Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 07/28/1994 V � MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JULY 28, 1994 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edwin Goodman, Chairman Mr. Joe Dove Mr. Adam Klager Mr. Govind Nadkarni Ms. Melissa Nucete Ms. Alclair Pleasant Mr. Charles Speed Ms. Bunny Tinker Mr. John Wright Mr. Joe Williams, Advisory MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Patricia Atkins (Excused) Mr. James Catron (Excused) Ms. Cynthia Hill•McKinney (Excused) Ms. Pam Lakhani (Excused) Mr. Leslie Mabrey (Unexcused) Mr. Michael Shelly (Unexcused) STAFF PRESENT: Ms. Faryce Goode•Macon, City Planner Ms. Linda Williams, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 4:40 p.m. by Mr. Edwin Goodman, Chairman. The roll was called and a quorum was not present. With the arrival of Ms. Pleasant and Mr. Nadkarni, a quorum was declared. ACTION ITEMISI: Approval of June 23. 1994 Minutes: The June 23, 1994 Minutes were approved with the following corrections: Page 1 • Second paragraph: Ms. Nucete's name was corrected to Melissa. The minutes stated Nancy. SCANNED Landmark Commission mutes July 28, 1994 Page 2 Page 3 Paragraph under "Warehouse in the Industrial District," the word "quonset" was misspelled. The minutes reflected the spelling "quasi." Page 6 • Paragraph five, last sentence: Ms. Tinker questioned whether the statement made by Mr. Dove was worded correctly and Mr. Dove clarified that he meant if the government found it to be more cost effective to modernize the facility rather than restore it, and if the government had to get approval from the Landmark Commission, there would be an even higher possibility that the base could face closure in the next review of projected closing. Review of Substandard Structure Located at 721 Park Avenue: Ms. Sue Corey, Zoning Code Enforcement Administrator, addressed the commission. Ms. Corey apologized for the delay in the Landmark Commission's meeting not starting at 4:30 because the Building Standards Board meeting lasted longer than anticipated. Ms. Corey explained that one of her tasks that she must perform is to review and enforce substandard buildings and today at 1:30 p.m., one of the cases reviewed at the Building Standards Board Meeting, with a recommendation for partial demolition, was a building located at 721 Park Avenue. This building is on the Landmark Commission's preservation survey. In 1991, it was reviewed, construction date of 1930, originally called Casa Grande Apartments and, at that time in the 1930s, there is a note indicating there were twelve (12) apartment units. The current owner has four units occupied, a fifth one partially renovated, and the remaining portion of the structure is vacant. There is a total of eight proposed units according to a building permit on file. In the 1991 survey, it was noted that the condition of the structure was poor and the interior appeared to be deteriorated. Ms. Corey commented that she has personally inspected the building and has slides to show of the structure's exterior and interior. Ms. Corey stated that her recommendation to the Building Standards Board was to demolish a portion of the building; and the crux of the problem is that the building has deteriorated to such an extent that it will take excessive amounts of money to bring it up to code and make it occupiable. Four units are currently occupied,and the property owner has been trying to renovate the Landmark Commission I'utes July 28, 1994 Page 3 rest of the building and has not taken care of the occupied units, and now the occupied units are deteriorated. Ms. Corey continued she reviewed one of the occupied units and there were some severe deteriorated conditions - • bathroom floor rotted out, full floor about a 30 degree angle, roof leaks, and rotted ceiling. Mr. Goodman asked what did the owner want to do with the building and Ms. Corey answered he wants to save the entire building. Ms. Nucete asked if the owner was hoping to renovate and fix the building to rent it and Ms. Corey answered yes. Mr. Dove asked Ms. Corey what action did the Building Standards Board take on the building and Ms. Corey answered she requested the Board to table the case until the Landmark Commission reviewed the structure, since it is on the preservation survey. At this point, Ms. Corey began the slide presentation. The slides showed the following conditions of the structure: o Cracks in the brick; o Wooden portion toward the end that is rotten; o Exposed floor joist of the garage. Ms. Tinker asked if there was a garage apartment and was it to be demolished also and Ms. Corey replied yes there is a garage apartment occupied by the manager and demolition is being sought. o Ceiling in an occupied unit to give a general idea of the conditions that the tenants are living in. The owner told me that the units are fully renovated and they are liveable. o Bathroom floor of the occupied unit is completely rotted; o Ceiling of another occupied unit •• cracked and plaster falling off exposing electrical wiring; Landmark Commission mutes bled • July 28, 1994 Page 4 e Another side view of the building -- picture was taken • on the opposite side of Park Avenue on the property taking a picture of the second floor of the building. o ' An unoccupied area of the building •• shows splices on • the roof framing that are sagging at an approximate 32 degree angle. The splices are not working and do • not meet city code. Ms. Tinker asked if the building • had a flat roof and Ms. Corey responded yes. a • The last slide showed a common hallway shared between two tenants and the tenant on the left side • of the hallway had no electricity. The tenant received electricity through running extension cords from the apartment to the electrical socket in the hallway. After Ms. Corey's presentation, the floor was opened for comments and question. Mr. Goodman stated that basically Ms. Corey was requesting the Landmark Commission to approve the recommendation of demolishing that portion of the building that has deteriorated so that the Building Standards Building can move forward with the process. Mr. Goodman asked if there any questions the commissioners wanted to ask at this time. Ms. Tinker recommended that a member of the Landmark Commission review the structure before any action is taken. Several commissioners voiced that it would be a unnecessary use of time to inspect the building after reviewing the slides presented by Ms. Corey. Ms. Corey interjected that the Commission does not have to make a decision today because the Building Standards Board meet once a quarter. Ms. Corey added that Zoning and Code Enforcement will work with the property owner as best as they can to convince him without Building Standards Board action; but because the building is on the preservation survey, the Landmark Commission's approval is needed to proceed. Ms. Nucete asked when was the next Building Standards Board meeting and Ms. Corey answered the next meeting is in October. Mr. Goodman stated that Ms. Corey needs the commission's support so they can move Landmark Commission Minutes July 28, 1994 Page 5 forward to either demolish or renovate that portion of the building. Mr. Nadkarni added that if the Board does not meet until October, he recommends that the Landmark Commission table taking action until the August meeting. Ms. Tinker stated that the building is probably one of the oldest extant apartment units left in the city and the commission should at least look at the building before a decision is made. After the review and the commission feels that portion should be torn down, there would be no need to pursue it further. At this point, Ms. Macon read the consultant's survey report and it was given a low priority rating. Mr. Goodman stated'that Ms. Corey has already inspected the building and has presented slides to document her findings and we should allow the Board to proceed either to force the owner to bring the building up to code or demolish the portion that needs to be torn down. Even though the building is on the innervation survey, it will take an excessive amount of money to truly renovate or bring it up to code. After Mr. Goodman's comments, he requested action to approve Ms. Corey's recommendation to move forward with demolishing that portion of the building that needs to he torn or force the owner to bring the property up to code. Mr. Wright asked Ms. Corey what was the normal process in a situation when the property owner has failed to bring a structure up to code and is faced with an ultimatum by the Building Standards Board. Ms. Corey responded that the owner is served notice of what would happen if the building was not brought up to code. Mr. Wright asked how long ago was the owner notified and Ms. Corey answered that Staff began this case in the spring. Mr. Wright asked was there a time line to follow and had we reached a critical point where a decision had to be made and Ms. Corey answered yes. Ms. Corey stated that essentially, Staff is required to go to a public hearing process through the Building Standards Board and once that Board makes the decision to either require demolition andlor repair, a time line is imposed. If that time line is ignored, then further enforcement procedures either through the court system, and in the case of a vacant structure, the building is tarn down by the City and a lien is placed on the property. Landmark Commission OAlfutes • July 28, 1994 Page 6 Ms. Tinker pointed out that the Landmark Commission, in a similar circumstance regarding property in Old lrishtown, pulled together some of the expertise on this commission, which is why there are various experts on the commission, to work together with the property owner to get the necessary financing. Mr. Joe Williams worked with the owner and made recommendations and suggestions as to what could be done to save the structure and it was. Ms. Tinker continued that the Landmark Commission's main objective is to save structures that are listed on our survey and are designated. Ms. Tinker stated she is not doubting Ms. Corey's question as to whether part of the building should be torn down, but she feels the Commission should not vote on it without someone reviewing the structure to determine if it is more salvageable if we could work with the owner and enable him to do what needs to he done to bring the building up to code and rent it. Ms. Macon asked Ms. Corey if she knew how much money the owner had spent on the structure and Ms. Corey answered that not only does the owner have an outstanding mortgage, but he has invested approximately $40,000. Ms. Macon asked if the property would be eligible for City funding and Ms. Corey answered that prior to 1989, there was a different owner of this structure. The (1989) property owner received approximately $120,000 in grant monies for rental rehab and the money was spent. After the money was spent, the owner relinquished ownership of the property back to the City. Ms. Corey continued at that time, she was not personally aware of the state of repair or disrepair of the building because she was not involved. The City repossessed the property, tried to sell it, and could not find a buyer. The current owner purchased the property in 1991 and has an outstanding mortgage and, at his word, mentioned that he spent approximately $40,000 in renovation. Basically, the owner cannot keep up with the cost of repairs. Ms. Nucete asked how much was the outstanding mortgage and Ms. Corey stated he owes $80,000. Ms. Tinker asked if the current owner or the previous owner put in the wiring and Ms. Corey stated that part of it was put in by the previous owner, but most of the substantial outdoor boxes were put in by the current owner. (1111 Landmark Commission Mi utes July 28, 1994 Page 7 Mr. Dove stated that if this gentleman does not get any protection from the Landmark Commission, would the Building Standards Board have more leverage in making the owner fix up the building and Ms. Corey commented that if this building was not on the preservation survey, she would not have been at the Landmark Commission's meeting, the decision would have been made at the Building Standards Board meeting at 1:30 p.m. and a demolition order would have been ordered with the imposed time line in place. Ms. Nucete commented that her concern was that the landlord was willing to let people live in those conditions and, in her personal opinion, any reputable landlord would not have people using a bathroom in that condition. Ms. Nucete continued that if Staff and the Commission were working with someone with occupied units that were in fairly good condition, it would make it easier to work with the owner. It is very evident that the owner is not concerned if he is willing to let people live in those conditions. If the City is able to go inside and take pictures, he is aware of what is taking place in the units. Ms. Nucete commented that if the owner gets too much backing from the Landmark Commission, he might feel he doesn't have to do anything to the units and these conditions will continue. Mr. Goodman commented that he feels the owner has the capability of repairing the units and bringing them up to code, and he feels the owner isn't going to repair the units. Mr. Goodman stated he did not want the Landmark Commission standing in the way of City Staff doing what needed to be done to get the situation corrected. Ms. Tinker stated that maybe the Landmark Commission could pressure the owner into repairing the units. Ms. Tinker continued the Commission should inform the owner that the apartment units are considered a landmark and are valuable to the history of the city, and he should want to repair them to avoid demolition. Ms. Nucete interjected that the ultimate pressure to the owner would be when the Landmark Commission makes it clear to him that if he doesn't repair the units, the City will tear down that portion of the structure that Landmark Commission !Mutes `S July 28, 1994 Page 8 is not safe. Ms. Nucete continued that, as the property owner, that ultimatum would let him know that his property would no longer be protected by the Landmark Commission. If the Landmark Commission took this position, it would also give Staff leverage to make the owner move. Mr. Goodman added that the Landmark Commission could only delay the demolition for thirty days. Mr. Kksger asked Ms. Corey if the Commission voted on her recommendation today, when would the Building Standards Board take immediate action on the recommendation and Ms. Corey stated that the recommendation will not be made to the Board until October. Ms. Tinker stated that the Landmark Commission has a minimum obligation to carry out the commission's duties and Mr. Nadkarni asked what were the commission's duties in this situation and Ms. Tinker responded that we should go and look at the structure to see if we agree with Staff's recommendation. Mr. Nadkarni stated that he has seen the building and it is not structurally sound. Mr. Nadkarni added that if Ms. Tinker was referring to the architectural significance of the building or as a landmark, then he would agree that Mr. Williams should review the building. Mr. Nadkarni again emphasized that the portion of building in question was not structurally sound and if a 60 to 80 mile wind came through the city, that portion would suffer destruction. Mr. Wright commented that the state of the building is obvious from the pictures shown and that is why we are at this point Mr. Wright continued he feels if a member of our commission wants to review the structure further, they should be able to do so. Mr. Nadkarni interjected he was not commenting on living conditions in the units, but structurally the units are a life hazard to anyone living in them. Ms. Tinker asked for clarification from Ms. Corey that she was not requesting demolition for the entire building and that some of these living conditions exist in the portion which demolition is not requested and Ms. Corey stated yes. Ms. Corey clarified that her request to the Building Standards Board was to demolish the back half of the building that is unoccupied and force repair of the occupied portion. 1/411/ Landmark Commission leutes July 28, 1994 Page 9 Mr. Nadkarni stated that is why he did not comment on the living conditions previously because that portion of the building is not part of the demolition. The demolition request covers the back portion where the brick has fallen off and is structurally unsafe. Ms. Tinker asked where were the rafters located and Ms. Corey stated the rafters are located in the back portion of the unit. Mr. Nadkarni stated that the City Zoning and Code Enforcement Division wants to tear down the back portion of the apartment building, but they cannot because the structure is on the preservation survey. The owner may think that the preservation survey is going to support him in not tearing down the unit regardless of the time line, he is not going to do anything with the property and keep it as is. If the Landmark Commission tells the owner that the property does not look good and if he does not repair it, the property will be removed from the preservation survey, it gives the Zoning Code and Enforcement Division more power to do what ever needs to be done. Mr. Wright asked Ms. Corey if the commission took action at today's meeting, could she do anything with the Commission's recommendation and Ms. Corey replied that nothing would happen until October, that is the next meeting for the Building Standards Board. Mr. Goodman stated he felt the issue should be resolved at today's meeting to avoid misuse of time at the August meeting. Mr. Wright commented he agreed with Ms. Tinker that the Commission should take the time necessary to review the structure and make a recommendation after that review and it should not be considered a misuse of time. Mr. Wright continued that it is part of the Commission's duties to review these things, since we put it on the survey. Mr. Wright added that taking the time to review the building is not delaying anything since the Board does not meet until October. Ms. Macon asked Ms. Corey when she speaks to the property owner if he would be informed as to what action was taken on his case and Ms. Corey replied she will contact the owner, in writing, informing him that the Building Standards Board tabled action on his case until October. Ms. Tinker asked if the owner knew his property was on the survey and Ms. Corey answered unsure. Ms. Corey commented that he may know it is Landmark Commission itatiutes July 28, 1994 Page 10 listed, but she had not discussed it with him. Ms. Corey commented that the owner did not appear at the Building Standards Board meeting and he was properly notified. After all comments were received, it was agreed that Ms. Tinker would review the apartment units and contact the owner and report at the August meeting. Ms. Macon stated she received the consultant's bid for Phase 114 of the Preservation Site Survey. Ms. Macon continued that only one bid was received and that bid was from Sally Victor, Preservation Consultant who performed the previous phases. Ms. Victor's bid was $9,900; which was within the total budget proposal. Ms. Macon was requested to speak to Ms. Victor regarding the darkness of the slides and Ms. Macon stated she would speak with her about the lighting. Ms. Tinker asked what areas would be surveyed in this phase and Ms. Macon stated properties located Downtown, South Morgan to North Louisiana Parkway Area, AgnesltaredolAirport Road Area, and South Louisiana ParkwaylOcean DrivelAirline Road Area. Ms. Victor will survey approximately 336 properties; which is more because of the large number of structures in the downtown area. Ms. Macon stated she needed the Commission's approval to accept the bid proposal received from Ms. Victor. After all comments were received, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. DOVE AND SECONDED BY MR. KLAGER THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION ACCEPT THE BID PROPOSAL OF $9,900 FROM THE SALLY VICTOR, PRESERVATION CONSULTANT, TO COMPLETE PHASE 11.4 OF THE PRESERVATION SITE SURVEY. MOTION PASSED. DISCUSSION ITEMS): Uadate on Nueces County Courthouse: Mr. Dusty Durrill addressed the Commission regarding the status of the County Courthouse. Mr. Durrill Landmark Commission Minutes July 28, 1994 Page 11 stated the game plan has been in a holding pattern and not have vagrants sleeping in the building. The group has been searching diligently trying to find a group or groups that are interested in using the building. Mr. Durrill continued that he has been in contact with officials from General Services in Washington, and the federal courthouse officials, and the building does not meet their needs, although they agree that the building is restorable. Mr. Durrill stated he had been in discussion with Texas A&M officials for approximately one year. They are interested in the building, they can see how the building can be integrated into their system. Surveys have been conducted to see the feasibility of the building. Mr. Durrill continued that it was a major concession for them to allow their name to be mentioned in conjunction with the building. At this time, a proposal is to get the Architectural Department from A&M College Station to make the courthouse a school project and have the students do all the architectural work on the building, which would be a great cost reduction, and at the same time, give us a legitimate stamp of usage for the structure. The A&M system cannot accept a building that has not been totally renovated. Mr. Durrill continued that the College Station University system funds cannot be accessed, but there are some tuition bonds available that are being investigated that might be sold in Austin to cover some of the renovation costs. Mr. Durrill stated that a group from Central America, Costa Rica, are very definitely interested in locating in part of the structure, they are interested in only one or two floors of the structure. Mr. Durrill continued that the ownership of the building would be in question. The building has to have an acceptable public owner in place. Mr. Durrill went on to say there are several groups that have definite interest in the building, but nothing has been definitely decided. Mr. Durrill continued that out of the several groups involved, the circle keeps returning to the A&M System which seems to be the most viable course. Mr. Durrill stated that more access to legislators has to be built and more state officials should be involved in the project. Mr. Durrill continued that if the state officials in Austin want the A&M System to locate in the Landmark Commission IdhM(utes July 28, 1994 Page 12 structure, it can happen, but it is going to take some lobbying. Mr. Durrill went on to say that he does not have the personal time to really devote to the lobbying effort because he is involved with the TeleCommunications project and the Columbus Fleet. Mr. Durrill stated since he is involved with other projects, he really has not done anything with the courthouse except answer questions. Mr. Durrill continued that he has no doubt that most of the "tear down" enthusiasts have backed down. There seems to he a little bit of public sentiment on the courthouse side to save it instead of tearing it down. Mr. Durrill stated that Mr. Robert Rowlins, who is a major property owner in that area, feels that the building should be torn down. A question was asked if Mr. Rowlins felt that way because of the "gateway project" and Mr. Durrill answered that Mr. Rawlins' position has nothing to do with the gateway project, but rather it is his personal dislike for old buildings. Mr. Rowlins supports demolishing the structure to make way for parking. Mr. Durrill stated he feels very strongly that they are at an area where possibly the Landmark Commission, or another historic group will have to get started on a legislative push to get our legislators on board to put this building in the A&M System. There is absolutely no objections voiced when the proposal of A&M being a tenant in the structure is presented. The Board of Regents should be lobbied as well as legislators. If a lobbying effort is undertaken, and if the Regents want the A&M System housed in that building, it can and will happen. The Board of Regents can see the benefits of having that billboard for the university located in that area; which will change the image of A&M that they could never get on Ward Island. The image of the city would also be changed to a "university city." The benefits would he awesome for both Texas A&M University • Corpus Christi and the city. Mr. Durrill continued that in order for this to happen, it is going to take a concerted effort, a lot of lobbying, and some time. Mr. Durrill stated that he thought he would be able to get the A&M proposal going for the 1994 fall semester with the Architect Department, but the request has to go through the proper procedures and channels. Mr. Durrill added that he contacted the department head for the Architect Department at College Station, and was told the request had to go to Dr. Ferguson and come back down through the system before it will happen. Landmark Commission Minutes July 28, 1994 Page 13 Mr. Durrill commented that Mr. Tom Utter was investigating a proposal whereby the students' travel and housing expenses might be paid for. Mr. Durrill emphasized again that this fall he will not have the personal time to pursue the courthouse as much as needed. Mr. Durrill continued that the Landmark Commission has the means to put together someone that could monitor the project. Mr. Durrill commented that he would be willing to lend counsel in getting some kind of movement on contacting state officials and legislators and to the Board of Regents for A&M. Mr. Durrill referenced another possible source for renovating the courthouse -- ISTEA federal transportation monies. Mr. Durrill stated that these federal funds have been used for several courthouse renovations during this last allocation. The funds through this program have decreased every year. Mr. Durrill continued that a sponsoring agency is needed and if a proper presentation was made, ISTEA monies could be used to renovate the exterior of the building. If the exterior of the building is redone, which will help save the structure, the interior of the building can be done at a later period. Mr. Durrill stated he has not followed up on what is really needed to receive ISTEA monies, but the City has committed their allocation to the gateway project and Nueces County has also committed their allocation. On the next funding cycle of ISTEA monies, the courthouse is one of the top fifteen (15) projects to be saved throughout the state. In some of the smaller towns, an estimated $1 to 51.5 million of ISTEA funds have been used in restoring their courthouses. Mr. Durrill continued that approximately 54 million will be needed to strip and redo the exterior of the courthouse. This cost does not include taking down the 1931 addition. A conclusion has been reached the 1931 addition has been stabilized and it might be saveable by installing an expansion joint under and rehricking the entire structure. To perform all of this will require the expertise of an engineer and dialogue has taken place with officials from A&M's engineering department about possibly using engineering students to do the work. After Mr. Durrill's presentation, the floor was opened for questions and comments. Ms. Tinker asked if the A&M Board of Regents had to still he convinced to endorse the project and Mr. Durrill responded that what has happened time wise. Dr. Bob Ferguson is totally consumed in getting this university Landmark Commission IfKutes July 28, 1994 Page 14 on line as a four-year institution with all new construction taking place and establishing a brand new curriculum. Dr. Ferguson fully endorses the project, but the Board of Regents are looking at Ward Island as the main focus. The Board recognizes the value of the building. After A&M is opened as a four-year school, then the courthouse building can be addressed with their full focus. There is no doubt that we can get their full attention and support level once the school is on-line as a four-year university. As long as something is happening, the public is happy, and once nothing happens, the public gets very nervous. Ms. Tinker asked Mr. Durrill to elaborate on his comment regarding legislators belonging to a certain committee. Mr. Durrill answered there are 48 types of funding that can be obtained outside the State of Texas if enough people want the elected officials (Truan, Berlanga, Hunter, etc.) and other legislators in Austin to get this courthouse taken care of, they can find the ways and means to do it and they can work with A&M officials to accomplish it. Mr. Durrill continued that the State of Texas can take the courthouse building, restore it, and give it to A&M, but it will require legislative action to accomplish it. Mr. Durrill stated that by law, A&M cannot take the building until it is totally restored, which protects the school from getting stuck with an unfinished building. Mr. Durrill continued that no one wants to get on board with a losing project. If State legislators see enough support for the project, they are more inclined to become a part of it, but they will not get on board with Dusty Durrill by himself. Mr. Durrill stated that he will transfer ownership to any group to neutralize the situation because he wants to save the building. Mr. Durrill continued that he welcomed any suggestions and outside input as to what the next step should be and he was willing to help in any way he can, but his personal time was very limited. Mr. Wright stated that as the gateway project moves forward, has there been any ideas of using the courthouse site for other than the building being located on it and Mr. Durrill responded that he did not know of any viable ideas -- any government agency has to be a very strong one like the federal court system, but the building was too small for them. The parking of the building is controlled by the City. Mr. Durrill continued that out of all proposals suggested, the A&M proposal keeps coming up. The name is 0110 Landmark Commission Mutes July 28, 1994 Page 15 acceptable and identifiable and is the only name associated with the building that has not drawn controversy. Mr. Wright asked if there had been any projects related to the gateway project that were associated with the building and Mr. Durrill answered that the gateway plan is a stand alone project and is completely separate from the courthouse. The gateway project was put together to create the parkway and an image for downtown. The courthouse building is not related to the gateway project at all, the commonality is that the courthouse sits in front of the proposed plan. Ms. Tinker asked what happens to the parking in the gateway project and Mr. Durrill answered that the park in front of the courthouse can be made into a beautiful parking lot with fountains, trees, and shrubbery. The gateway project calls for Water Street closed and Chaparral Street opened. The parking in front of the courthouse can he retained and the old stairway that goes up and over to the city parking lot on the next median it still there and there is a building behind on Tancahua Street that will be torn down that can he used for a parking lot A&M officials were looking at the feasibility of establishing a footprint school in the annex to give them a two or three year trial run before they relocated into the main building. School officials stated it would take a year to run enough analysis of what kind of footprint school that could be placed in that location to get a basic traffic pattern while the building was being restored. The annex would house two to three classes in approximately 9,500 square feet. Ms. Tinker asked if anything viable had developed from the group out of Mexico and Mr. Durrill stated a group from Costa Rica wanted to establish an international School of Latin Languages and Law to educate, both Latin Americans and Americans, about the laws on both sides of the border and how to do business in different countries. They have a school established in Costa Rica and are preparing to open an extension in the city in the old Mobil Oil building. They want to take a floor of the courthouse and establish a library of the Americas. Mr. Durrill continued that because the group wants one or two floors only and not the entire building, this is not seen as a viable way to secure funds for a Costa Rican based organization. Landmark Commission Nitrutes July 28, 1994 Page 16 • After all comments and questions were received, thanks were expressed to Mr. Durrill for updating the commission on the status of the courthouse. Presentation on Renovation Project of the Old Tower Theater: Mr. Wayne Tatman, President and CEO of the YMCA, addressed the Commission. Mr. Tatman stated Ms. Hill contacted him about six weeks ago to give a presentation and update on where the organization is on the development of the Tower Theater. At this point, Mr. Tatman introduced several staff members from the YMCA - Ms. Judy Butler, Public Relations Director, and Ron Reed, Director to oversee the renovation project Mr. Tatman continued that the renovation project will be done in much the same way as Kids' Place was built in Cole Park -- a lot of volunteers, donated materials, equipment, and funds. At this point in his presentation, Mr. Tatman referenced several pictures of the Six Points area. Picture 1 • Showed six store fronts that have since been destroyed and now make up the front part of the parking lot for the new Eckerds' Drug Store. Picture 2 • A double store front that is being developed into a preschool child care center. Picture 3 • The Tower Theater; which was built in 1936. Mr. Johnny Cotten, volunteer architect of Cotten•Landreth Architectural firm, found the original set of plans for the theater. These plans were found in a downtown theater. Picture 4 • The Salvation Army Thrift Store. Back in early 1993, the YMCA owned the six store fronts, that have since been torn down, and the Eckerds' group approached the YMCA regarding purchasing the store fronts. The Six Points area was chosen for the teen center because of its neutral location. It is close to the north and west sides, on a major transit route, and basically for teenagers, non-territorial. It is an area that really wasn't identified with any particular school, outside of Wynn Seale Middle School, which is in its backyard. 410 Landmark Commission Minutes July 28, 1994 Page 17 The Eckerd's group was told the properties were not for sale and they proceeded to purchase the Tower Theater and the adjoining two store fronts. In the end, the two organizations ended up swapping properties -- Eckerd's received the YMCA's corner properties and we received the Tower Theater with the two store front properties, the parking lot adjacent to the Salvation Army Thrift Store, and all of the lots on Tenth Street located behind the property. (Mr. Tatman identified the referenced properties in the photographs.) It was continued by Mr. Tatman that the YMCA owns the property from Alameda Street through to Tenth Street. Mr. Tatman pointed out that two of the lots were part of the Eckerd's property, but in the swap, the YMCA kept them to square off their property. Mr. Tatman stated that the YMCA received voluntary assistance from several local companies. The project will get underway in approximately two weeks. Mr. Tatman continued that the renovation cost of the theater is estimated to be $300,000 and the YMCA has raised approximately $180,000 of that amount. The amount of $180,000 will allow the child care center to open and get the first floor of the teen center opened. The Salvation Army will remain as a tenant and they are signing a five-year lease agreement. Mr. Tatman continued that volunteers from Valero Refining and Bay Construction have led the renovation efforts. The inside of the theater has been gutted and all of the seats, curtains, screens, and snack bar have been removed. Mr. Tatman continued that one of the amazing things about the theater is underneath the stage area is a complete 12 foot ceiling basement. The air conditioning units and other mechanical equipment are located there. The building has 18" masonry walls and underneath that stage area in the basement will be a body building, weight lifting, and fitness area. The main hall of the theater floor will be leveled and will be in two different levels -- the balcony and the lower level. The lower level will be handicapped accessible. The area in front of the stage will be a small dance floor with Incite studded lights. There will be an elevator and the installation of the elevator will be one of the last major expenses. The elevator will be used to gain access to the balcony. Landmark Commission hates *GO July 28, 1994 Page 18 Mr. Tatman continued that making the bathrooms handicapped accessible is another expense and it is hoped that the old 1936 tile will be salvageable and can he used. The old art deco style curbed woodwork going up the stairway will be used both inside as well as outside. The exterior of the building will be restored to its original state. In the lobby area, a large meeting room will be established that house a computer- literacy and tutorial program for the teens' use. The room will also be used as a library and study hall. The mezzanine level will be renovated. The balcony will be leveled and still maintain a 15 foot ceiling after it is leveled. Half of the balcony will be a coffee shop, snack bar, and delicatessen eating place. There will be an outside entrance coming up the stairway from a very large and wide fire escape from the back of the building. The back of the building will become the front of the building and the front will be maintained and used for special large functions, and the back of the building will be used for normal drop-in and out activities by the teens to avoid the Six Points intersection. A large game room will be located on the second floor or balcony level where teens can play ping pong, table tennis, video games, and watch TV on a large screen television. The balcony will actually he screened off from the first floor where teens will be able to see activities going on at the first floor level. Both rooms will be able to function so as to not interfere or interrupt what is going on upstairs or on the first floor. The projection room and coat room will become offices and study halls. Mr. Tatman stated that the YMCA operates in conjunction with the Coastal Bend Alliance of Youth Agencies, which operates the TRIP Center. Mr. Tatman explained that TRIP stands for "Truancy Reduction Impact Program:' Mr. Tatman continued that when officers pick teens up that are truant and not in school, those teens are brought to the center at the YMCA. The teens are kept at the center until they are picked up by parents. If kids are continuously picked up for truancy, the parents can he fined up to $1,000 a day and sentenced to perform community service. The TRIP program is in its second year of operation and will be moving to the projection room at the Tower Theater. Mr. Tatman continued that Landmark Commission Minutes July 28, 1994 Page 19 dialogue has taken place with workers of the Young Life Program; and it is hoped that an office will be established at the new teen center for them. Mr. Tatman commented that the purpose of the new teen center is to offer a full-service program for the teens of our community. Mr. Tatman stated that entrance to the child care center will he off Tenth Street on the backside. At this point, Mr. Tatman referenced a photo that showed the driveway entrance to the center. Mr. Tatman explained there is a covered walkway leading to the center. Mr. Tatman continued that the child care center would able to accommodate seventy-six (76) children. The remaining area behind the theater and the Salvation Army will become a lighted basketball court and beside that basketball court will be a sanded area for volleyball. Mr. Tatman stated that the San Antonio Spurs donated S10,000 for the basketball and volleyball courts to be installed. Mr. Tatman pointed to a photo that showed a narrowed strip of land that would become a playground area for the child care center. Mr. Tatman continued that the YMCA has entered into a contract with Spohn Hospital, which gave a generous donation to rehabilitate the child care center, and I they have first choice for their employees' children to have space in the center. Mr. Tatman shared the names of organizations that have generously donated to the project: Cotten-Landreth Architectural Firm is donating all architectural services for the project; GPM Engineering is donating all of the electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilating, and air conditioning services; Goldston Engineering is donating all of the structural engineering; Miss Teen Texas donated all proceeds from a sendoff reception at the Bayfront Convention Center held on Saturday, July 23, 1994; The Sams' Foundation donated $65,000; Landmark Commission F)Sutes July 28, 1994 Page 20 San Antonio Spurs donated 410,000; Hess Fitness Equipment, located at South Staples Street, has agreed to donate all the fitness equipment for the body building and weight lifting center; The Port Authority has been doing all of the clean-up work on the outside of the facility; Bobby Lee Painting Contractor will begin the exterior work to do all of the painting. The building will be restored back to its original as close as can be from the pictures that have been found, including the fancy black lines that can be seen underneath the existing paint. Beecroft Contracting Company is the volunteer no-fee general contractor; and Texas Commerce Bank, which is now Frost Bank. The bank sold the corner property (which was traded) to the YMCA for three- fourths of its raw land appraised value. The YMCA bought into the project for $47,500. Mr. Tatman complimented the YMCA Board of Directors for taking a risk in trying to make this project work. Mr. Tatman explained how the new teen center became a reality. Mr. Tatman continued that their concept was building small neighborhood teen centers. Mr. Tatman continued that teen centers were opening in various neighborhoods -- one at the downtown YMCA, Rockport, and two on the northside (Leathers Housing Projects and the WHY in the Hillcrest Area). One teen center is also opening in Flour Bluff. The Mayor addressed the Board three years ago and stated there were several task forces (Mayor's, Park & Recreation Department, PTA Council, and Judge Hunter's gang task force) working on the same problem. The Mayor and Judge merged the four groups into one and asked if the YMCA Board could take the one task force under the umbrella of the YMCA and work on developing one center multi-purpose teen center and this is what has evolved. After Mr. Tatman's presentation, the floor was opened for questions and comments. Landmark Commission Minutes July 28, 1994 Page 21 Mr. Dove asked Mr. Tatman to clarify what major change would be happening to the front of the building and Mr. Tatman (referring to a photo) stated that in looking at the storefront between the theater there is floor to ceiling glass. Mr. Tatman continued that floor to ceiling glass cannot be in the classroom with pre-school children; therefore, the glass has to be removed. Mr. Cotten is developing an alternative that will keep the front to its original as possible. Mr. Tatman referenced a photo that showed green, red, and yellow tile that comes across the front of the theater and continues across the front of the Salvation Army underneath its picture window. Mr. Cotten is trying to find enough of the tile to bring it across and add it to the storefront as part of completing and redoing the storefront. Ms. Tinker asked what was the use of the structure on the left and Mr. Tatman answered he did not know, but the theater was always a theater; which was built in 1936, and the last known use of the building was a job carp training center with classrooms. Mr. Tatman continued that the Salvation Army was once either a Woolworth's or a Grant's store. Ms. Tinker asked if the building was opened for tours and could the Landmark Commissioners tour the building, as a group or individuals, and Mr. Tatman responded to schedule a tour, he can be contacted or Ron. The building is not opened for drop in tours. Mr. Tatman continued that one of the major concerns in restoring old buildings and using voluntary labor is the worker's compensation insurance. Mr. Tatman continued that he found out that the volunteers are covered under the YMCA's insurance. Mr. Tatman continued as people donate services, or hire sub-contractors for some things, his concern was how would the volunteers performing various jobs affect his workmen's compensation insurance. Mr. Tatman stated that the YMCA's insurance company has made the teen center a YMCA project and is providing the necessary coverage for any volunteers working on the project and the insurance coverage does not fall back on the general contractor. Mr. Tatman acknowledged that Beecroft Contracting Company is providing contracting services, gratis. Landmark Commission Ikutes July 28, 1994 Page 22 Mr. Goodman expressed thanks to Mr. Tatman and his Staff for attending today's meeting to update the Commission on the teen center project. Review Absenteeism Policy: Mr. Goodman stated that in reviewing absenteeism, commissioners should notify Staff or him when you will be absent from a meeting and he will determine whether an absence is excused or unexcused. Mr. Goodman encouraged members to continue coming to the meetings because it is difficult sometimes when a quorum is not present to get items moving forward. Mr. Goodman stated he spoke with Mr. Williams regarding his being appointed as a voting member in November when his term ends as a non-voting member and Mr. Mabrey being appointed as a non-voting member and both agreed to the change. Ms. Tinker referenced Page 2 of the Nueces County Historical Commission's June 14, 1994 minutes stating "that the First Presbyterian Church did not have funds for the installation of an elevator, and in addition, bricks on the exterior permitted water to leak and it would be necessary for a type of sealant to be applied." Ms. Tinker asked Mr. Wright if he knew of their restoration plans and what they are considering and Mr. Wright answered he was not sure if the church had final restoration plans. Mr. Wright continued they do want to seal the brick because the wall assembly has no moisture assembly. Ms. Tinker asked Mr. Wright if he was involved and he answered no. Ms. Tinker asked if the Commission could assume that the sealant would be approved by the Department of Interior guidelines and Mr. Wright answered he did not know. Mr. Wright added that Bill Holland is the architect for the restoration project and he could possibly answer that question. Mr. Wright added that he interviewed for that project and that item was discussed. Mr. Wright stated he recommended to them that they not use a material that would build up on the surface of the brick, but possibly use a silicone type material that would have to be renewed every three to five years. Using a silicone type material will be more labor intense in applying, but there won't be a build up of material, which can be a problem in preservation. Ms. Macon informed the Commission that the Planning and Development Department is submitting the Landmark Commission's Preservation Plan Landmark Commission Minutes July 28, 1994 Page 23 and "HC" Ordinance to the Texas American Planning Association for an award under "Current Planning." The department will be notified of the winners in September. Mr. Goodman asked Staff when will the awards ceremony he scheduled and Ms. Macon replied the awards will be in the fall. Ms. Macon encouraged members to keep in mind of structures that are worthy of honoring for restoration, adaptive reuse, or individuals who have written articles, papers, or made videos that can be submitted for the awards. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. , jY c U 'f �A Faryce Goode•M$ctin, 'City Planner Staff Liaison to landmark Commission uy.sru.nurera