HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 03/06/1995 ho iii
MINUTES
SPECIAL LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MARCH 6, 1995
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr.Edwin Goodman, Chairman
Mr.James Catron
Mr. Joe Dove
Mr.Neel Fulghum
Mr.Adam®ager
Ms.Melissa Nucete
Mr.Ronald Smith
Mr. Charles Speed
Ms.Bunny Tinker
Mr. Joe Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms.Pam Lakhani (Excused)
Mr. Govind Nadkarni (Excused)
Mr.John Wright (Excused)
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Michael Gunning,Senior Planner
Ms.Faryce Goode-Macon, City Planner
Ms.Linda Williams,Recording Secretary
The meeting was called to order by Edwin Goodman,Chairman at 4 p.m. The roll
was called and a quorum was present.
ACTION FrEM((S)
Discuss and Approve Recommendations For Properties Located at 1219
Second Street. 2101 Morgan Avenue. and 3750 South Staples Street Mr.
Goodman stated he was requested to call a"special"meeting for today to
take action on three sites that are fisted on the Preservation Site Survey
as potential landmarks. Mr. Goodman continued that he received a call
from City Staff on Friday and was informed that the Landmark
Commission needed to take action on the three properties as soon as
SCANNED
•
mmtsion Meeting
Special Landmark Co '
March 6, 1995
Page 2
possible. Mr. Goodman continued that two of the properties were briefly
discussed at the February 23, 1995- 1219 Second Street owned by Brin and
Brin Law Office and the Carpenter's Hall building at 2101 Morgan Avenue
owned by McDonald's,Inc. The third site is the fire station tower located
at 3750 South Staples.
Mr. Goodman continued that the site at 1219 Second Street is owned by
Brin and Brin Law Office. A house is located on the property and their
rear parking lot is adjacent to this property. The law firm has requested
a demolition permit to tear the house down and build an expanded
parking lot The situation is that the site is rated as a"high" priority on
the site survey;which requires the Landmark Commission's review before
the permit can be issued.
2101 Morgan Avenue • Current site of the Carpenter's Hall building and is
proposed as a new Walgreen's Drugstore. This property is also on the site
survey and is rated"high"priority. Peacock Properties has submitted the
request for a demolition permit to tear the structure down.
3750 South Staples - Current site of a fire station and the old training
tower. A contract agreement to purchase the site for a new Walgreen's
Drugstore is being pursued and a new fire station on the back side of the
proposed Walgreen's Drugstore will be built Once the traWng tower and
old station are demolished, the training tower will be rebuilt and
relocated to a terminal in the refinery area. Initially, all of the training
was done at this location. The facility was built In 1950 and both the
tower and fire station will be torn down. The priority rating for this site
is also"high." Mr.Goodman continued that unfortunately,the city has not
had any"HC"zoning In place prior to last summer,especially anything in
an ordinance. The ordinance that was passed last summer was the
beginning ing of what needs to be done here in the city to protect properties
that have any historical significance. Mr. Goodman went on to say that
even though the current"HC" ordinance passed, there really isn't much
"teeth"to It,but It was the most the commission could get passed at that
time. With the existing ordinance,the commission can delay the process
for thirty (30) days, after that time, the owner can do whatever was
• Special Landmark ComWssion Meeting
March 6, 1995
Page 3
originally requested. Mr.Goodman continued that a lot of time and effort
were put into trying to get the current "HC" Ordinance passed. The
Landmark Commission has been prioritizing these properties, and
unfortunately,we are not far enough down the road with an ordinance
that has substance. AB three of these properties are in similar
circumstances: the owners want demolition permits to tear down the
structures. The law firm of Brin and Brin want to expand their parking
lot. Mr. Goodman stated the commission needs to decide whether or not
to delay the process for the thirty(30)days. Mr. Goodman continued that
also we are here today because of the timing issue. All three of the
owners want to expedite the process as soon as possible. Ms. Macon
commented that Brin and Brin will go before the Zoning Board of
Adjustment on Tuesday,March 21, 1995;the zoning case on Carpenter's
Hall will be heard by the Planning Commission on Wednesday, March 8
1995;and the fire station has been approved by City Council. Mr.Goodman
stated he spoke with Mr. Utter at great lengths on Friday,March 3, 1995
and got Staff's perspective on the properties. Ms. Tinker asked what
happened to Brin's request for a special exception for reduction in parking
and Ms. Macon answered that the Landmark Commission could make a
recommendation to reduce the parking to the Board of Adjustment, but
Staff will not be making that recommendation.
Mr. Goodman stated that the bullderldeveloper for the Waigreen's
Drugstores Is John Peacock, President of Peacock Properties, Inc. of
Houston, Texas. Mr. Goodman continued that he met briefly with Mr.
Peacock to discuss their plans for the building. Mr. Goodman continued
that personally the Carpenter's Hall building always had some historical
appeal to him. Mr. Goodman stated he asked Mr. Peacock If there was
anyway they could use the existing building for the new Walgreen's
Drugstore and Mr.Peacock answered no. Mr.Goodman continued that he
was told that the building is a two-story structure and they want to build
a one-story building. Mr.Goodman continued that Mr.Peacock was wiling
to donate 51,000 to have a marker made with historical information on
the Carpenter's Hall building and the significance It had to the city. Mr.
Goodman continued they were up against a time line with demolition and
going before the Planning Commission and City Council. Ms.Macon stated
Special Landmark Commission Meeting
March 6, 1995
Page 4
that when the motion Is made to release the property from the stay of
demolition, she would like for the motion to Incl• a the statement"with
the understanding that a letter of agreement will be obtained from the
Assistant City Manager's office(W.T.Utter)from Mr. Peacock stating he
will provide$1,000 to place a marker on the site regarding the Carpenter's
Hall building. Mr. Goodman stated that the commission could play
hardball and delay the demolition process on the three structures. Mr.
Goodman stated,in his opinion,this was not the time nor place to take a
firm position regarding these buildings. The Landmark Commission
should concentrate on the four(4)properties that were discussed at the
February meeting for possible "HO" zoning. The commission needs to
review those properties that have been rated "high"priority and do what
was planned. Through the result of these surveys, we cannot use a
"shotgun"approach in rating a large number of properties high priority.
The number of "high" priority structures should be reduced and the
commission should be working to get more teeth into the existing "HC"
Ordinance so that it can be applied more effectively.
Ms. Tinker requested clarification on the Second Street Brin and Brin
property. Ms.Tinker stated to her knowledge,Brin and Brin were going
to the Board of Adjustment to request a special exception for a parking
lot use, and the reason for the additional parking Is because of their
expansion plans for the existing building. Ms.Tinker continued that they
were going to add the building into the existing parking lot. Ms.Tinker
continued that to her knowledge,had anyone spoken directly to Brin and
Brin and Ms.Macon answered no. Ms.Tinker went on to say that when the
subcommittee met to review these properties last week,it was discussed
whether the Landmark Commission could talk with Erin and Brin and
suggest to them that in lieu of demolishing the house that they seek a
special exception to the number of parking spaces required. Ms.Tinker
continued that if they agree to it, she does not know what the problem
would be. Ms. Tinker went on to say that it Is the function of the
Landmark Commission to go before any other City board/commission and
ask for special exceptions or various things whether it is electrical, etc.
when It is dealing with historical properties. Ms.Macon commented that
the commission can still recommend the special exception to the Board.
Special Landmark 00 1M8ion Meeting IMO
March 6, 1995
Page 5
Ms.Tinker continued that it sounds like the commission does not want to
do anything and she wanted to know why the commission would not want
to pursue contact with Brin and Brin to see If they were agreeable to our
requesting a special exception. If they agreed, it would be great and If
they don't,at least the commission would have made an effort. Ms.Tinker
stated It is true the "HC" Ordinance does not have any teeth, but it has
never had any. The commission, In the past, has always voluntarily
worked with property owners. So instead of just saying at this meeting
"allow the demolition of the "Second Street" property, why can't the
commission pursue a direct contact with them and see what they think
about our option.
Mr.Gunning stated from Staffs position,the primary properties that Staff
Is mostly concerned with at this moment are the Super-Mex Carpenter's
Hall building at Morgan Avenue and Nineteenth Street and Fire Station No.
7 at Staples Street and Doddridge. The Brin and Brin property-there has
been no statement from Staff saying that the Landmark Commission
should not meet with them or discuss any alternatives. They have already
submitted an application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment which they
will appear on the fourth Wednesday of this month. They are requesting
a special exception use for a parking lot where the building Is proposed
for demolition. The parking, has not been verified, but they need a
reduction for approximately twenty-three (23) spaces. If Brin and Brin
were talking about a reduction of two or three spaces, Staff would be
more than willing to work with them,but fora facility whose primary use
is an office in an area where parking Is a shortage, Staff will not be
supporting that recommendation. Mr.Gunning continued he has not seen
any detailed plans and he had briefly spoken with Susan Corey so he did
not have all the Information. Ms. Macon added that Ms. Corey has
reviewed the plans and she does not support the recommendation for a
reduction of twenty-three(23)spaces.
Mr. Gunning commented that this would a substantial reduction in the
parking requirements. Staff would be willing to consider a few spaces,
but when you are talking about reducing the parking by more than 50
percent of what is required, there will be some major problems In
Special Landmark Commission Meeting •
March 6, 1995
Page 6
accommodating the parking needs for that building itself. Mr. Gunning
continued that the item is on the agenda,in part,because the commission
is already having a special meeting and there are three demolition
requests for structures to take action on. Since this is on the agenda as
an action item, it will afford the commission an opportunity to make a
decision one way or the other. Mr.Gunning continued that the commission
may decide to table taking action on the Erin and Grin property, but he
wanted to encourage the commission to take action on the Carpenter's
Hall property and the Fire Station training tower property. Ms. Tinker
asked if the sale on the Carpenter's Hall building had been finalized and
Mr. Gunning stated he did not know. Mr. Gunning continued that on
February 23, 1995,the owners requested a demolition permit.
At this point,Ms.Macon provided more detailed information regarding the
three properties. Ms.Macon stated that the information she is providing
is on the agenda as a"discussion item." Ms.Macon continued that since
these three properties were the first cases going out to test the "BC"
ordinance,the Legal Department reviewed the current"HC"ordinance and
has issued an opinion stating that the ordinance needs to be more fine-
tuned. There was some wording that should have been included, but was
not. The excluded wording could mean the difference between whether or
not the thirty (30) day demolition was actually in effect or if the
commission has the authority to enforce it. Ms.Macon continued that to
rectify the problem,Legal has provided two options to consider. 1) Submit
the top priority structures listed on the Preservation Site Survey to City
Council and have them certified as potential landmarks(by ordinance that
was distributed at today's meeting)or create an amendment to the "BC"
ordinance which states that City Council gives this body the
administrative authority to certify these properties if they can meet three
of the nine criteria as outlined on the handout labeled "Draft - For
Discussion Purposes Only,"developed by Staff. Ms.Macon continued that
because of this technicality,the Commission is faced with three properties
that it may or may not have the authority to delay. Ms. Tinker
commented in her opinion,the commission does not have the authority to
delay the demolition permits. Mr.Goodman interjected that,at this point,
the commission does not have much choice in the situation and cannot
Special Landmark Comt',sslon Meeting ONO
March 6, 1995
Page 7
win this battle. Ms. Tinker asked if the handouts presented to the
commission at today's meeting would have an effect on whether or not
Brin and Brin can be contacted and Ms. Macon replied no it did not mean
that. Ms. Tinker continued that she would rather the commission try to
contact the law firm rather than not saying anything, even if it does not
make a difference in their decision.
Mr. Gunning stated he would try to put the situation into management's
perspective. When the list of potential historic landmarks was discussed,
which are approximately 900 sites and soon to increase to about 1,100,
there were certain deficiencies in how the structures were placed on the
list and whether or not City Council approved it. There was no notice to
property owners that their properties were placed on the site survey,even
though Staff was not requiring owner's consent. Mr. Gunning continued
that the bottom line is,from Legal staffs opinion,is that if the Landmark
Commission and City of Corpus Christi were challenged,we would have to
back off. Mr. Gunning continued that until City Council approves the
potential Preservation Site Survey list,the three properties proposed for
demolition are not subject to the Landmark Commission's review. Mr.
Gunning went on to say that what Staff would like to do is to proceed and
review these properties based on what we know of their historical
significance and extract something positive from these proceedings -in
the case of the Carpenter's Hall building, the monetary donation for a
plaque. Mr.Gunning continued that other staff members were not aware
that these properties were on the potential list and the list was so
enormous that it was just difficult for the city manager to conceive that
all of these properties together are subject to Landmark Commission
review. Mr. Gunning continued that the commission has been requested
to go back through the list of properties and formalize It into something
that the commission feels more comfortable about based on a rating
system that Staff has proposed or some other criteria that the Landmark
Commission may want to propose. Mr.Gunning went on to say he needed
to let the commission know of management's point of view which is that
the Landmark Commission and city of Corpus Christi may not have the
legal footing to say that these properties were actually protected under
the "HC" Ordinance.
"S
Special Landmark Commission Meeting
March 6, 1995
Page 8
Mr. Williams commented that he was completely insulted that Planning
Staff would allow an isolated area for parking. Mr. Williams continued
that it was the same thing that happened with"strip zoning" on Everhart
Road and other streets. Mr.Williams went on to say that Staff should try
to stop this type of spot zoning from happening over and over again. Mr.
Williams continued that if the parking lot was adjacent tr the building it
would be one thing, but completely isolated in a neighborhood is
something else - this is a very good example of poor planning. Mr.
Williams continued that,in the case of the fire station,we have two weak
situations- Planning Staff should say no that this should not be done and
City Council should not be involved. If it is public property,it should go out
for sale.
In response to Mr.Williams'statements,Ms.Macon stated she wanted to
clarify that the Board of Adjustment is technically not in the Planning
Department and the law firm utilized another option than going through
the Planning Department. Ms. Macon explained that the Board of
Adjustment is part of the Building Inspections Division, even though
Planning Staff does participate in making some of the recommendations
to that board. At this point, Ms. Tinker asked If Planning Staff would
approve the Landmark Commission's appearance at the Board of
Adjustment hearing and suggesting a parking exception and Mr. Gunning
answered that he has not seen any detailed plans on Brin and Brin and he
did not know what the final staff recommendation will be. Mr. Gunning
answered yes the Planning Department does have input Into making
recommendations to the Board of Adjustment and Staff will provide
direction as to how the recommendation will be put together. Mr.Gunning
went on to state that in making a final recommendation,it be a shared
decision by other departments with the Planning Department. In response
to comments on the fire station sale, Mr. Gunning stated that the bids
were handled through different offices. Mr.Gunning continued It was his
understanding that those properties were advertised and potential buyers
were requested to submit bid proposals. According to Carl Crull, bid
perspectives were made available to all the known real estate and
investors across the city.
• Special Landmark Cot i :sion Meeting
March 6, 1995
Page 9
Ms.linker stated she wanted to clarify an issue for those commissioners
who did not review the three properties last week. On the South Staples
fire station property,the commission was interested only in the fire tower
as a historic landmark. Ms.Tinker continued the tower has been there for
a long time. Ms.Tinker went on to say that the Carpenter's Hall building
was a done deal and they have agreed to give a$1,000 for the plaque. Ms.
Tinker stated this is no different from what the commission has been
doing for the past twenty(20)years because the ordinance had no teeth
and that is on a one-to-one basis trying to talk to and work with people in
developing other alternatives rather than tearing down the structure.
Ms. Tinker continued that of the three properties, she is concerned with
Brin and Brin and whether or not the commission can pursue a discussion
with them on other alternatives. In response to Ms.Tinker's comments,
Mr.Goodman stated to Ms.Tinker that she,as a Landmark commissioner,
could contact the law firm and see if they are interested in discussing
other alternatives and doing something different After all comments and
discussion ended,Mr.Goodman stated he needed a motion to release the
stay of demolition on all three properties. Mr. Goodman continued that in
the motion to release the stay of demolition, there should be a statement
stating that a letter of agreement where John Peacock will donate $1,000
for a plaque to be placed on site for the Carpenter's Hall building for its
significance. The following action was taken:
IT WAS MOVED BY MR.MGM AND SECONDED BY MR.DOVE
THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVE RELEASING THE
"STAY OF DEMOLITION" ON PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1219
SECOND STREET,3750 SOUTH STAPLES,AND THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2101 MORGAN AVENUE.
MOTION PASSED.
IT WAS MOVED BY MR.FULGHOM AND SECONDED BY MR.DOVE
THAT MR.TOM it TER,GROUP MANAGER,REQUEST A LETTER
OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI AND
PEACOCK PROPERTIES, INC. ALLOWING FOR A $1,000
MONETARY DONATION BY PEACOCK PROPERTIES, INC. FOR
Special Landmark Commission Meeting
March 6, 1995
Page 10
DEVELOPMENT AND INSTALLATION OF A HISTORICAL
MARKER. SUCH MARKER IS TO INCLUDE A BRIEF HISTORY OF
THE CARPENTER'S HALL,AN ETCHING OF THE BUILDING,AND
INSET THE DEDICATION MARKER ON THE NESTING BUILDING
WITHIN THE NEW PROPOSED MARKER. THE MARKER SHOULD
BE INTEGRATED WHERE IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE STREET,
AND IF POSSIBLE, PLACED wrTIDN THE RTA BUS STOP AREA.
MOTION PASSED.
Ms. Tinker asked if another motion could be made to pursue discussion
with Brin and Brin and Mr. Goodman stated Ms. Tinker could approach
them on behalf of the commission to find out if they would be agreeable
to other alternatives. Mr.Catton asked the question if that action was not
taken at the February meeting and Ms. Macon answered that the
commission took no action to approach the Board of Adjustment to
discuss an alternative. After further discussion,the following action was
taken:
IT WAS MOVED BY MS. TINKER AND SECONDED BY MR.
WILLIAMS THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION PURSUE
DISCUSSIONS wrru BRIN & BRIN LAW FIRM ABOUT
APPEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH
REGARD TO A SPECIAL EXCEPTION ON THE NUMBER OF
PARKING SPACES REWIRED BECAUSE: 1) THE LANDMARK
COMMISSION DO ES NOT WANT TO SEE A PARKING LOT IN A
RESIDENTIAL AREA; AND 2) THE LANDMARK COMMISSION
DOES NOT WANT TO SEE THE HOUSE DEMOLISHED.
MOTION PASSED.
Mr.Fulghum asked Staff if the commission would be adopting the new
amended "HC" Ordinance and if so, the three structures could not be a
part of the plan because they would not fit the new criteria. Ms.Macon
answered that Option 1 Is the new"HC"Ordinance prepared by Legal Staff
which certifies"Potential Landmarks." Ms.Macon continued that"Section
Special Landmark Comlisten Meeting
March 6, 1995
Page 11
28A4.03 "Procedure for Designation of Potential Landmarks" of the
ordinance was added. Option 2 requests the City Council to give the
Landmark Commission the authority to certify potential landmarks if they
meet three of the nine criteria outlined on the checklist standards. Ms.
Tinker stated that since the commission has not had ample time to review
the new addendum to the "HC" Ordinance, the commission should table
taking action on them until the April meeting. Mr.Gunning responded that
no action could be taken on the items because they were scheduled for
discussion purposes only. Mr. Gunning continued that it was his opinion
that the commission will need more than one meeting to work out what
the commission wants to do.
Mr. Goodman informed commissioners that today's meeting (March 6,
1995)would be the regular meeting for March. The next meeting will be
the regularly scheduled meeting on April 27, 1995.
Ms.Macon quickly summarized the new proposed Ordinance. Ms.Macon
stated that the new Ordinance states that anytime the commission
designates"HC"HlstoricaUCultural,it has to be approved by City Council,
but the ordinance does not stipulate that the commission needs Council
approval to designate a property as a"potential landmark." Ms.Macon
continued that the new ordinance allows for potential landmarks to be on
the list in order for the thirty(30)day stay to be in effect Mr. Williams
asked Staffs opinion as to whether either option was a good start and Ms.
Macon responded that either one was an acceptable position according to
Legal staff. Ms. Tinker commented that the standards that Staff is
proposing is outdated and has been done away with in most ordinances
around the country.
Mr. Goodman stated that the main objective is to get these properties
defined and try to pursue "HC"zoning on some specific properties. The
commission should be very selective in submitting these properties to City
Connell.
Mr. Gunning commented he has some reservations regarding the
ordinance presented today. Mr. Gunning continued that the ordinance is
Special Landmark Conmdssion Meeting 'S '
March 6, 1995
Page 12
strictly a starting point. These potential historic properties have to be
certified by City Council and that has not been done. The commission can
submit the entire list with all nine hundred properties or the commission
can develop its own criteria and select the most important structures and
submit them to City Council so that they can certify the list
Ms. Macon stated Planning Staff will meet with Legal Staff to find out
what management will support. The result will be forwarded to the
commission for review and comments. Ms. Macon continued that the
Texas Historical Commission (TBC) has the completed list of historical
properties in Corpus Christi and before the City can use CDBG funding for
demolition or repair of structure THC performs a historical review of the
property. If properties are found to be on the site survey, additional
information or clarification is sent to THC prior to utilizing CDBG funds.
Locally,the survey may not seem to be effective,but on the State level It
Is.
There being no further business, the was adjourned at 5 p.m.
47)4.2 CAL--
Faryce G000n,City Planner
Staff Liaiso Landmark Commission
snumtaswaA)