Loading...
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