Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 01/28/1993 aa�� MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 28, 1993 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edwin Goodman, Chairman Ms. Patricia Atkins Ms. Nancy Bowen Mr. James Catron Mr. Joe Dove Mr. Adam Klager Ms. Pam Lakhani Mr. Govind Nadkarni Ms. Alclair Pleasant Mr. Michael Shelly Ms. Bunny Tinker Mr. Donald Victory MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Cynthia Hill-McKinney Mr. Leslie Mabrey 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. Goodman informed commissioners that today' s meeting was the last meeting for Ms. Bowen. Ms. Bowen submitted her letter of resignation, effective immediately. Mr. Goodman expressed thanks to Ms. Bowen for serving as a commissioner and wished her continued success. ACTION ITEM(S) : Approval of Minutes: The November 19, 1992 minutes were approved as distributed. Ms. Tinker requested that the amended design sketch showing placement of the shadow box over the telephone be attached to the minutes. Review of the Crossroads Shopping Center Letter: Mr. Goodman stated that last spring, the Landmark Commission received correspondence from Mr. Bill Brown regarding the Crossroads Shopping Center. The Crossroads Shopping Center was included on the initial site survey. Comprehensive research and documentation have not been performed on the area in which the shopping center is located. Mr. Goodman continued that the Commission briefly discussed the letter at the time of its receipt, but no action was taken. Mr. Goodman continued that since the request of removing the property from the survey has resurfaced, he spoke with Ms. Macon about the proper procedure to follow in removing the property from the survey and was told by Ms. SCANNED Landmark Commission Me,.,.,,,ng January 28, 1993 Page 2 Macon that the item had to be presented to the Commission and voted on whether the request would be approved. After Mr. Goodman' s comments, the floor was opened for discussion. Ms. Tinker stated that at least one of the houses located in the shopping center has historical significance. All of the houses were relocated to their present location. Ms. Tinker asked if that at this point, the only ramification for a structure being on the site survey was so that the Landmark Commission could be notified when a property owner applied for a demolition permit and it was answered yes. Ms. Tinker expressed that the Commission should not allow properties to be removed and placed back on the survey. There being no further comments or discussion, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. BOWEN AND SECONDED BY MR. SHELLY THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVE MR. BILL BROWN'S LETTER OF REQUEST TO REMOVE THE CROSSROADS SHOPPING CENTER FROM THE HISTORICAL SITE SURVEY. MOTION PASSED WITH MS. TINKER OPPOSING. Approval of Writing A Letter to Mr. Dusty Durrill and City: Mr. Goodman stated this item was discussed at the November 19, 1992 meeting and it was requested by Ms. Tinker that the Landmark Commission write a letter to Mr. Durrill and the City stating that the Commission concurs with the lighting improvements made to the 1914 County Courthouse. Mr. Goodman asked if a rough draft of the letter had been prepared and Ms. Macon responded that she needed approval from the Commission directing her to draft the letter. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. NADKARNI AND SECONDED BY MR. VICTORY THAT STAFF DRAFT A LETTER, FOR THE CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE, TO MR. DUSTY DURRILL AND CITY OFFICIALS STATING THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION CONCURS WITH THE LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO THE 1914 COUNTY COURTHOUSE. MOTION PASSED. Presentation of Pending Physical Condition Report of Structure Located at 210 Blucher Street: Mr. Goodman stated he had not seen the house, but Ms. Macon apprised him of the physical status of the house. According to Ms. Macon, the house was in great disrepair and the City is requesting the Landmark Commission to take action that will allow them to demolish the house. For more detailed information, the floor was turned over to Mr. Tom Utter, Director of Development Services. Mr. Utter expressed thanks to the Commission for giving him the opportunity to address the Commission. Mr. Utter stated that the correct address for the structure is 210 Carrizo instead of Blucher Street. Mr. Utter provided background information regarding the structure. The City received the house in Landmark Commissio eting January 28, 1993 Page 3 an unusual way. Mr. Utter continued that the house is located on the corner of Carrizo Street connecting to Blucher Park. The City received the house with the understanding that the people staying in the house could continue to live there as long they lived. The people are now deceased and the City has been leasing the house for apartment units. The house has severe problems and the City tried to find someone who would buy the house, move in it, and fix it up. Mr. Utter added that the house is listed on the Landmark Commission's site survey, but only in a peripheral manner. Mr. Utter continued that before the City tore anything down that might have the remotest possibility of being historically significant, it would be presented to the Landmark Commission before any action was taken. At this point, Mr. Utter introduced Carl Crull , Director of Engineering Services, who concluded the presentation. Before Mr. Crull began his presentation, Mr. Goodman added that the subject property is located on the Commission' s historical site survey and it was reviewed by the Commission and given a low priority rating. Mr. Crull stated the property came into the City' s possession in early 1980s, about the same time the City acquired the property for the central library. At that time, an attempt was made to incorporate the property into part of Blucher Park. The owner sold the property to the City with a life to stay in the structure. The structure consists of four apartments -- the owner lived in one of the units and has since passed away. After a second unit became vacant, the City's property management personnel did an assessment of what it would take to bring the two vacant apartments up to current City Code. The assessment showed that extensive rewiring was needed and also reworking of the gas heating system. The apartments were heated with the old standard open-flamed heaters; which are very dangerous. A considerable amount of money would be needed to renovate the apartments for rental . Staff worked with the remaining tenants in locating housing for them in appropriate areas of the city. Mr. Crull continued that at this time, the property is vacant. Bids were advertised to either demolish or move the structure. One bid was received for demolition. Mr. Crull continued that the problem with moving the building is its configuration. As depicted on the picture (photo was passed around for commissioners' view) , the structure is L-shaped and has two stories with a detached garage. The size of the house is such that if it were to be moved, it would have to be cut into two pieces and put back together, especially if it was moved outside of the Crosstown Interstate 37 loop area. The bridges prohibit moving two-story buildings underneath. Because of this situation, it limits where the structure can be relocated. Mr. Crull continued that Scott Johnson, a local architect, expressed interest in purchasing the structure and relocating it to a site within close proximity of its current location, but the property he was interested in was no longer available. Mr. Crull stated that at Landmark Commission Me‘wwng January 28, 1993 Page 4 this point, the City has exhausted all possible options in trying to save the building and would like to proceed with demolition of the structure. Mr. Crull continued that the City' s Property Management personnel are checking the property two to three times a week. Because the structure is vacant, vagrants are using it for shelter. The structure has been boarded up for safety reasons. There are some things in the building that are appropriate to retain in the City' s possession -- chandeliers, glass door knobs, and some other fixtures. These items will be placed in storage and will be reused on other projects. After Mr. Crull ' s presentation, the floor was opened for comments and questions. Ms. Tinker asked if there was an inventory card on the structure and Ms. Macon answered yes. Ms. Tinker also asked if City Staff knew who built the house and the year it was built since the information was not on the survey card and it was answered no. Mr. Utter stated he had coordinated this venture with the Outdoor Society, who are doing a outstanding job on Blucher Park. Mr. Utter continued that the Audubon Society was contacted to see if they were interested in using the structure as their headquarters and they declined. Mr. Utter continued that it is hoped that this tract of land will be added into Blucher Park. The Outdoor Society has contacted Staff regarding saving several of the trees that have been planted. Mr. Utter stated again that Staff wanted to bring this issue to the Commission to see if there were any strong objections to demolishing the structure, and if there were, Staff would have reconsidered demolishing the structure. Ms. Tinker stated it was wonderful that the City is keeping the hardware and other amenities from the house. Ms. Tinker asked if the City had done this with other structures and if there was a collection and Mr. Utter answered yes. Mr. Utter stated that when the Galvan House was restored, the City was able to match the hardware in the house with hardware that was retrieved from other structures that have been demolished. Ms. Tinker suggested that since the structure is listed on the historical site survey, she would like for Staff to take some pictures of the interior of the structure before it is demolished. After all comments had been received, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. LAKHANI AND SECONDED BY MS. BOWEN THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVE THE CITY'S REQUEST TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 210 CARRIZO STREET AND IS LISTED ON THE CITY'S HISTORICAL SITE SURVEY. MOTION PASSED. Landmark CommissionF "�eeting January 28, 1993 �+ 410 Page 5 Mr. Goodman expressed thanks to Mr. Utter and Mr. Crull for attending today' s meeting and discussing the issue of demolishing a structure listed on the site survey. DISCUSSION ITEM(S): Presentation of Available Federal Funds For Historical Preservation Projects Through the Department of Transportation and the City's MPO: Mr. David Seiler, City Traffic Engineer, addressed the Commission. Mr. Seiler presented a summary of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) . Mr. Seiler stated ISTEA is a new federal program that makes funding available nationwide to cities and states. Mr. Seiler continued that the local MPO and other agencies are still learning about the program. Under the historic preservation element, the rules are still being developed. The program was signed into law by President Bush in December 1991. The Act established a new vision for surface transportation in the United States and it replaced the Interstate Development Program and, at that time, the present system for providing funding to primary, secondary, and urban systems categories. Funding was almost exclusively related to building roadways. The new Surface Transportation Bill include the following programs: Interstate construction - primarily covers interstate maintenance ($8.16 billion) ; Interstate construction and maintenance - An additional ($17 million) ; Bridge construction ($16.1 billion); National Highway Systems, which is a select of primary streets throughout the state and some cities (including Corpus Christi) - ($21 billion) ; Surface Transportation - ($23.9 billion) , and Congestion and Air Quality which is a growing concern ($6 billion). All of the available funding is over a six-year period. Mr. Seiler continued that as the Act relates to the state of Texas, there is a whole gamut of projects that can be funded through ISTEA. The State of Texas has been tentatively allocated, over a ten-year period, Interstate construction - $136 million; NHS Mobility and trunk system - $906 million; Urban Mobility and Rehabilitation - $552 million, etc. Surface Transportation Program (SIP) is the key element and one key category is Transportation Enhancement - $365,700,000 over a ten-year period or $36 million per year. There has not been a certain allocation per year for the State Highway Department to administer those funds to the cities for applicable projects. Mr. Seiler read some of the activities that are defined by Federal law as "transportation enhancements: " o Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles; o Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites; o Scenic or historic highway programs; Landmark Commission Ming • January 28, 1993 Page 6 o Landscaping and other scenic beautification; and o Historic preservation; o Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals) ; o Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails); The list of eligible activities are declared exclusively by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). FHWA guidelines provide that only those activities included in the above list are eligible for federal funding as transportation enhancement activities. Over the six-year term of the ISTEA (federal years 1992-1997) , Texas could receive up to $1.8 billion for authorized STP funds. Ten percent of the funds must be used for a statewide program of transportation enhancement activities during the time period of 1992-1997. In order for projects to be eligible for funding as a transportation enhancement, the activity must go beyond what is usually provided. TxDOT and FHWA or the Federal Transit Authority, as appropriate, will coordinate to initially determine which activities are "normal" and which are eligible for transportation enhancement funding. The FHWA guidelines also provide that for an activity to be eligible, the proposed project must have a direct relationship to the intermodal transportation system. The project need not be directly related to a currently planned highway project. Mr. Seiler stated that the bottom line is that the State has not clearly developed guidelines as to how the transportation enhancement funds will be allocated. The allocation can be on a year-by-year basis or the allocation can be granted in two to three years. May be in the near future, the Texas Department of Transportation will have a call for projects that will transmit to the City what projects they would like to see funded. It is important for cities that have projects for which it would like to be funded under transportation enhancement to have those projects designed, cost estimated, and ready to go. This will give those cities who are prepared an extra step in obtaining possible funding. The disbursement of funding will be either be on a first-come first serve basis, which is advantageous to those cities who have their projects ready, or disbursement will be granted on a competition basis. An evaluation method will be developed by the State in which the projects will be graded and establish cost effective levels based on the levels of funding that will be made available. Mr. Seiler continued it is still unclear as to what process will be used. Mr. Seiler state 1 Landmark Commissioneting A January 28, 1993 Page 7 that some of the priorities the State will be looking at, for which it will approve transportation enhancement funds, are that the project is not a profit making venture, the project will need to have a long-term economic, environmental , historic, or public health benefit, the projects should be whole-heartedly supported by the local community, the projects must comply with state and federal laws governing accessibility, and the projects must be capable of being completed within three years or less. Mr. Seiler stated that one of the more important things to understand about the how the funds will be approved is that the City of Corpus is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The MPO is a process that was established and implemented in 1976. It is designed to guarantee an organized and well-coordinated transportation planning process with the areas represented in the MPO (Portland, Corpus Christi , Nueces County San Patricio) . ISTEA is placing a greater emphasis on local making decisions on funding. If the Landmark Commission wanted the City to undertake a project as a transportation enhancement activity, the first thing the Commission would have to do is to strive to get the project included on the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) . The TIP is a three-year transportation planning process that is updated annually. The City is operating on the TIP list for 1992-1995 period. Basically, the TIP sets aside projects that the City of Corpus, the State, the Nueces County representative, the San Patricio County representative, and the City of Portland want to undertake during those three-year elements. Unless the project is included on the TIP, it will not be funded using ISTEA funds. Projects that might be considered will be competing with other projects to be included on the TIP list. It is a process that involves getting public support the project is worthy to be placed on the TIP list. Certain projects like historic preservation, pedestrian bikeways, the over and beyond street funding projects, might be placed in a special category where the projects will not be competing with other street projects. Mr. Seiler stated he would be happy to keep the Landmark Commission updated as the transportation enhancement rules develop and become more identifiable. Mr. Seiler clarified that the transportation enhancement projects will go through the same as a street funding project; which is on a competitive basis. The MPO Planning Committee, chaired by Mayor Rhodes, will make the final determination as to what projects will be funded and included on the TIP. Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison, asked what was the funding allocation to the MPO for this cycle and Mr. Seiler answered that the MPO received approximately $360,000 from the Federal Highway Administration. Mr. Seiler continued that salaries for four (4) staff persons are included in the funding for this cycle. ISTEA has forced states to basically contract with the City to hire full-time Landmark Commission Mefng • January 28, 1993 Page 8 staff people to give that day-to-day effort. Those funds are allocated for transportation projects. Mr. Seiler emphasized again that approximately $365 million, over a ten-year period, have tentatively been allocated to Texas for Transportation Enhancement Projects. There has been no formula developed for per year allocation at this time. Ms. Macon asked when does Staff update the annual TIP list and Mr. Seiler stated the group has begun preliminary review for the 1993- 1996 time period and it will be concluded within two to three months. Mr. Seiler continued that in order to be placed on the TIP, two things should happen: 1) The project has to be achievable and ready for contract within those three years. In addition to placing the project on the TIP, a finance plan has to be submitted and the project will be reviewed and certified eligible by the State for a transportation enhancement project. 2) There is another funding process that is eligible under ISTEA that may make it easier to fund a transportation enhancement type project without having to meet the established criteria for a transportation enhancement project; which is also a STP level funding. The project would be competing with other street projects. Ms. Macon stated that the Landmark Commission would be wise to move forward in developing a proposal for funding and when the transportation enhancement funds are allocated, the proposal can be submitted. Mr. Seiler stated that transportation enhancement projects do not have to be proposed and developed as part of a street improvement project. Mr. Seiler continued that for projects the Landmark Commission feel are important and worthy, it would be wise for the commission to work with Staff in starting the planning process. Ms. Tinker asked if the TIP 1992-1995 would not be ISTEA funding because the program was just legislated and Mr. Seiler answered no. Mr. Seiler stated that the TIP is a local project development program. Ms. Tinker asked if it was anticipated that the ISTEA funds would be included in the TIP list for 1992-1995 and Mr. Seiler answered yes. Mr. Seiler continued that ISTEA was put into law December 1991 and that is when the funds became available. In the TIPs, the STP Urban Mobility funds are used to fund projects in the City's MPO transportation improvement program. Mr. Nadkarni asked if the District Engineer had the power to veto any projects on the TIP and Mr. Seiler answered no. Mr. Seiler Landmark Commissio eting ' January 28, 1993 0 Page 9 explained that the District Engineer was a member of the MPO Committee and had only one vote as each of the other representatives. Mr. Seiler concluded his presentation by stating that he wanted to dispel the perception that money is out there waiting to be spent. There is a structured process for projects to be approved under certain guidelines. Projects will be competing against other projects and according to the State, projects will be reviewed for their cost-effectiveness. Mr. Goodman expressed thanks to Mr. Seiler for addressing the Landmark Commission and presenting the Transportation Enhancement Program. Review Discussion of the January 13, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting Regarding "HC" Historical/Cultural Ordinance: Ms. Macon stated that the "HC" ordinance was scheduled as a discussion item on the Planning Commission's January 13, 1993 meeting and it received favorable response. Planning Commissioners were cautious regarding the designation procedures. The public hearing was to be scheduled for February 10, 1993, but because the notice was not published by the newspaper in error, the public hearing was rescheduled for the February 24, 1993 Planning Commission meeting, 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Ms. Macon reminded Landmark Commission members the importance of being present at the public hearing. Ms. Tinker commended Staff on a wonderful presentation that was given at the January 13, 1993 meeting. Ms. Tinker continued that after the January 13, 1993 meeting, she and Mr. Gunning discussed the question about whether or not the Landmark Commission had the authority to designate districts rather than individual pieces of property. Mr. Gunning clarified that after the January 13, 1993 Planning Commission meeting, Ms. Tinker asked if the Landmark Commission would be able to designate areas as districts and his response was that each lot could be designated singularly or as an abutting group of structures. Update on Phase II-A Progress of Historical Site Survey: Ms. Sally Victor, Consultant, started work on the site survey in January. Comprehensive research and documentation has begun on the five target areas (Hillcrest/North Side, Port Avenue, Morgan, Oak Park, and Up River Road/Longview) . Photographs of the sites have been completed and three-fourths of the sites have been identified and entered into the computer. Ms. Macon added that the consultant was able to identify and catalog five (5) complete cemeteries in this phase. Landmark Commission Mecg NIS January 28, 1993 Page 10 Ms. Macon stated if the Landmark Commission would like for Ms. Victor to give a presentation, she will contact her and see if can come to the February meeting. The Commission agreed by consensus to invite Ms. Victor to the February meeting. Ms. Atkins stated that with the resignation of Ms. Bowen, she needed a volunteer to serve on the Awards Committee. Adam Klager volunteered to serve. There being no further business, the meeting was officially adjourned at 6:15 p.m. i. , Faryce Gooden= acon', City Planner Staff Liaison'to the Landmark Commission (A:106MINS.J93-LMC3)