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)