Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 09/23/1999 MINUTES LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEPTEMBER 23, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Deborah Douglas, Chairman Ms. Sharon Brower Mr. Michael Cleary Ms. Grandis Lenken Mr. Mark Luddeke Mr. Kevin Mara1st Mr. Terry Orf Mr. Elmon Phillips Ms. Elizabeth Rentz Mr. Tom Stewart Ms. Bunny Tinker MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Alan Belcher, Vice Chairman (Excused) Ms. Betsy Chapman (Excused) Ms. Lisa Garza (Excused) Mr. Jerry Wagoner (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, City Planner Ms. Linda Williams, Recording Secretary Ms. Deborah Douglas, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. The roll was called and a quorum was declared. ACTION ITEM(S): APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 26, 1999 MEETING: The minutes were approved as distributed. HISTORICAL PLAQUE PRESENTATION: Mr. Tom Stewart, Chairman of the Historical Plaque Subcommittee, gave an update on the committee's accomplishments. Mr. Stewart stated the committee met on Thursday, September 9, 1999 in the Planning Department conference room. Mr.Stewart continued that members present were Mark Luddeke, Elmon Phillips, Jerry Wagoner, and himself. Mr. Stewart continued that the committee discussed several sketch layouts that were prepared by Mr. Luddeke - one sketch showing a 5"x7" oval insert was presented for "Potential Landmark" properties and a 7"x10" oval Insert was presented for "HC" designated properties. Mr. Stewart stated that Staff sent out letters of bid to several companies and four (4) bids were received. The lowest bid received was from the Erie Landmark Company out of Chantilly, Virginia. Their bid was $52.00 each for the 7" x10" plaque and $42.00 each for the 5"x 7". Mr. Stewart continued that it is the committee's recommendation that the Landmark Commission accepts the bid submitted by the Erie Landmark SCANNED Landmark Commission`Meeting September 23, 1999 Page 2 Company and proceeds with ordering the bronze plaques. Mr. Stewart stated the plaques will have a brown background and the bronze would be the best choice. Mr. Stewart continued that Planning Staff is working with Mike Gordon of the Park and Recreation Department in having the plaques installed. There are four variations from the sketch that was presented about four weeks ago and they all have different textures. Ms. Tinker asked if the Commission was voting to approve the design and accept the bid as recommended by the committee and it was answered yes. Ms. Tinker also asked if the design for the "HC" plaques would have the suggested "HCL." Mr. Stewart stated he didn't think the public would know what the "HC" stood for on the plaque design. Ms. Tinker stated that since there are two groups are to be Identified, the designs should have some consistency and her choice would be that they both include "HC." Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison, stated she was researching what other cities included on their designs and most of them used the words "landmark" or "district." Ms. Douglas stated that a possible solution could be to have a large "L" in the middle of the design with the letters "H" and "C" on both sides of the "L." Mr. Phillips asked if a plaque could be placed on a National Registry site and It was answered that a plaque could not be placed on the site if it was not designated "HC." Ms. Tinker explained that the only thing the "potential landmark" designation does for a property is to flag the Building Inspections Department so that a demolition permit cannot be issued for a specified time limit. Ms. Tinker continued that she personally felt that the "potential landmarks" should not have a plaque attached to it, but It is better than not having any type of recognition for the property. At this point, Ms. Macon asked commissioners to vote on which company to use and to accept the bid from one of the four bids received. Mr. Stewart commented that the cost of having the plaques made in bronze over aluminum was not very significant. After further discussion, the following action was taken: • IT WAS MOVED BY MS. TINKER AND SECONDED BY MS. LENKEN THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVE THE SUBMITTED DESIGN OF THE PLAQUE FOR "HC" DESIGNATED PROPERTIES. THAT SUCH DESIGN HAVE THE LARGE "L" IN THE MIDDLE OF THE OVAL INSERT WITH THE LETTERS "HC" PLACED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE "L" AND THE WORDING "HC" LANDMARK PLACED ON THE BOTTOM OF THE 7" X 10" PLAQUES AND THE WAVE BE REPLACED WITH SMALL STARS. MOTION PASSED. Landmark Commission Meeting September 23, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Maraist asked how many plaques were needed and Ms. Macon answered that the cost break was for a minimum of 25 in each size. After further discussion, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. TINKER AND SECONDED BY MS. RENTZ THAT THE DESIGN FOR THE SMALLER PLAQUE ALSO HAVE A LARGE "L" IN THE MIDDLE OF THE OVAL INSERT AND PLACE THE WORDING 'POTENTIAL LANDMARK" AT THE BOTTOM OF THE 5"X7" PLAQUES, OTHERWISE DUPLICATING THE PLAQUE DESIGN FOR "HC" PROPERTIES. MOTION PASSED. UPDATE ON HISTORICAL BROCHURE - BROCHURE COMMITTEE: Ms. Macon stated that at this point and time, the committee has not really begun to write and compile information for the brochure. Ms. Macon stated that staff has not added any additional verbiage since the last draft presented at the August meeting. Ms. Macon continued that after talking with Mr. Wagoner at the August meeting, a category entitled "Historical Points of Interest" would be added to the brochure. UPDATE ON HISTORICAL FINANCIAL INCENTIVES - FINANCIAL INCENTIVE COMMITTEE: Ms. Bunny Tinker stated that the Financial Incentive Committee met last week in the Planning Department conference room. Ms. Tinker continued that members present were Kevin Maraist, Alan Belcher, Elizabeth Rentz and herself. For benefit of new commissioners, Ms. Tinker provided a brief summary on how the committee was created. Ms. Tinker stated that about one year ago, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to consider and approve designating twenty-seven (27) properties as "potential landmarks." The Planning Commission approved the recommendation to designate the properties and it was forwarded to City Council for final approval. At the City Council public hearing, one of the council members requested the Landmark Commission to pursue possible recommendations for financial incentives as it relates to historical preservation. A committee was formed to follow up the request. Ms. Tinker continued that at an earlier meeting, Alan Belcher was asked to research the economic impact of tourism as to where economic preservation is present, and Kevin Maraist was asked to make the presentation. Ms. Tinker continued that at their last meeting, the committee decided they wanted to contact the Mayor and City Council to find out what they wanted the Landmark Commission to pursue. Ms. Tinker went on to say that it has to be determined by the Commission what is to be accomplished in pursuing financial incentives; which is to get more owners to designate their properties. Ms. Tinker continued that the committee wanted to create a survey/questionnaire and send It to the Mayor and City Council to receive their input. Ms. Tinker stated she met with Mr. Tom Utter, Assistant City Manager, this afternoon to let him review the draft packet before it was sent to City Council. Ms. Tinker Landmark Commission Meeting September 23, 1999 Page 4 explained that the handout was a summary of the four types of incentives that could be offered: 1) Ad Valorem tax; 2) A reduction of some or all permit fees; 3) Municipality grants; or 4) One percent of the hotel/motel tax that is available for historical preservation. Ms. Tinker continued that Mr. Utter suggested that Items 1 through 3 be utilized in the survey sent to City Council along with a cover letter signed by the chairman. The survey will be included in their Council packets. Ms. Tinker continued that this was not coming from the committee as a recommendation, but she personally felt that the Council should have the opportunity to review the full range of options available. Ms. Tinker went on to say that Mr. Utter will be at today's meeting to address the commission. Mr. Phillips asked what other cities provided this avenue as a resource for preservation and Ms. Tinker answered that several of the larger cities, Dallas, Forth Worth, Grapevine, Lubbock, all have some type of financial Incentives for preservation. At this point in the meeting, Ms. Tinker turned the floor over to Mr. Utter. Mr. Utter expressed thanks for the opportunity to address the commission. Mr. Utter stated that he met with Ms. Tinker earlier in the afternoon to discuss the survey/questionnaire that the Landmark Commission wanted to distribute to the Mayor and City Council. Mr. Utter continued by stating that the City of Corpus Christi already receives money from the hotel/motel tax for Heritage Park under Item 4. Mr. Utter continued that also monies are taken from the hotel/motel tax to use for tourist/convention. Most recently, the Hotel/Motel/Condominium Association questioned whether the City should be using the hotel/motel tax monies, but it Is very appropriate to send something to the Council for their consideration. Mr. Utter continued that in the past, the Council has been somewhat hesitant in offering financial incentives; however there has been a movement to give tax abatements to owners in the downtown area. Mr. Utter stated that he would ensure that the survey/questionnaire was sent to the Council. Mr. Utter continued that the City depends on the tourist industry and the city is limited in historical elements to preserve, but there are some real fine examples of historical influences. Ms. Tinker asked Mr. Utter what kind of track record did the Council have in returning this type of report and Mr. Utter responded that the Council's track record was very good. Mr. Utter continued that the City starts preparing its budget in February and it is approved in July and he would like for Council to receive the survey before the budget process starts and Landmark CommissionT/leeting September 23, 1999 Page 5 they should receive It sometime this fall. Ms. Tinker stated that a return date of October 15, 1999 Is requested in the cover letter. After receiving the responses, the Committee, along with a member of the Planning Commission and Staff, can hopefully formulate a recommendation that will be approved by everyone. Mr. Orf stated his concern was that if the assessed tax rate was more than 1 percent, it could become a very sticky issue. By taking out the percentage and outlining what portions of the hotel/motel tax Is used for preservation, any possible situations would be eliminated. Ms. Tinker stated she would like to research to find out how much property owners would be saved in taxes for "HC" designated properties. The tax incentive would clearly depend on what the interest is of the owner and the program could be tailor made to meet the City's needs. Mr. Maraist stated he knew a lady who was familiar with the Rutgers Report and It showed the impact of tax incentive programs. Mr. Maraist continued he could ask the lady to do a presentation to the Landmark Commission. After all comments and questions were addressed, the following action was taken. IT WAS MOVED BY MS. TINKER AND SECONDED BY MS. LENKEN THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVE SENDING THE SURVEY/QUESTIONNAIRE, FINALIZED BY CITY STAFF AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A COVER LETTER SIGNED BY THE CHAIRMAN. MOTION PASSED. GOLD STAR COURT PROJECT UDPATE: Ms. Macon stated that at the August meeting, she was requested to review the progress on the Gold Star Court project. Ms. Macon continued she made a field inspection and found that the markers are in place. Ms. Macon stated she spoke with Mike Gordon, Park and Recreation Department, and he wanted to know If the Landmark Commission had any more questions regarding the project. Ms. Macon continued that he was told that the Commission wanted to know if the walkway would be installed and Mr. Gordon responded that the walkway would not likely be installed prior to the new year. BUDDY LAWRENCE MARKER FOR HERITAGE PARK: Mr. Phillips stated he had a question whether or not the Nueces County Historical Commission would pay for the marker for the Buddy Lawrence House. Mr. Utter stated If the County did not have enough money to pay for the marker, the City would pay for the marker. Mr. Phillips stated the marker at the original site of the Buddy Lawrence House does not mention the house, but refers only to the site. A question was asked regarding which groups would be located in the Landmark Commission FAeeting W September 23, 1999 Page 6 Buddy Lawrence House and Mr. Utter responded that the Veterans Band and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce are the tenants. Mr. Phillips stated that the markers for the other houses in Heritage Park told about the salient features of the houses. Mr. Utter stated that the markers for the houses In Heritage Park are Texas recorded markers. Mr. Utter continued that the marker for the Galvan House was based on the family that lived in the house and the Litttes-Martin House was also based on the family that resided in the house. After all comments and discussion concluded, no action was taken. Thanks were expressed to Mr. Utter for attending today's meeting and for his support of the Landmark Commission submitting the survey/questionnaire to City Council. Ms. Macon stated that at the July meeting, Mr. Gunning suggested that the Landmark Commission request Mr. Art Sosa, Building Official, to be on the agenda to discuss and review waivers of historical codes for the next meeting. Ms. Macon stated she spoke with Carolyn Gignac, architect for the renovation project of the Buddy Lawrence House, and she was not ready to do a formal presentation to the Landmark Commission, before she meets with the Commission, she has to meet with the Master Review Committee. Ms. Macon continued that Ms. Gignac would be requested to also research the architectural integrity of the house. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. ! Q L4ALi da Williams Faryce G de- , City Planner Recording Secretary Staff Lia n to Landmark Commission