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