HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 06/20/1983 - SpecialMINUTES
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 20, 1983
5:00 P.M.
Present
Mayor Luther Jones
Mayor Pro Tem Betty Turner
Council Members
Bob Gulley
*Herbert Hawkins
Dr. Charles Kennedy
Absent
Jack K. Dumphy
Cliff Zarsky
City Manager Edward Martin
City Attorney Bruce Aycock
City Secretary Bill G. Read
Mayor Luther Jones called the meeting to order in the Council Chamber of
City Hall.
City Secretary Bill G. Read called the roll of required Charter Officers
and stated that the necessary quorum was present to conduct a legally
constituted meeting.
Mayor Jones stated the purpose of the meeting was to review possible sites
for a new City Hall and that the Council had asked the staff to identify these
sites and to make an evaluation of the sites.
City Manager Edward Martin stated that the Council had basically asked for
three things: 1) to study possible sites; 2) to review the possibility of a
referendum and 3) the capability of financing through general obligation bonds.
He stated that in his opinion the City could sell bonds and the worse effect it
would have would be to push back the existing capitol improvement programs by
four to six months.
Mayor Pro Tem Betty Turner asked what the timeframe would be assuming there
was a bond election in August and City Manager Martin stated thatthe
recommendation is not to sell the bonds but to hold off and find alternate front
money financing, i.e., revenue sharing, the bond sale would be in approximately
one year.
Council Member Gulley asked if there could be a bond issue without
increasing taxes for debt service and Mr. Martin replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Jones stated that he would not want to offer an option to the voters
unless it would be without raising taxes.
City Manager Martin stated that a staff committee was assembled to conduct
the study of the possible sites and this committee consisted of Assistant City
OFJLMEQ
SSP 19 1984
:es
:special Council Meeting
June 20, 1983
Page 2
Managers Bill Hennings; Tom Utter; and James K. Lontos; John Bell, Assistant
City Attorney; Gerald Smith, City Engineer; and Larry Wenger, Director of
Planning. He stated that Mr. Hennings would review the sites selected and
afterwards the Council could convene in closed session to discuss acquisition if
necessary.
*Council Member Hawkins arrived at 5:17 p.m.
Assistant City Manager Bill Hennings distributed a memorandum to the
Council explaining the sites selected. He stated that it was difficult to
project actual requirements of growth but estimated approximately 10%. Be
stated the size of the project would be 120,000 to 135,000 square feet of gross
floor area, 350 to 500 parking spaces and use of approximately 4 to 5 acres of
land. He stated that the methodology used by the staff committee was to began
by viewing aerial photographs; visit potential sites; forecast employees
probable routes of travel from home to work; screening of the sites and look at
estimate of property values.
He stated that the committee felt that the new city hall should be in the
central business district and that it should be located in the decision making
center of the City with other governmental, financial, and business
institutions. Other criteria selected were ease of access to the City Hall for
citizens; visibility and prominence; room for future expansion by 50% or more;
acquisition costs and ownership; economic development impact on surrounding
area; effect on ad valorem tax base; land use compatibility; proximity to other
public facilities and located within the reinvestment zone.
Mr. Hennings then displayed an aerial photo of the City which identified 28
potential sites for a new City Hall located from Palo Alto Street at the north
to the Furman school property at the south, and from the present site at the
east to the Crosstown Expressway at the west. The sites selected were owned by
the City, owned by the State and other political subdivisions, owned by
non-profit corporations, and owned by private parties.
He stated that the evaluation resulted in classifying five sites which
would be the best sites for a new City Hall and displayed a map of each of the
following areas:
Site A - The present site at 302 South Shoreline Drive (5.6 acres)
Site B - The present site plus the land across the street from the present site
between Shoreline Drive and Water Street, and between Kinney Street
and Born Street. This site would be suitable for construction of a
new City Hall between Shoreline and Water and demolition of the
existing two buildings. A lesser alternative would be construction of
a third building to be operated in conjunction with the two existing
buildings. (7.9 acres)
Site C - The property presently occupied by the U & I Restaurant, Lundquist
Buick, and several other businesses located between Kinney Street and
Born Street, and between Water Street and Upper Broadway. (5.6 acres)
tes
Special Council Meeting
June 20, 1983
Page 3
Site D - South of Blucher Park to Laredo Street, extending west from Tancahua
Street to King Street. (6.7 acres)
Site E - Between Palo Alto Street and Belden Street, and between Water Street
and Mesquite Street, including the adjoining property occupied by the
Park and Recreation Department office and the adjoining IH 37
right-of-way and public parking lots. Development of this site would
contemplate acquiring two blocks of land for City Hall, but with the
possibility that the publicly owned land could be used for a portion
of the project. (12 acres)
Larry Wenger, Director of Planning showed slides of each of the five sites
and Mr. Hennings briefly outlined the enhancements. (A copy of the narrative
evaluation for each site is incorporated in the minutes herein)
Assistant City Manager Hennings stated that this concluded his
presentation.
In regard to Site B, Council Member Kennedy inquired if there was enough
room for an adequate building and Mr. Hennings stated there was enough room for
a building and visitor parking.
Council Member Herbert Hawkins inquired as to why the committee did not
consider other sites in the City and Mr. Hennings stated that the committee felt
strongly that it should be located in the decision making center of the City.
City Manager Martin stated that it should be located close to banks,
courthouse and other facilities and that it should be located, from a
transportation point, for the convenience of the public, not for the employees.
Mr. Hawkins stated that he thought the committee would consider other sites
besides the Central Business District and Mayor Jones stated that if they were
considering employees only, the Ayers Street location would be the best, close
to the Municipal Service Center.
Mayor Jones inquired as to when the Council would need to make a decision
regarding a bond election and City Manager Martin stated the Council had until
July 13, 1983.
Council Member Hawkins stated that he felt the sites should be submitted to
the public and Mayor Jones stated that he definitely wanted public input on the
sites and Mrs. Turner stated she too wanted public input.
Council Member Gulley stated that if there is a bond election, the Council
should decide the site through citizen input before it is placed on the ballot,
stating that the site and the price of the bond issue could not be on the ballot
at the same time.
Mr. Hawkins again stated that other sites should be considered.
A motion was made by Council Member Kennedy that the Council go into closed
session under Article 6252-17 at 6:47 p.m., seconded by Council Member Gulley
and passed unanimously.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
*
*
The Council reconvened the meeting at 7:49 p.m. and the Mayor asked City
Manager Martin to advise the public on the approximate costs of the five sites.
Mr. Martin then gave the approximate costs which are:
Site A - None
Site B - $3 million
Site C - $6 million
Site D - $3 million
Site E - $4 million
The Mayor suggested that public input should be sought and Council Member
Hawkins stated that he felt a referendum election should be held.
A motion was made by Council Member Kennedy, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
Turner, that a public hearing be held on Monday, June 27, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. at
the Bayfront Plaza on the selection of a site for the new City Hall and passed
by the following vote: Jones, Turner, Gulley and Kennedy voting "aye"; Hawkins
"no"; Dumphy and Zarsky "absent".
There being no further business to come before the Council, on motion by
Council Member Gulley, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Turner, the meeting was
adjourned at 7:56 p.m., June 20, 1983.
NARP_ATIVE EVALUATION
SITE A
302 SOUTH SHORELINE DRIVE
(Present site)
a. Ease of access to the City Hall for citizens. The present site has excellent
access from the south via Shoreline Drive and Ocean Drive, from the southwest via
Crosstown Expressway, from the west via Agnes Street, and from the north via Is 37.
The west side connection could be enhanced by developing Avenida de Agnes as en-
visioned by the RUDAT study. It also has good access, both by automobile and
pedestrian, from the downtown portion of the central business district. Localized
access within the site is excellent as there is plenty of convenient parking and
walkways. This is an established location, and the address of City Hall would not
be changed.
b. Visibility and prominance. The present site is highly visible to motorists on
Shoreline Drive, to pedestrians along the bayfront, and from the bluff. The location
at the intersection of Shoreline and Agnes is one of the most prominent in the City.
Also, in its present location, City Hall stands as a symbol of the public ownership
of the bayfront.
c. Room for expansion by 5OS or more. The
is adequate for construction of the present
this site, although at some point a parking
that Exposition Hall is demolished, further
of surface parking.
present site encompasses 5.6 acres, which
project. Future expansion is possible on
structure may be necessary. In the event
expansion would be feasible with the use
d. Acquisition costs and ownership. There would be no cost of acquisition.
is owned by the City.
The site
e. Economic development impact on surrounding area. The investment of several millions
of dollars in the present site would be anticipated to stir revitalization of the blighted
area between the present site and the bluff. The anticipated redevelopment would be a
substantial private investment.
f. Effect on ad valorem tax base. The present site is not on the tax rolls; so the
project would not remove any property from the tax rolls. Accelerated redevelopment
of nearby property would add considerable value to the tax rolls.
g. Land use compatibility. City Hall is compatible with the other office uses in the
central business district. There is some feeling that city Hall is not compatible with
the seawall and there should be no buildings in the Shoreline Drive median. City Hall
and Memorial Coliseum are compatible neighbors, as they benefit from timesharing of
parking which makes more parking available to both facilities than would be expected
if they were separate facilities. City Hall is also compatible with Sherrill Park to
the north, as some of the ceremonial functions in Sherrill Park originate in City Hall.
h. Proximity to other public facilities. The present site is close to several other
public uses including Memorial Coliseum, McGee Beach, the concession stand, McCaughan
Park to the south, Sherrill Park to the north, and the seawall and the L -Head to the
east. Also one of the bayfront pumping stations is directly across the street. City
Hall and Memorial Coliseum are particularly well suited neighbors, as most City Hall
activities occur on weekdays while Coliseum activities occur at night and weekends.
i. Located in reinvestment zone. Yes.
j. Other. There are two alternatives for development on this site. An all new
building could be constructed and the two existing buildings demolished. Construction
of a third building on this site and continuation of the existing two buildings would
also achieve many of the advantages of consolidating administrative functions at one
location, but would not allow for the efficient floor planning possible in an all new
building.
E
.�SiR °l CS ]i.
i
tING Si.
CRRAN[IMV ]
ei„
O
SITE A
NARRATIVE EVALUATION
SITE B
301 SOUTH SHORELINE DRIVE
(Present site plus property between Shoreline Drive and Water Street)
a. Ease of access to City Hall for citizens. This site has excellent access from
the south via Shoreline Drive and Ocean Drive, from the southwest via Crosstown
Expressway, from the west via Agnes Street, and from the north via IH 37. The west
side connection could he enhanced by developing Avenida de Agnes as envisioned by
the RUDAT study. It also has good access, both by automobile and pedestrian from
the downtown portion of the central business district. Localized access within the
site is excellent as there is plenty of convenient parking, but a safe and convenient
solution would have to be found for pedestrians crossing Shoreline Drive.
b. Visibility and prominence. This site is highly visible to motorists on Shoreline
Drive, to pedestrians along the bayfront, and from the bluff. The location at the
intersection. of Shoreline and Agnes is one of the most prominent in the City. The
alternative of constructing a third building between Shoreline and Water and continuing
to use the two present buildings would continue City Hall as a symbol of the public
ownership of the bayfront.
c. Room for expansion by 50% or more. There is ample room for expansion of office
space on the property between Shoreline and Water Street, and surface parking could
be expanded in the Shoreline Drive median.
d. Acquisition costs and ownership. The portion of this site owned by the City is
5.6 acres, and the privately owned portion is 2.3 acres. Acquisition of the privately
owned portion would be a significant part of the project cost.
e. Economic development impact on surrounding area. The investment of several millions
of dollars in construction on this site would be anticipated to stir revitalization of
the blighted area between Water Street and the bluff. The anticipated redevelopment
would be a substantial private investment.
f. Effect on ad valorem tax base. 2.3 acres of property currently on the tax rolls
would be removed from the tax rolls. Accelerated redevelopment of neighboring property
would add considerable value to the tax rolls.
g. Land use compatibility. The City Hall use would be compatible with the other office
uses of the central business district. Construction of a new building on the property
between Shoreline Drive and Water Street would avoid the controversy about construction
of the building in the Shoreline Drive median. City Hall and Memorial Coliseum are com-
patible neighbors, as they benefit from timesharing of parking which makes more parking
available to both facilities than would be expected if they were separate facilities.
City Hall is also compatible with Sherrill Park to the north, as some of the ceremonial
functions in Sherrill Park originate in City Hall.
h. Proximity to other public facilities. This site is close to several other public
uses including Memorial Coliseum, SicGee Beach, the concession stand, McCaughan Park to
the south, Sherrill Park to the north, and the seawall and the L -Head to the east. Also,
one of the bayfront pumping stations is on the site. City Hall and Memorial Coliseum
are particularly well suited neighbors, as most City Hall activities occur on weekdays
while Coliseum activities occur at night and weekends.
1. Located in reinvestment zone. Yes.
j. Other. Construction of a third building on this site and continuation of the existing
two buildings would achieve many of the advantages of consolidating administrative functions
at one location. Construction of an all new building on this site and demolition of the
existing two buildings would also have the advantage of efficient floor planning.
"T-
VA • • 1- ••• -
' • 1 i •
_ !
{})
-st
• 't
• 'FE IAN 3
C•PRIZO ST
- -I-
NOR -r. TA CANII• IT
NORTs ANANCANU•IT
N UnIEP 8.0•Dnir
P 340•PliA
*Are.
I
ji
jk SITE
OcE
NARRATIVE EVALUATION
SITE C
301 South Water Street
(Water to Upper Broadway, Kinney to Born)
a. Ease of access to the City Hall for citizens. This site has excellent access from
the southwest via Crosstown Expressway, from the west via Acnes Street, and from the
north via IH 37. The west side connection could be enhanced by developing Avenida de
Agnes as envisioned by the RUDAT study. It has good access from the south via Shoreline
Drive one block away. It also has good access, both by automobile and pedestrian, from
both the downtown and uptown portions of the central business district.
b. Visibility and prominence. Satisfactory.
c. Room for expansion by 50", er more. This site contains 5.6 acres which would provide
ample room for expansion.
d. Acuuisition costs and ownership. This site is entirely in private ownership. The
cost of acquisition would be a substantial portion of the project cost.
e. Economic develorment impact on surrounding area. The investment of several millions
of dollars in construction on this site would be anticipated to stir revitalization of
the blighted area surrounding it. The anticipated redevelopment would be a substantial
private investment of major importance.
f. Effect on ad valorem tax base. This site would remove 5.6 acres from the tax rolls.
Accelerated redevelopment of neighboring property would add considerable value to the
tax rolls which should far exceed the value lost to public ownership.
g. Land use compatibility. The City Hall would be compatible with the other office
uses in the central business district. Construction on this site would avoid the con-
troversy of constructing new buildings in the Shoreline Drive median.
h. Proximity to other public facilities. None.
i. Located in reinvestment zone. Yes.
D. Other. Although this is a complex site to develop because it includes the bluff,
it offers the unicue advantage of being located both on the bluff and below the bluff
in terms of traffic and pedestrian access. Optimum development would include realignment
of Chaparral Street and Upper Broadway within and adjacent to this site.
Ce9CXCALMY
jJ
�l N
�w09[l lHe V
e
4/
0
SITE r.
NARRATIVE EVALUATION
SITE D
SOUTH OF BLUCHER PARK
(Tancahua to King Street, Blucher Park to Laredo Street)
a. Ease of access to the City Hall for citizens. This site has excellent access from
the southwest via Crosstown Expressway and from the west via Agnes Street. It has good
access from the south via Carancahua and from the north via Tancahua. It also has good
access, both by automobile and by pedestrian, from the uptown portion of the central
business district, and good access by automobile from the downtown portion of the central
business district.
b. Visibility and prominance. This is a prominent location at the junction of the
Laredo -Agnes and Tancahua-Carancahua thoroughfares. It also has good visibility protected
by the open space in the midtown interchange and Blucher Park.
c. Room for expansion by 50% or more. This site includes 6.7 acres which is ample
for future expansion.
d. Acquisition cost and ownership. This site is mostly in private ownership. The
street right-of-way within the site could he realigned for more efficient use. There
are a number of parcels involved. Although the unit cost of land in this area is not
as expensive as on the bayfront, nevertheless the acquisition cost of this site would
be a significant part of the total project cost.
e. Economic development impact on surrounding area. Blocking this site together and
developing City Hall on it should substantially accelerate redevelopment of the sur-
rounding area. It would facilitate the southward expansion of the central business
district, which is hemmed in to the north by IH 37. The investment of several millions
of dollars in this site would be anticipated to stir revitalization of the blighted
areas to the east and west. The anticipated redevelopment would be a substantial
private investment of major importance.
f. Effect on ad valorem tax base; Most of this site is privately owned so this site
would remove considerable property from the tax rolls. Accelerated redevelopment of
nearby property would add considerable value to the tax rolls which would far exceed
the loss to public ownership.
g. Land use compatibility. The City Hall would be compatible with other office uses
in the central business district. Construction on this site would avoid the controversy
of constructing a building in the Shoreline Drive median. The City Hall would be com-
patible with Blucher Park adjoining the site.
h. Proximity to other oublic facilities. Blucher Park adjoins the site, and the new
central library is immediately adjacent to Blucher Park to the north. The County Court
house is just a short distance further to the north. The fire station is located
directly across the street from the site.
i. Located in reinvestment zone. No.
j. Other. This is a complex site because of the nature of Blucher Park, the drainage
swale, and the midtown interchange. Optimum development would include extending Coopers
Alley along the periphery of this site to Kinney Street or Laredo Street and realigning
the streets and right-of-way within this site.
=
- - -
...Les 5*
— •
, I
-'-1-!-',1-
t
**CO OT
oNCAOUA IT
CAPANOAWJA 37
MORIN CARAMCAMYA ST.
c
-777:5iwkii:
..,._:ii...•.
•?
So
LOwER OROAOWA
.,„
4
--_
SITE D
NARRATIVE EVALOATION
SITE E
IH 37 AREA
(Palo Alto to Belden, Water to Mesquite, and IH 37 ROW)
a. Ease of access to the City Hall for citizens. This site has excellent access from
the south via Shoreline Drive and Ocean Crive, from the southwest via the Crosstown
Expressway, and from the north via IH 37.
b. Visibility and prominence. This site is highly visible to motorists on IH 37 and
Shoreline Drive, to pedestrians along the bayfront, and from the bluff. The location
on IH 37 near Shoreline is a prominent site.
c. Room for expansion by 50% or more. This site would include the acquisition of two
blocks of privately owned land, with the possibility of developing a portion of the
project on publicly owned land. There is ample room for expansion.
d. Acquisition costs and ownership. The IH 37 area is controlled by the State through
easements tram the City and County, and the existing Park and Recreation Department
office is owned by the City. The cost of acquisition of two blocks of privately owned
land would be a significant part of the total project cost.
e. Economic development impact on surrounding area. The investment of several millions
of dollars would be anticipated to stir revitalization of the blighted area between IH 37
and the Bayfront Science Park. The anticipated redevelopment would be a substantial
private investment of major importance.
f. Effect on ad valorem tax base. Two blocks of privately owned land would be removed
from the tax rolls. Accelerated redevelopment of nearby property would add considerable
value to the tax rolls which would far exceed the loss to public ownership.
g. Land use compatibility. City Hall would be compatible with the other office uses
nearby in the central business district. Construction of the City Hall on this site
would avoid the controversy of constructing a building in the Shoreline Drive median.
City Hall at this location could also add to the identification of the public complex
to the north in the Bayfront Science Park, and would be consistent with the plans
suggested by Robert Zion for development of Chaparral Street into a landscaped boulevard.
h. Proximity to other public facilities. This site includes the present Park and
Recreation Department building and one of the bayfront puma stations, adjoins the
building occupied by the Chamber of Commerce and the Convention and Tourist Bureau,
and is across the street from the headquarters building for the Port of Corpus Christi.
It is also just across IH 37 from the building on ,Mann Street which will be substantially
occupied by federal offices.
i. Located in reinvestment zone. Yes.
/
J/Cra.,
4C.y 1
(. iEwnS�
O`
1\ • tC
1lJLLW//1 .�
PL Air A ,\
t` ��IJ
^
L - C'•. 'ENTLON 'ENt-'E 1
(fl PAING tP.O413 BLOC)
•!]1G, pt
aVaLITTA
plv
(
SITE E
CORPUS O..Idii SAM'
CORPUS Ca@T ed