Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 06/23/1994 V N MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JUNE 23, 1994 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edwin Goodman, Chairman Mr. James Catron Mr. Joe Dove Ms. Cynthia Hill•McKinney Mr. Adam Mager Ms. Nancy Nucete Ms. Alclair Pleasant Mr. Charles Speed Ms. Bunny Tinker Mr. John Wright Mr. Joe Williams, Advisory MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Patricia Atkins Ms. Pam Lakhani Mr. Leslie Mabrey Mr. Govind Nadkarni Mr. Michael Shelly STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Michael Gunning, Senior Planner Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, City Planner Ms. Linda Williams, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 4:37 p.m. by Mr. Edwin Goodman, Chairman. The roll was called and a quorum was present. Ms. Nancy Nucete, new commissioner,was welcomed and introduced to Landmark Commission members. Each member introduced themselves and briefly stated their affiliation with the Commission. Ms. Nucete is a resident of Corpus Christi and owns Christi Properties, a local real estate company. Ms. Nucete stated she has owned the company for eight years. She is married and has three children. Ms. Nucete continued that her interest is in preservation and renovation of homes for low-income families. Ms. Nucete added she is looking forward to working on the Commission. SCANNED Landmark Commission lutes June 23, 1994 Page 2 ACTION ITEMISk Approval of March 24, 1994 & May 26. 1994 Minutes: The March 24, 1994 Minutes and May 26, 1994 Minutes were approved as distributed. Reoort & Recommendations On Tour Of NAS Facilities For National Register Nomination: Mr. John Wright, member of the Subcommittee, presented their recommendations on the NAS nomination for the National Register. Mr. Wright stated the Committee met with Jan Heinen at NAS Public Works and she took them on a tour to review the buildings listed in the nomination. Mr. Wright continued that the Committee's purpose was to resurvey the survey and make comments and recommendations on their findings. At this point, Mr. Wright asked Mr. Klager to comment on his evaluation of the nomination. Mr. Klager stated he did not support the nomination and felt the buildings were not architecturally or historically significant enough to he listed on the National Register. Mr. Klager continued that the structures were not old enough, and he could not see the justification for the structures being nominated for the National Register program. After Mr. Klager's comments, Mr. Wright continued with the Committee's recommendations as follows: Ninth Street District In this district, there are some quadraplex units (Married Officers' Quarters) that were not listed and the Committee is recommending that these structures he added to the list. They are historically and architecturally significant in their form. There has not been that many alterations (closed in porches) to the structures to the point where it cannot be reversed. The structures are valuable to keep. Group of Hospital Complex Buildings: These buildings were used as service buildings to the hospital because of their close proximity. The Committee is recommending that these buildings be maintained, not necessarily designated, but to he maintained and considered as part of the original building form of that era. Landmark Commission Ntes June 23, 1994 Page 3 Lexington District The Committee is recommending that Building 101 be added to the list The reason is that it creates a commons area in front of the theater building; which is the predominant building of the district and probably one of the more predominant buildings on the base; character wise. The alterations to Building 101 are no greater than any of the other structures in this common space. AdministrativefAcademic Historic District This district consists of the administration building and several classroom buildings. The Committee is recommending that two of the classroom buildings be added hack to the list The first building is Building 3; which is located in front of the administration building. The Committee stated that Building 3 is more original in form than any of the other buildings. Also, the structure helps create a focal area in front of the administration building. The second building is Building 39. It should be added back because it is close to its original shape and it creates a complex of buildings -- totaling five. Seadanu Ramp District The Senior Officers' quarters are located in this district. House No. 11 was original to the site prior to the base locating there. It is an old masonry residence built in the early 1940s. The Committee stated since House No. 11 has always been Senior Officers' housing, and alterations have been few, it should also be added. Warehouse In the Industrial District Building 258, a warehouse building, should be added. There is a group of five quasi huts, to the rear and side, that should be also added. Building 13 is the power plant and should be added, and sections of Building 8, which houses part of the Corpus Christi Army Depot should also be added. Landmark Commission ',Mutes June 23, 1994 Page 4 The Committee is also recommending that the Steam System, running throughout the base and in conjunction with the brig area, also be included on the list. After Mr. Wrights's report, he added there was a great deal of discussion between committee members regarding why they were doing the survey and what justification was there for designating these buildings for historic preservation. Mr. Wright continued the Committee felt that the buildings are being used and the majority of the committee agreed with the report. Mr. Wright stated that the Committee would like to make further recommendation that the possibility of identifying a hangar or a cl building for an example of restoration be suggested to the Texas Historical Commission for preservation purposes. Mr. Wright continued it would be almost impossible for every structure to be restored, but particular buildings could be identified that would show examples of how restoration could be at NAS. Mr. Wright stated suggestions could be outlined in a letter, along with the Committee's recommendations on the nomination. As a point of information for Ms. Notate, Ms. Macon explained the reason the Subcommittee was reviewing the structures at NAS. Ms. Macon continued that in the past, the City of Corpus Christi hired a preservation consultant to perform a city-wide site survey of properties for possible "HC" designation. Some of the properties contained in the NAS nomination are included on the City's preservation site survey. Ms. Macon continued that since the Landmark Commission has Certified Local Government certification, it allows them to review nominations for historical designation. The Texas Historical Commission received the nomination and requested the Landmark Commission to review the nomination and submit any recommendations and comments on the nomination that should be included. The Subcommittee completed the task of surveying the structures at NAS and is now making its report. After the Landmark Commission accepts and approves the recommendations, they will he forwarded to the Texas Historical Commission. Ms. Hill asked what happens after the Commission submits its recommendations on the base and Ms. Macon replied that the City will wait for further instructions from the Texas Historical Commission. In the Landmark Commission Rtes N June 23, 1994 Page 5 meantime, a courtesy copy of the recommendations will be sent to Ms. Heinen at NAS Public Works. Mr. Catton asked if there was a time deadline in submitting the report because he wanted to suggest tabling action on the Committee's recommendations until photos could be seen. Ms. Macon answered that the recommendations should have been submitted four weeks ago, but arrangements were made with THC for the Commission to further study the proposal. Ms. Tinker stated, for informational purposes, each district has its own packet and there are only two buildings on the entire base that the consultant is recommending for architectural significance - the Protestant Chapel and the Commanding Officer's living quarters. Included in the nomination is a detailed description of the base's importance to the World War II effort. Most of the buildings qualify under Criteria A, which is "Property that is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history," and some of the building fell under Criteria C, which is "Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction." None of the structures fell under Criteria B, which is "Property associated with the life of a person significant in our past or archeological." Mr. Goodman asked who originated the survey and Ms. Macon stated it was her understanding that all U.S. military facilities and buildings are being surveyed, as required by the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Klager reiterated that the surveys are automatic. It is not based on any particular merit but more of a bureaucratic mechanism. Mr. Klager continued that all of the bases had to be evaluated for archeological or historical significance. Mr. Klager went on say that he has problems with almost all of the residential structures, which were originally wood-sided, and thereafter covered with asbestos siding in the late 1950s after the war; which altered the original facade of the houses. None of the buildings are in their original condition. The structures were constructed as cheaply as possible because of the war. One of the things we were told on the tour is that the asbestos siding will be removed. Landmark Commission Shutes I./ June 23, 1994 Page 6 At this point slides were shown of various structures listed in the nomination. A slide was shown of portions of Building 8, which houses parts of CCAD, the old pub, which was original to the site. The architectural style of the structure is Spanish Colonial. Ms. Tinker commented that the nomination listed Mr. Albert Kahn of Detroit as one of the architectslbuilders of some of the structures on the base. Mr. Wright commented that Mr. Kahn is a renowned industrial architect and designed the hangar buildings on the base. Ms. Hill asked what is going to happen to then buildings by being included on the nomination and Mr. Wright answered that the Committee has added these buildings within the context of the spirit of the total report. Ms. Hill asked what happens to all of the buildings, regardless if they agree with the Commission's recommendations or not, and Mr. Wright replied he was not sure if NAS knew what was going to happen because this is such a large undertaking to designate so many structures in one site. The reality of the total picture is how will the project be funded. Mr. Wright continued that the driving force behind the restoration will be to find the necessary funding to proceed. Ms. Tinker stated that it is not only a question of funding, but when there will be other nominations on government facilities from all over the country, it becomes even more complicated. Mr. Dove added that the nomination should be looked at from the position that in 1995, base closings will be larger than ever and it is projected to be twice as big as the prior two closings. Mr. Dove continued that it should be considered what the designation could do to the Navy as far as roadblocks in them being able to fix up and remodel the Navy facilities. Mr. Wright responded that the historical designation would add value to the base. Mr. Dove commented that if the government wanted to modernize the facility instead of restoring it, then base closure could be considered even more so. Mr. Klager commented that the base may cease to be functional and may never get back on the tax rolls due to placing historical designations on Landmark Commission autos June 23, 1994 Page 7 the property. Mr. Klager continued that one of his greatest fears is that after the properties have sat there and deteriorated, no one will want them, including the government, and the base would be of no use to anyone. After all comments had been received, the following action was taken: LANDMARK COMMISSION VOTED TO APPROVE AND ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PROPERTIES AT THE NAVAL AIR STATION FOR INCLUSION FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION. VOTE PASSED 8 TO 2. Staff will submit the Landmark Commission's recommendations to the Texas Historical Commission. Ms. Hill expressed thanks to Committee members and Ms. Macon who took the time to tour the facility and compile the report to present at today's meeting. DISCUSSION ITEMISk Update On Renovation Project of Old Tower Theater: Ms. Hill stated she spoke with Wayne Tatman, President of the YMCA and he confirmed that preliminary plans were drawn for renovation of the Tower Theater, and they were trying to keep the exterior of the building as close to its original historical significance as possible. Ms. Hill continued that since the building will be used as a youth center, there will be major changes made to the interior of the building, which will change its architectural significance to comply with ADA regulations. Those changes will include widening of the aisles and modifying the restrooms to make them accessible for individuals with disabilities. Ms. Hill stated she did not ask Mr. Tatman if the Commission could look at the preliminary plans. Ms. Hill continued she felt if Mr. Tatman was requested to present the preliminary plans to the Commission, he would grant the request. Ms. Tinker stated even though the Commission does not have any jurisdiction Landmark Commission &utas %of June 23, 1994 Page 8 as to what will happen to the building, maybe Mr. Tatman would be willing to do a courtesy presentation on what their plans are for the building. Ms. Hill added that at this stage, the final plans are not completed. After further discussion, Ms. Hill stated she would contact Mr. Tatman to see if he and Mr. Cotten, the architect, could do a presentation at the July 28, 1994 meeting. Review Slides of Historic Preservation Conference in San Angelo. Texas: Ms. Macon stated that several slides had been taken of a military base in San Angelo, Texas that had been restored. These slides were taken at the preservation conference in San Angelo, Texas. Ms. Macon continued that in looking at what had been done with this base, the commissioners could get a feel of what could happen with NAS. Mr. Wright explained that the slides were of Fort Concha in San Angelo, Texas. Slide 1 shown was of the officers' quarters. The structures had fallen into ruin and were purchased and used as housing for low-income families. Ms. Macon interjected that the structures shown on the slides did not look like that approximately five years ago. The structures had air conditioning units projecting out of the dormer windows, porches did not exist, and the windows were boarded up. The structures were re- purchased by non-profit organizations and restored back as close to their original state as possible. Slide 2 was the parade field in front of the officers' quarters. The building included in the slide was the same one previously shown, but from a different view. Slide 3 was the hospital building. This building was fabricated in the same architecture as it was originally. Mr. Wright continued that for the interior of the building, laminated wood trusses and various other contemporary materials were used. This concluded the slide presentation from the CLG conference. Mr. Goodman read into record Mr. Donald Victory's letter of resignation effective (5/23/94). Mr. Victory filled the competency of a regular member. Mr. Goodman commented that Mr. Victory was a good member and enjoyed Landmark Commission 4111/ June 23, 1994 Page 9 serving on the commission, but because of the nature of his job (he traveled), he missed a lot of the meetings. Mr. Victory stated in his letter that he felt his absenteeism was a hindrance to the commission and a replacement should be appointed that could devote the time to the commission. Ms. Nucete was appointed (by City Council) to fill Mr. Victory's vacancy. Mr. Goodman briefly discussed absenteeism. Mr. Goodman continued that it is difficult to accomplish projects in a timely manner when a quorum is not present. There are several members that have attended very few meetings this term year. Mr. Goodman asked Staff what were the guidelines and policy regarding absenteeism and Ms. Macon answered that in the past, if a member missed four meetings during a term year, termination was automatic. Several years ago, the City Secretary's office issued a policy stating the old policy of automatic termination after missing four meetings no longer existed. The new policy left it to the discretion of the chairman to determine if an absentee would be excused or not excused. Mr. Goodman stated that Mr. Mabrey, architect, basically lives in San Antonio, Texas and is out of town most of the time, Mr. Nadkarni is out of town with his business, Ms. Atkins was granted a six-month leave of absence to attend school, and he was unsure about the status of Mr. Shelly. Mr. Goodman continued that it was not fair to the members who attended consistently. Ms. Tinker asked what commissioners would be off if the old policy was in effect and Ms. Macon answered Mr. Mabrey. Ms. Macon continued that Mr. Williams could be considered to be reappointed as a voting member in November after his term expires as an advisory nonvoting member. Ms. Macon went on to say that because of the CLG certification, certain competencies have to be maintained. Mr. Mabrey fills the competency of an architect and Mr. Williams could fill that competency if he agreed to the reappointment. Mr. Wright asked how difficult would it be to transfer Mr. Williams to a voting member status and Mr. Mabrey to an advisory status and Ms. Landmark Commission 6M1utes 'S June 23, 1994 Page 10 Macon stated the least confusing or most tactful procedure would to be appoint Mr. Williams as a member after Mr. Mabrey's and Mr. Williams' terms expire in November 1994. At that time, Mr. Mahrey could be appointed as a nonvoting advisory member to replace Mr. Williams' previous position. Ms. Macon stated she would verify what other procedures could be followed with Mr. Chapa and report at the July meeting. After further discussion, it was decided that the excused absence policy will be discussed at the July meeting. Continued Review and Prioritize Slides of Phase II-A of the Preservation Site Survey: The following slides were reviewed in the North Morgan Area: Sixteenth Street 1214 . Structure is a 1.1/2 story framed residence with 3-west facing bays; pier and beam foundation on concrete blocks, wood frame structural system, steeply pitched roof with composition shingles, exposed rafter ends, hipped and dormers. Structure was built between 1890-1910s; Stylistic Influence • Classical Revival; current function • domestic. Consultant High Sixth Street 1119 • Structure is a 1•story framed residence with 3-east facing bays; pier and beam foundation on concrete blocks, wood frame structural system, front gabled composition roof with shingles; and extended box rafter eaves. Structure was built between 1920.1930. Stylistic Influence - Bungalow. Consultant Medium 1206 • Structure is a 1.1/2 story stucco residence with alterations to the porch, 3-west facing bays; pier and beam foundation with skirt wall, wood frame structural system, front gabled composition shingle roof, extended box eaves, and exposed rafter ends with birds mouth motif, Palladian-style Landmark Commission Mlgbtes June 23, 1994 Page 11 windows in gable, porta cochre. Structure was built between 1920.1930s; Stylistic Influence • Bungalow. Consultant High Commission: Medium 1207 - Structure is a 1-story framed residence with least facing hays; pier and beam foundation on concrete blocks, wood frame structural system, cross gabled composition shingle roof, extended box eaves, and exposed rafter ends. Structure was built between 1910-1930s; Stylistic Influence - Bungalow. Consultant High Commission: Medium 1211 - Structure is a 1.1/2 story concrete block with additions and garage; has 3-east facing bays, pier and beam foundation, skirt wall, wood frame structural system, cross•gabled composition shingle roof, extended box eaves, exposed rafter ends, and exterior stuccoed chimney on ridge; Stylistic Influence • Bungalow. Consultant High Commission: Medium 1222 • Structure is a 1.1/2 story framed residence with alterations to the windows; 3-west facing bays, pier and beam foundation on concrete blocks, wood frame structural system, hippedlgable wood shingle roof, extended box eaves, exposed rafter ends. Structure built between 1910.1920s; Stylistic Influence • Bungalow. Consultant Medium 1225 • Structure is a 1•story framed residence with replacement porch ports; 3-east facing bays, pier and beam foundation on concrete blocks, skirt wall, wood frame structural system, front gabled composition shingle Landmark Commission II)AI(utes b./ June 23, 1994 Page 12 roof, exposed rafter ends with birds mouth motif. Structure built between 1910-1920s; Stylistic Influence - Bungalow. Consultant High Commission: Medium South Staples Street 912-928 • Structure is a 2-story brick building with alterations to the windows and awnings; has 8-west facing bays, slab foundation, load bearing masonry structural system, flat built up tar and gravel roof, stepped brick parapet with strong course below. Structure built between 1920.1930s; Stylistic Influence - Commercial. Consultant Medium 1019 - Structure is a 2-story stucco building with altered facade, has 3- east facing bays, slab foundation, load bearing masonry structural system, flat built up tar and gravel roof, wraparound false front, Art Deco column at the southeast corner. Structure built between 1920-1930s; Stylistic Influence • Art Deco. Consultant Medium 1101.1107 - Structure is a 1-1/2 story brick building with alterations to the windows and awnings; 5-east facing bays, slab foundation, load bearing masonry structural system, flat built up tar and gravel roof, brick stepped parapet. Structure built between 1920.1930s; Stylistic Influence • none. Consultant Medium 1111 • Structure is a 2-story stucco office with an altered porch, windows, doors; has 3-east facing hays, pier and beam foundation, skirt wall, wood frame structural system, steeply pitched hip composition shingle roof, Landmark Commission Antes June 23, 1994 Page 13 extended box eaves, and exposed rafter ends. Structure was built between 1920-1930s; Stylistic Influence • American Four-Square. Consultant Medium 1229 • Structure is a 1-story stucco building with alterations to the windows, doors, and awning; has 3-east facing bays, slab foundation, load bearing masonry structural system, flat built•up tar and gravel roof, stuccoed parapet Structure built in 1930s; Stylistic Influence - Commercial. Consultant Medica Tenth Strout 918 • Structure is a 1-story framed residence with alterations to the porch; has 2-west facing bays, pier and beam foundation on concrete blocks, wood frame structural system, steeply pitched hip composition shingle roof, and exposed rafter ends. Structure built between 1910-1920s; Stylistic Influence • Bungalow. Consultant Medium 921 • Structure is a 1.112 story framed residence with alterations to windows and garage; has 3-east facing bays, pier and beam foundation, brick piers, skirt wall, wood frame structural system, pyramidal composition shingle roof, extended box eaves, and triangular knee braces, and hipped dormers. Structure built in 1920s; Stylistic Influence - Bungalow. Consultant Medium 1008 • Structure is a 1-112 story residence with synthetic siding, altered porch, windows, and additions. Has 3-west facing bays, pier and beam foundation on concrete blocks, skirt wall, wood frame structural system, steeply pitched hip with gables composition shingle roof, extended box Landmark Commission MMutes June 23, 1994 Page 14 eaves, and gabled dormers. Structure built between 1900-1920s; Stylistic Influence • Queen Anne Victorian. Consultant Low Commission High 1019 • Structure is a 1-story framed residence with 2-east facing bays, pier and beam foundation on concrete blocks, skirt wall, cross gable composition shingle roof, extended box eaves, exposed rafter ends, and gabled dormers. Structure was built between 1920-1930s; Stylistic Influence - Bungalow. Consultant Medium 1111 • Structure is a 1-story concrete block with altered porch and windows; has 2-east facing bays, pier and beam foundation, skirt wall, wood frame structural system, side gable composition shingle roof, extended box eaves, exposed rafter ends, and triangular knee braces. Structure built in 1920s; Stylistic Influence - Bungalow. Consultant Medium 1117 - Structure is a 1.112 story framed residence with alterations to the porch and windows; has 3-east facing bays, pier and beam foundation on concrete blocks, wood frame structural system, front gabled composition shingle roof, extended box eaves, exposed rafter ends, and triangular knee braces. Structure built in 1920s; Stylistic Influence - Bungalow. Consultant Low 1200 - Structure is a 2-story brick apartment building with alterations to the windows; has 3-west facing hays, load bearing masonry structural system, flat built-up tar and gravel roof, brick parapet with cast concrete scrolls. Structure built in 1920s; Stylistic Influence - Classical Revival. Consultant High Landmark Commission Pites V June 23, 1994 Page 15 1204 - Structure is a 1-story stucco residence with alterations to the windows and doors; has 3-west facing bays, pier and beam foundation, skirt wall, wood frame structural system, flat ceramic tile and built up tar and gravel roof, and stuccoed parapet with 2 exterior chimneys on each end. Structure built between 1910-1920s; Stylistic Influence • Mediterranean. Consultant Medium Commission: High 1209 • Structure is a 1-story framed residence with 3-east facing bays; pier and beam foundation on concrete blocks, watertahle, wood frame structural system, side gable composition shingle roof, exposed rafter ends, and triangular knee braces. Structure built between 1910-1920s; Stylistic Influence - Bungalow. Consultant Medium Commission: High 1210 • Structure is a 1-story framed residence with alterations to the windows; has 2-west facing bays, pier and beam foundation, skirt wall, wood frame structural system, front gabled composition shingle roof, and extend box eaves. Structure built between 1920-1930s; Stylistic Influence • Bungalow. Consultant Medium Third Street 1106 • Structure is a 2-story brick residence with auxiliary garagelapartment has 3-west facing bays, slab foundation, load bearing masonry structural system, low pitched hip composition shingle roof, extended box eaves, exterior brick chimney on slope, and basement. Structure built between 1920-1930s; Stylistic Influence • Classical Revival. Consultant High Landmark Commission r Iiirutes 41.14 June 23, 1994 Page 16 1225 - Structure is a 2-story stucco residence with 4-east facing hays, pier and beam foundation on concrete blocks, wood frame structural system, flat built up tar and gravel roof, steeped stucco parapet Structure built between 1910-1920; Stylistic Influence • Mediterranean Classical Revival. Consultant High Twelfth Street 308 • Structure is a 1-story framed board and batten residence with alterations to the windows; has 2-west facing bays, pier and beam foundation on concrete block, wood frame structural system, pyramidal roll roofing, and exposed rafter ends. Structure built between 1920-1930s; Stylistic Influence • Bungalow. Consultant Low 310 • Structure is a 1-story framed residence with alterations to the windows; has 2-west facing bays, pier and beam foundation on concrete blocks, wood frame structural system, pyramidal roll roofing, and exposed rafter ends. Structure built between 1920-1930s; Stylistic Influence • Bungalow. Consultant Low 414 - Structure is a 1-story framed board and batten residence with alterations to the windows; has 2-east facing bays, pier and beam foundation on concrete block, wood frame structural system, front gable composition shingle roof, and exposed box eaves. Structure built in 1920s; Stylistic Influence - Shotgun. Consultant Medium 416 - Structure is a 1-story framed board and batten residence with alterations to the windows; has 2-east facing bays, pier and beam foundation on concrete block, wood frame structural system, front gable Landmark Commission Butes June 23, 1994 Page 17 composition shingle roof, and exposed box eaves. Structure built in 1920s; Stylistic Influence • Shotgun. Consultant Medium 701 - Structure is a 1-story framed residence with alterations to the porch and windows; has 2-east facing bays, pier and beam foundation on concrete blocks, wood frame structural system, clipped front gable composition shingle roof, and exposed rafter ends. Structure built in 1930s; Stylistic Influence • Shotgun. Consultant Medium 723 • Structure is a 1-story framed residence with alterations to the porch, additions, and detached shed. Has 3-east facing bays, pier and beam foundation on concrete blocks, wood frame structural system, cross gabled composition shingle roof with decorative shingles in gable, and extended box eaves. Structure built between 1900.1920s; Stylistic Influence • Queen Anne Victorian Cottage. Consultant Medium 912 • Structure is a 1•story framed residence with additions; has 2-west facing bays; pier and beam foundation on concrete blocks, wood frame structural system, front gable composition shingle roof, exposed rafter ends, and triangular knee braces. Structure built between 1920.1930s; Stylistic Influence • Bungalow. Consultant Medium This concluded the slide presentation for the North Morgan Avenue Area. Ms. Tinker asked Staff what will happen to the parking for the Nueces County Courthouse with the proposed Gateway Plan. Ms. Macon stated she really did not have any information on the Gateway Plan, but she would investigate the questions for a report at the next meeting. Landmark Commission Sums '✓ June 23, 1994 Page 18 After a brief discussion, Ms. Tinker suggested that Staff contact Mr. Dusty Durrill regarding updating the Landmark Commission on his proposed plans for the Nunes County Courthouse. There being no further business, the meeting was officially adjourned at 6:05 p.m. GT t- aryce node-Macon, City Pla ner Staff L aison to Landmark Commission u+wsjsuus1rw