Loading...
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)