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