds look wonderful. Ms. Tinker continued that fixtures were donated for the project. Ms. Tinker stated she would like for the Landmark Commission to write a letter of support to Mr. Durrill telling him the Commission concurs with what has been done to the grounds by installing the lights and how nice the courthouse looks. Ms. Tinker Landmark Commission MAImeng November 19, 1992 Page 10 went on to say that she would like for this item to be placed on the January agenda as an action item stating Mr. Durrill 's and the City's participation as a positive step. After some discussion, the following the action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. TINKER AND SECONDED BY MS. LAKHANI THAT IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT MR. DURRILL'S AND THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION BE STATED AS A POSITIVE MANNER FOR LIGHTING THE NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE BE PLACED AS AN ACTION AGENDA ITEM FOR THE LANDMARK COMMISSION'S JANUARY 1993 MEETING. MOTION PASSED. Ms. Atkins apologized to the Landmark Commission for not being able to attend the CLG conference in Brownsville, Texas. The meeting was officially adjourned at 6 p.m. / Faryce GLOde-M;con, taff Liaison City of Corpus Landmark Commission (A:106MINS.NOV-LMC2) I ----..... ` w f w + - �r� 2 I 3l I, bsli +,nJ4 its av zt 1— ti z v S