Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Landmark Commission - 11/18/1999 (440 23 2425 0� 2s2� MINUTES IJAN 20u0 o LANDMARK COMMISSION MEETING CIP/' SECS:. 5TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM '1FFICF ti NOVEMBER 18, 1999 <<OL6aLg ?�/ MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Deborah Douglas, Chairman Mr. Alan Belcher Ms. Sharon Brower Mr. Michael Cleary Ms. Lisa Garza Mr. Mark Luddeke Mr. Terry Orf Mr. Elmon Phillips Ms. Elizabeth Rentz Mr. Tom Stewart Ms. Bunny Tinker MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Betsy Chapman (Excused) Ms. Grandis Lenken (Excused) Mr. Kevin Maraist (Excused) Mr. Jerry Wagoner (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Michael Gunning, Director of Planning Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, City Planner Mr. Tony Cisneros, Director of Park & Recreation Mr. James Boggs, Architect, Engineering Services Ms. Linda Williams, Recording Secretary Mr. Tom Stewart, Acting 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 OCTOBER 28, 1999: The minutes were approved as distributed. Ms. Tinker requested that the handout received from Mr. Art Sosa, Building Official, at the October meeting, become an official attachment to the minutes. MASTER REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Before Ms. Macon began her update, Mr. Jim Boggs, Staff Architect with City Engineering Services, and Mr. Tony Cisneros, Director of City Parks and Recreation, were introduced to commissioners. Ms. Macon continued that Mr. Boggs is handling the restoration project and Mr. Cisneros is over the Heritage Park area. Ms. Faryce Goode-Macon, Staff Liaison, provided brief background information on the Buddy Lawrence House project. Ms. Macon stated that the City is involved with an adaptive reuse project for the Buddy Lawrence House. The house was donated to the City by the Javelina Plant; and was originally SCANNED 400 V Landmark commission Meeting November 18, 1999 Page 2 located near the plant on McBride Lane. After its adaptive reuse and restoration, the house will be used for offices by two non-profit organizations. The Landmark Commission has been given the charge of reviewing and approving the architectural facade of the house based on the Master Review Committee's recommendation. Ms. Macon continued that Carolyn James met with the Master Review Committee earlier this week and Ms. Bunny Tinker will submit the Committee's recommendation. At this point, the floor was turned over to Ms. Tinker. Ms. Bunny Tinker, Master Review Committee member, presented the Committee's recommendation. Ms. Tinker stated the Committee met with Carolyn James, Architect with Lignac and Associates, on Tuesday, November 16, 1999 in the Planning Department conference room. The purpose of the meeting was to review the proposed architectural facade of the restoration plans for the Buddy Lawrence House. Ms. Tinker continued that Ms. James presented two options for the committee to review and discuss. Ms. Tinker went on to say that the architects were told by City Staff that the house would not be restored to its original 1800 configuration, but instead be restored to a 1930 configuration. Ms. Tinker continued that Option 1 shows the front facade of the house with a pyramid shaped pediment as part of the roofline over a nine-paned decorative window with four smaller panes at the bottom. Option 2 shows the front facade of the house with its original roofline and the window Is in conformity with the existing windows shown. Ms. Tinker continued that after a lengthy discussion at the meeting, the vote was three (3) for Option 1 and one (1) for Option 2. The Committee's recommendation Is to approve Option 1. Ms. Tinker explained that she voted for Option 2 because the drawing was more in line with the original configuration of the house since it was not being restored to Its 1800 configuration. Ms. Tinker went on to say that Option 1 added the decorative pediment and window which was not part of the house and there was no need for it to be added. It did not enhance or add to the architectural integrity of the house. Ms. Tinker continued that enclosed sleeping porches were located on the second floor of the house and to place the type of windows that are included in Option 1 does not lend to the authenticity of the structure. After Ms. Tinker's presentation, Mr. Boggs addressed the commission. Mr. Boggs stated again that he is the project manager over the adaptive reuse of the Buddy Lawrence House. Mr. Boggs continued that the house is approximately 100 years old and was originally located on McBride Lane. Mr. Lawrence was a County Commissioner for Precinct One, and as County Commissioner, he played a vital role in getting the ship channel built, and helped to lead the way for the first paved roads in the city. Mr. Boggs stated it would be wonderful to be able to restore the house to its original architectural configuration, but It was not cost effective to do so. Mr. Boggs continued It was estimated that it would cost approximately iV Landmark Commission Meeting November 18, 1999 Page 3 $250,000 to redo the house to bring it up to today's building codes. Mr. Boggs went on to say that he spoke with Mr. Utter at great lengths about the project and it will be an adaptive reuse renovation instead of a true restoration. Mr. Boggs stated that the options that are presented today were well thought out and those columns on the front elevation were on the original house. The columns gave the feel for what the house was like at one time. After Mr. Boggs' comments, the floor was opened for discussion on the two options. Mr. Phillips asked Ms. James why weren't the shutters shown on the drawing and Ms. James responded because of the existing columns, the shutters were not included. Ms. James continued that one of the concerns voiced by the Master Review Committee was that the columns were not exposed and they wanted to add some new ones to the front of the structure to take it back to its original character for the front. Ms. James continued that the columns actually look like the original ones and they were trying to use some of the elements to create a reminiscent of the house rather than a restoration. Ms. James continued that changes would be made to the interior of the house simply because the configuration of several rooms were not conducive to their office space needs. The interior will not be restored to any original content except for one room, which will be made into a conference room. The family donated an inscribed metal plate that will be placed in this room. Ms. James stated that one of the City's focuses of the house was that the original house was board and batten siding. Although the house will not be in Heritage Park, but on Mesquite and Resaca Streets, they want the project to be kept in line with the style of the houses located in the park. Mr. Orf stated that as part of the Committee's decision with regard to the questions regarding the windows and shutters, the Committee felt that it was apparent that the space is needed for the function that will be placed In that room. Mr. Orf continued that if a mimic of the original flair of the house was capture, that would put it back in some context and hopefully later on someone will go back and reopen the porch. Ms. Tinker stated that Option 1 refers to the peak placed on the top portion of the roofline. Ms. Tinker continued that the Landmark Commission is a preservation advocate and basically what the commission has ended up with is a 1930s adaptive reuse to that house. The commission Is not charged with creating designs to make structures look better. The reason preservation is so important is because of what it designates - crafts, family history, architect and/or architectural Integrity, etc. Ms. Tinker continued that her response is where did we get off putting something on that was never there. Ms. Tinker went on to say that when you look at Option 2, it basically looks like the previous owner. it iii Landmark Commission Meeting November 18,1999 Page 4 Mr. Belcher asked why three members of the committee voted for Option 1 and Ms. Douglas stated the reason she voted for Option 1 was because in the picture it looked better, but after Ms. Tinker's comments, and the logic of what was stated, she might reconsider Option 2. Mr. Luddeke stated the added pediment gave a focal point to the front door of the elevation. Mr. Orf clarified that in the original drawing, it was easier to see. Ms. James stated she provided two options because there were two opinions. Ms. James continued she would like t0 feature one recommendation as a whole. Ms. James went on to say if there was a $650,000 budget to work with, the porches could be placed back, but that Is not the case. It was also concluded that the second story addition was not sensitive to the original part of the house. In keeping the space, an attempt was made to re-vamp the front door and break the long look. Ms. James continued that she will do the best to make the renovation look as nice as possible. Ms. James went on to say that she did not feel the real need to change the porches since it was In flavor with the original style of the house. Mr. Phillips stated he wanted to respond to the comments regarding the architectural features of the house. Mr. Phillips continued that if Mr. Utter wanted a marker for this house, more information would be needed. The Nueces County Historical Commission usually ordered all historical markers for the City and County. Mr. Phillips commented that the marker located at the original site of the house does not refer to the house, but It refers to the truck farm that was located at the site. After all comments concluded, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. BELCHER THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVE OPTION 2. MOTION DIED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND. After further discussion, Ms. Tinker stated a motion was not necessary since it was a committee recommendation - all the Commission had to do is accept the recommendation. Ms. Macon asked Ms. James if she needed the Commission to take a formal vote on the recommendation and Ms. James stated she would prefer to have a vote. The following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MR. BELCHER AND SECONDED BY MR. PHILLIPS THAT THE LANDMARK COMMISSION ACCEPT AND APPROVE OPTION 2 FOR THE ADAPTIVE REUSE RENOVATION PROJECT FOR THE BUDDY LAWRENCE HOUSE. MOTION PASSED. Thanks were expressed to Ms. James for attending today's meeting and the Commission looked forward to the completion of the renovation project V S Landmark Commission Meeting November 18, 1999 Page 5 on the Buddy Lawrence House. Ms. James stated she would go back and redo the renderings based on the action taken at today's meeting. DISCUSSION ITEM(S): GOLD STAR COURT UPDATE: Ms. Macon presented the drawing that Park and Recreation staff used for the preliminary plan for the restoration of the Gold Star Court. Ms. Macon continued that the first plan presented to the Landmark Commission was the one that was approved with the hand- drawn sketch provided by the Gold Star Court Committee. The second page is the plan drawn by Park and Recreation staff that incorporates the same improvements as outlined in the hand drawn plan, in addition it also shows the permanently embedded markers. Ms. Tinker requested that the original plan approved by the Landmark Commission be stamped with the "Certificate of Appropriateness" stamp. Mr. Phillips stated that the plans show the original layout of the court In 1930 except for the star and he wanted to know why the star cannot be put back. Ms. Macon stated she spoke with Mike Gordon and was told that they were looking at putting something of a facsimile of the original star, but no final decision had been made. Ms. Macon continued that It was suggested that a plaque be placed where the star was originally located with an Inscription stating this was the original location of the lighted star. Ms. Macon continued that Mr. Leland Johnson is no longer a member of the Gold Star Court Committee and he was one of the key members responsible for getting this project going. Ms. Tinker asked if It was true that California Palm trees were being planted instead of the Crape Myrtle trees and Mr. Cisneros answered that the plantings have not been completed. A question was also asked if the granite marker would have the names of soldiers that were included in the original memorial since it was difficult to climb to the top of the bluff area and Mr. Cisneros answered that the request will be accommodated. Ms. Tinker asked If the round light poles were changed and Mr. Cisneros answered that no new light poles were being added. After a brief discussion, a suggestion was made to substitute the site plan drawn by Park and Recreation staff and stamp it with the "Certificate of Appropriateness" stamp instead of the hand drawn plan originally submitted by the Gold Star Court Committee, even though the hand drawn plan was submitted to the Texas Historical Commission. It was also suggested that the new flagpole be removed. After all comments concluded, the following action was taken: IT WAS MOVED BY MS. TINKER AND SECONDED BY MR. PHILLIPS THAT THE SITE PLAN DRAWN BY PARK AND RECREATION STAFF BE STAMPED WITH THE "CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS" STAMP INSTEAD OF THE HAND DRAWN SITE PLAN PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED • Landmark commission Meeting November 18, 1999 Page 6 BY THE GOLD STAR COURT AND THAT THE NEW FLAG POLE BE REMOVED FROM THE EVENT AREA. MOTION PASSED. RESULTS OF FINANCIAL INCENTIVES SURVEY: Ms. Macon stated that in October, the Financial Incentive Committee sent a survey to City Council members to be completed and returned by October 15, 1999. As a result, one survey was returned by the requested date. Commission members were asked at the October 28, 1999 meeting to contact their council representative and request them to complete and return the survey. As a result of this effort, two more surveys were completed and returned. Ms. Macon recommended further follow-up be made by commissioners who were unsuccessful in contacting their council representative and hopefully a response will be received before the January 2000 meeting. Ms. Macon stated that today's meeting was the last one for 1999 and the next regularly scheduled meeting will be January 27, 2000. Ms. Macon continued that by the next meeting, the historical plaques should be received and also work can commence on the historical tour brochure for completion. Ms. Macon shared with commissioners that today's meeting was the last meeting for Ms. Tinker. Thanks were expressed to Ms. Tinker for her commitment to preservation and all of the hard work that she has done. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. Anat./ � C dA1 GO' �...' oac e - 4.c.&__Linda Williams�� Faryce Go=.e-Macon, City Planner Recording Secretary Staff Liais• to Landmark Commission INOVMINS9)