Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 01/28/1999 MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 28, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Deborah Douglas, Vice Chairman Mr. Allen Belcher Ms. Sharon Brower Ms. Lisa Garza Ms. Grandis Lenken Mr. Kevin Maraist Ms. Elizabeth Rentz Mr. Tom Stewart Ms. Bunny Tinker Mr. Joe Williams MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Betsy Chapman (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Michael Gunning, Acting Planning Director Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, City Planner Ms. Linda Williams, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to order at 4:40 p.m. by Ms. Deborah Douglas, Vice Chairman. The roll was called and a quorum was declared. Two new commissioners, Ms. Lisa Garza and Mr. Tom Stewart, were welcomed and introduced to the Landmark Commission members and Staff. Ms. Garza is a native of Corpus Christi and is currently working with San Jacinto Title Company, where she has worked for the past four years. Ms. Garza stated she was excited to be on the Commission and looked forward to serving. Ms. Garza fills the competency of a title searcher. Mr. Tom Stewart, Retired Civil Engineer, previously Director of City Traffic Engineering for the City for twenty-four (24) years and with the Texas Department of Transportation. Mr. Stewart stated he was really interested in history and was looking forward to serving on the commission. Mr. Stewart was appointed to the commission as a regular member. ACTIONS) Approve Minutes for October 22. 1998 Meetinp: The minutes for the October 22, 1998 meeting were approved as distributed. Master Review Committees Recommendation On Proposed Renovations for the Greer-Young-Westergren House on Rossiter Street CHC' Overlay): Ms. Bunny Tinker, member of the Master Review Committee, gave the committee report. Ms.Tinker stated the Master Review Committee met with John Wright, Architect, for the renovation project on Wednesday, January 20, 1999 in the Planning Department conference room. Ms. SCANNED Landmark Commission Meeting January 28, 1999 Page 2 Tinker provided brief background information regarding the structure. It was continued that this property is the only structure in Corpus Christi that was "HC"designated at the request of the property owner. The property was "HC" designated in 1978. All the other structures with a "HC" overlay are owned by the City and are located on city property. Ms. Tinker continued that recently the property changed owners -- the new owner is a non-profit organization called the Society of the Body of Christ. Ms. Tinker stated three people will be living on site and they have adapted some of the interior space to better suit their needs and plan to install a wheelchair ramp. Ms. Tinker continued that the Master Review Committee recommends approval of the proposed plans as submitted with a suggestion that the design of the new doors at the back of the structure be changed. At this point in the meeting, the floor was turned over to Mr. Wright. Mr. John Wright addressed the commission. Mr. Wright expressed his appreciation in working with the Landmark Commission on this project. Mr. Wright continued that the renovations will be made to the added- on portion of the house located at the rear of the property. Mr.Wright provided slides that gave a comprehensive view of the house. The following slides were shown: Slide 1: Showed the front view of the house. Slide 2: Showed the east side of the house and the addition that was made to the house in 1975. Mr. Wright commented that the addition was not made in keeping with the original architectural of the house. Slide 3: Showed the north facade of the house and the rear of the house. Slide 4: Showed the back portion of the west facade of the house; which illustrated the Greek Revival architectural style of the house. Slide 5: Showed the backyard of the house and the area in which modifications will be made. Mr. Wright explained that the porch was added and is mainly made up of doors across the back of the house. Slide 6: Showed the original house and two (2) sloping pieces on the roof line that were added. Several doors were shown and Mr. Wright pointed out that the fascia trim, which was much larger at the center of the house, was the original trim, and that the additions do not have such trim. Landmark commission Meeting January 28, 1999 Page 3 Slide 7: Showed several patio type doors that were added. Mr. Wright commented that the doors are rotted probably because of water running down the faces and left standing. Mr. Wright continued that the wood was probably not as good as the original wood, and if these had been the original doors, they would probably be in good condition. Slide 8: Showed view of the column on the front part of the house. The column will be replicated on the back porch area where the modifications will take place. Details of the base and capital were also shown in the slide. Mr. Wright pointed out the truncations of the corner of the column that will be captured in this addition. Mr. Wright stated that the house will be extended and the wheelchair ramp will be added to the rear porch area of the house. In the modifications, the same detail, as the original house, will be used and the same trim will be used on the house. Mr. Wright continued that they will not be replicating the fascia detail because it is not on the other side of the house. Mr. Wright concluded his presentation and the floor was opened for questions and comments. Ms. Tinker stated to Mr. Wright that she felt it has become accepted, under these circumstances, that he not go for replication since it is a remodeling of an add-on, and it could be frowned upon to try to replicate things of this kind. Mr. Wright stated that the windows are not the original ones and the new ones planned for installation are more in keeping with the windows used in the add-on. Ms.Tinker added that the Master Review Committee also recommended to Mr. Wright that the style of doors be changed. A question was asked to clarify whether the modifications were to the add-on or to the original structure and Mr. Wright stated that the modifications will be made to the add-on portion only. Ms.Tinker asked Mr.Wright if the porch/ramp would be painted and Mr. Wright answered they would be painted. After all comments and discussion concluded, the following action was taken: THE LANDMARK COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MASTER REVIEW COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE RENOVATION PLANS ON THE GREER-YOUNG-WESTERGREN HOUSE AS SUBMITTED BY MR. JOHN WRIGHT, ARCHITECT, WITH A SUGGESTION TO CHANGE THE STYLE OF THE DOORS. Landmark Commission MeeLfng r► January 28, 1999 Page 4 Ms. Macon, Staff Liaison, informed Mr. Wright that the blueprint for the renovation plans needed to be stamped with the Landmark Commission's "Certificate of Appropriateness" stamp; after which a building permit could be issued. Mr. Wright stated he had the original blueprint with him and the appropriate stamp was affixed to the blueprint. Ms. Macon also requested that a copy of the stamped plan be provided for Landmark Commission records. After Mr. Wright's presentation, he introduced Ms. Francette Meaney, President of the Board of Directors for the Society of Body of Christ organization. Ms. Meaney addressed the commission by expressing thanks for approving the modifications to the house. Ms. Meaney continued that the changes are needed to allow their ministry to be fulfilled. Ms. Meaney continued that the house is owned by the Society of the Body of Christ and is an association of the Public of the Faithful through the Catholic Church. The people living in the house are dedicated and committed to helping others. The Society provides a ministry for residents in nursing homes, the elderly, the dying, and provides companionship. The organization also provides training for Sisters coming into the ministry and the house will also serve as a small convent. The changes will allow the Society to bring residents out of nursing homes for outings and offer individuals a place of retreat and getting together. The wheelchair ramps are needed for those individuals who are confined to wheelchairs and have other physical limitations and capabilities. After Ms. Meaney's comments, expressions of thanks and appreciation were extended to her for attending today's meeting and for sharing information about the organization's ministry. Expressions of thanks and appreciation were also expressed to Mr. Wright for attending today's meeting and for the opportunity for the Landmark Commission to be part of a historical preservation project. Ms. Tinker stated she was really excited about the opportunity for the Landmark Commission to be involved and working with a "HC" property. Ms. Tinker continued in expressing this is what the Landmark Commission is suppose to be doing, but never gets the chance because there was only one private property designated "HC: Ms. Tinker continued that sometimes historical boards/commissions get negative connotations because people think that changes cannot be made to the properties because of the designation. Ms. Tinker added that it is not hard at all when you work with an architect who is sensitive and knowledgeable to these matters, it does not have to be adversarial. Ms. Tinker continued that the Master Review Committee, a subcommittee of the Landmark Commission, is very important and the commission always try to have at least one of the architects serve on this committee. • il+ Landmark commission meeting January 28, 1999 Page 5 J andmark Commission Sponsored "HC" Overlay zoning Application For Property at 1613 Mestina Street: Ms. Macon briefly summarized the "HC" request submitted by the applicant. Ms. Macon stated the owners of the property are Susan Bain and Luis Gonzales. They submitted a zoning application requesting "HC" designation on the property. The projected use for the house is an office for a non-profit organization. Ms. Macon continued that the applicants were notified of today's meeting and she was told they would be here. Ms. Macon stated two separate zoning applications were provided for commissioners to review. The first application was the current one submitted by the new owners, and the second application was one that was previously drafted by the Landmark Commission. Ms. Macon referenced the zoning application packet stamped "draft" Ms. Macon continued that in this packet, a more detailed history of the property was included. One of the attachments in the packet was a letter received from the Texas Historical Commission stating the property was eligible for listing in the National Register. Ms. Macon continued that Ms. Tinker will provide more details about the property since she has worked with the Belanger family in the past. At this point, the floor was turned over to Ms. Tinker. Ms. Tinker stated that the architectural style of the house is very much like the Gugenheim House in Heritage Park. The house was moved to its present location on Mestina Street; and the original location of the house has never been determined. This house is the third one on the left from the Crosstown Expressway on Mestina Street. The Landmark Commission has been looking at this house for about twenty (20) years and it is in a very bad state of repair. Mr. and Mrs. James Belanger were the original owners of this structure, as well as the house they lived in next door. The house located at 1613 Mestina was used for storage. Ms. Tinker continued that the house is a marvelous example of a mid- Victorian architectural style in the city. Ms. Tinker continued that the Belangers' property taxes were in arrear by seven or eight years. Ms. Tinker referenced the draft application packet by stating that the Landmark Commission wanted to save the house from foreclosure for back taxes by having the property "HC" designated. According to Property Tax Codes, historical properties can be exempted from property taxes under certain circumstances. Ms. Tinker continued that the Belangers were willing to give the house to anyone who wanted to move it and restore it, but the real problem was the house could not be moved because of the back taxes. Ms. Tinker explained that she approached the different taxing entities to see if the taxes could be waived and all of the entities verbally agreed to waive them except the City of Corpus Christi. Ms. Tinker stated to bring the commission up-to-date, applicants came forth to City Planning wanting to apply for "HC" designation on the leo Landmark Commission Meeting January 28, 1999 Page 6 property. Ms.Tinker explained, for benefit of new commissioners, that under Item 4A on the application, the applicant is not requesting a change of zoning from the "A-2," they are requesting "HC" (Historical/Cultural) designation as an overlay zone. The use for which it is presently zoned does not change. The preliminary request is for full "HC" overlay and not just for facade; which the original application was submitted for facade only. Ms. Tinker explained that "HC-Facade" was a new designation and had never been used. The facade applies to the front of the structure that can be seen from the street. Ms. Tinker asked Staff if she knew what kind of offices would be established in the house and Ms. Macon replied that the applicants only disclosed that the house would be used for offices for a non-profit group, and they did not give the name of the group. Ms. Macon continued she was not sure if they even had a specific agency in mind when the application was submitted. Ms. Macon stated she wanted to find out if this type of zoning application was one that the commission would pursue. Ms. Macon continued she wanted to clarify that before she proceeded to submit it to the Planning Department and Planning Commission. Ms. Tinker stated if the Landmark Commission proposes the zoning change or the designation, the owner does not pay the normal application fees of $542.00, plus $10.00 for a zoning notice sign. Ms. Tinker continued that the waiver of those fees is one of the few incentives property owners can receive. Ms. Tinker continued that, in her opinion, the Belanger property was one of the commission's star properties and she would support the application. Ms. Tinker went on to say she would like to know the name of the non-profit organization that will be going into the house because it could impact what changes they want to make. The interior of the house is very interesting. Ms. Tinker continued that the house was moved so long ago that there are no records available. Ms. Macon stated, as a point of information, that when a property is listed and designated as "HC," Southern Building Codes allowances are made as far as rehab construction. The codes allow for adjustments to some electrical and plumbing requirements. Mr. Stewart asked if there was a time line for this process to be completed, and was there a way for Mr. Belanger to come before the commission. Ms. Tinker answered that Mr. Belanger died and his widow has moved out of the house and is now living with her daughter. Mr. Williams asked who will be communicating with the applicants and Ms. Macon stated she will try to contact the applicants to get more information and report at the February meeting; and hopefully they 10 Landmark Commission Meeting January 28, 1999 Page 7 will be at the meeting to answer any questions. Ms. Macon stated this item will be on the February meeting's agenda. Ms. Tinker stated she wanted to clarify that the Landmark Commission does not have anything to do with the interior of the house or the use for the property. Ms. Tinker continued that if the applicants do not come to the February meeting, maybe the Landmark Commission can proceed with the application process, especially since the twenty-seven (27) potential landmarks listing was approved. Ms. Brower stated she did not know if it made a difference, but in looking at both applications under Item 4A, there is a discrepancy on the square footage -- it increased to 10,500 square feet on the new application and the previous application noted 6,500 square feet. Ms. Macon clarified that the larger dimension on the applicant's application is the lot size of two lots. It was also noted that the zoning goes with the structure and not the land. A question was asked about what happens to the designation once a structure is moved and it was answered that the designation would be rescinded, and once the structure is relocated, the owner would have to reapply for the designation. Ms. Brower stated she had a question regarding the Job Description "Demolish building as per demolition specifications" on Attachment 2. Ms. Brower wanted to know if there was a plan to demolish the structure and Ms. Macon answered that the City of Corpus Christi, through the Housing and Community Development Department, has to submit a report to the Texas Historical Commission regarding any property being considered for demolition when federal funds are to be used for such demolition. If the department's response is the property is worthy of preservation, then federal funds cannot be used to demolish the property. Ms. Macon continued that in 1991, this property was under consideration for demolition, and the letter received from the Texas Historical Commission prevented the demolition with federal funds. After all comments and discussion concluded, Ms. Macon stated she would follow-up for the February meeting. Appoint Nominating Committee to Elect New Chairman and Vice Chairman for 1999: Ms. Deborah Douglas, Vice Chairman, asked for volunteers to serve on the nominating committee. The committee's responsibility is to bring back a recommendation of names for the chairman and vice chairman to be presented at the February meeting. After a brief discussion, Bunny Tinker, Grandis Lenken, and Alan Belcher agreed to serve on the nominating committee, with Bunny Tinker serving as Chairman. Landmark Commission Mee*Kg January 28, 1999 Page 8 After further discussion, the Committee decided to meet after today's Landmark Commission meeting. Appoint Landmark Commissioner to Serve On the Nueces County Ad Hoc Board: Ms. Macon stated at the last meeting, the Commission recommended two people to serve on the Ad Hoc Committee -- Mr. Williams and Mr. Stewart. At that meeting, Mr. Williams was absent and Mr. Stewart was not an official member. Ms. Macon continued that since the last commission meeting, she found out that only one person was needed. Ms. Macon explained that the two representatives from the Landmark Commission were Ed Goodman, previous chairman, and Deborah Douglas, current vice chairman. Mr. Goodman is no longer a member of the Commission and a replacement is needed. Ms. Tinker asked when was next meeting for the Ad Hoc Committee and Ms. Douglas responded that she was not sure when the next meeting was scheduled. For benefit of new commissioners, Ms. Tinker gave a brief summary of the on-going status of the old county courthouse. Ms.Tinker continued that several months ago, City Council approved S50,000 to hire a consultant to conduct a feasibility study on the structural soundness of the building. Ms. Douglas asked Staff if the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation for the engineering firm to conduct the study had been forwarded to City Council and Ms. Macon answered yes. Ms. Macon continued that the engineering firm of Killis-Almond of San Antonio, Texas was selected to conduct the study. Ms. Douglas continued that the building has been determined to be structurally sound and one of the things left to be determined is how much deterioration has occurred and an estimate as to what it will cost to repair it. Mr. Williams stated he has been working with Terry Orr and Dusty Durrill on the courthouse and he was not sure if he was an official member of the Ad Hoc Committee. After a brief discussion, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. STEWART THAT MR. WILLIAMS BE APPOINTED AS THE SECOND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION TO SERVE ON THE AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE OLD NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND. • 0E0 Landmark Commission Meeting January 28, 1999 Page 9 After further discussion, Mr. Williams stated he would support Mr. Stewart's appointment as the official representative to serve on the Ad Hoc Committee. After all comments and discussion concluded, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. TINKER AND SECONDED BY MS. LENKEN THAT MR. STEWART BE APPOINTED AS THE SECOND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION TO SERVE ON THE AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE OLD NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE. MOTION PASSED. Fill Engineering Competency With I andmark Commissioner Who Is An Engineer and Serving As A Regular Meeting: Ms. Macon stated when Mr. Stewart was appointed to the Landmark Commission, he was appointed to fill the competency as a regular member. Also, at that time, Mr. Maxwell was still a member of the commission. The City Secretary office has requested that Mr. Stewart fill the competency of an engineer rather than a regular member. Ms. Macon stated the Commission should vote on this item rather than an oral consent. Ms. Macon continued that there are still four (4) vacancies to be filled: (1) architect and (3) regular members. Ms. Macon stated that an application has been received from a local architect to possibly fill the competency. Mr. Art Sosa was instrumental in helping to find this applicant through placing an advertisement in an AIA publication. After all comments were received, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. WILLIAMS AND SECONDED BY MR. MARAIST THAT MR. TOM STEWART BE APPROVED TO FILL THE COMPETENCY OF AN ENGINEER. MOTION PASSED. DISCUSSION ITEM(S): Update on City Council Action Regarding Including Twentv-seven (27) "Potential Landmarks" and Four(4) "HC" Properties As Appendices to the Preservation Plan: Ms. Macon stated that City Council met on Tuesday, January 19, 1999 and had the second reading of the ordinance to designate the twenty-seven (27) properties as"potential landmarks"and to include the four(4) "HC" properties within the Preservation Plan. The Council unanimously passed the second reading of the ordinance. Mr. Thomas Henderson, a resident of Furman Avenue, spoke before the Council expressing his thanks for the Landmark Commission's efforts in helping this to come into being. Ms. Macon continued that positive comments were received from Councilman Colmenero in which he stated that the City should continue encouraging property owners ��rr w Landmark Commission Mee ting January 28, 1999 Page 10 who have historical elements to participate in this type of program by having their properties listed. Ms. Macon continued that Council Colmenero suggested that possibly the City can help by offering financial incentives for property owners with designated historical elements. Ms. Macon stated this item is something listed for Staff and the Landmark Commission to follow up on. Ms. Tinker asked who was heading this and Ms. Macon answered that this would fall under Mr. Utter's office. Ms. Tinker asked who has the lead and Ms. Macon responded that Mr. Utter has the lead, however, the Landmark Commission can make recommendations, which Staff will forward to Management. After staff and management's review, a decision can be made as to what the next step would be. Ms. Tinker stated she wanted to suggest that Staff followup on the tax abatement and look specifically at the Cities of Dallas, Fort Worth, and possibly El Paso. Ms. Tinker continued that both the City of Dallas and Fort Worth have a history with tax abatements and can provide figures and costs. Ms. Douglas also suggested contacting the Texas Historical Commission to find out what information they may have. After all comments and discussion concluded, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. TINKER AND SECONDED BY MS. LENKEN THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION GO ON RECORD, AND IN WRITING, TO ANYONE INVOLVED IN THIS TAX ABATEMENT STUDY, TO CONCLUDE IT AND PRESENT IT TO CITY COUNCIL, AND AT A MINIMUM, STAFF CONTACT THE CITY OF DALLAS, FORT WORTH, AND EL PASO TO GATHER INFORMATION, COSTS AND FIGURES ON THEIR TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAMS AND FOR ANY FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF MAY GET FROM THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION. MOTION PASSED. Ms. Douglas asked Staff if the commission should meet in a group to discuss the tax abatement project and Ms. Macon stated she would compile some information together before the next meeting, after which the commission can decide how it should go to a subcommittee. Update On The Relocation of the Buddy Lawrence House to Its New Site Across the Street Behind Heritage Park. Ms. Macon stated the structure has been relocated to an area behind Heritage Park. At this time, the City is working a consultant to review some of the specifications for restoration. The property is not designated "HC," but it has all the qualities for a "HC" property. This property is one that the Landmark Commission could review for consideration. (110 Landmark commission Meeting January 28, 1999 Page 11 Ms. Tinker stated she would like an explanation as to why this area was not included in Heritage Park. Ms. Tinker continued that she thought Heritage Park was expanded to include the property behind Heritage Park; which included the area across the street where the Buddy Lawrence House was sited. Ms. Tinker continued the commission met on it a number of years ago and reviewed and developed site plans for future relocation of other structures. Ms. Tinker stated that If this is true, she wanted to know why the house was not located on one of the sites developed for that area. Ms. Macon stated that the property was never "HC" designated. An ordinance was developed that stated any renovations or new construction that happened on that block would be reviewed by the Landmark Commission. At this time, construction has not taken place. Ms. Tinker stated one of the reasons she thought Heritage Park had been expanded was because the Landmark Commission spent a great deal of time siting the four (4) Woods' Houses sometime back. Ms. Tinker continued that when the boundaries were drawn, she thought the land was included. Ms. Macon stated she will be working closely with the Engineering Department, who is involved with the restoration and she will ensure that they get a copy of the ordinance before any restoration work begins. Ms. Tinker stated she is not upset about where the house was located, but she was upset that the project did not come before the Landmark Commission, if indeed it is in Heritage Park. Ms. Macon stated that the project was initially presented by Mr. Utter to the Landmark Commission concerning relocation of the house. Ms. Tinker stated that was when the City initially accepted the house. Ms. Macon continued that the Landmark Commission knew the house would be located in the rear area of Heritage Park, but the exact spot was not known. After further discussion, Staff was requested to followup on the status of the Buddy Lawrence House and report at the February meeting. Ms. Tinker stated that at the October meeting, she requested commission members to consider subscribing to the Medallion. Ms. Tinker encouraged members to seriously consider the subscriptions. The Medallion is a wonderful resource. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:46 p.m. /nkt 4,*4 tLt L- Lit 1a'—JY :c,, Li da Williams Farycq' oode-Macon, City Planner Recording Secretary Staff Liaison