Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-9-94 HLC MinutesThe May 9, 1994 Historic Landmark Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Mary Jane Buttrill. The following Commissioners were present: Chairman Mary Jane Buttrill Commissioner Raymond Chaison Commissioner Jessica Foy Commissioner Terrence Holmes Commissioner Sam Pullig Commissioner JoAnn Stiles Commissioner Walter Sutton Commissioner Dorcy Watler Commissioner Becki Stedman The following Commissioners were absent: Commissioner Elmer Embs Commissioner Bruce Hamilton Commissioner Debra Kay Johnson Staff present: Stephen Richardson, Secretary; Murray Duren, Senior Planner; Patsy Ellis, Recording Secretary; Fred Lemell, Building Codes. Also present: Councilman -at -Large Andrew Cokinos; Councilmember Lulu Smith. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Commissioner Foy stated that she had made the request at the last meeting that the SPARE Beaumont Survey be reviewed again In light of comments from the state office and Mr. Richardson agreed to do that. She said that she would like show up in the minutes. J `r Commissioner Watler stated that he would like clarification of one paragraph of the April lei 11, 1994 meeting. Mr. Richardson stated that the HCL designation did not acquire a Certificate of Appropriateness approved by the Historic Landmark Commission for interior renovation. This is in reference to the residence of Roy and Sue Philps at 2380 Gladys. The certification of appropriateness will be reviewed by himself as Director of Planning, the Chairman of the Historic Landmark Commission and the State Historic Commission. Mr. Watler's question was whether the chairman of the historic commission was in fact Chairman Buttrill or if there was another entity he wasn't aware of. Chairman Buttrill assured him that tvcNLJTEs Landmark Commission Meeting April 11, 1994 it was herself and the word "landmark" should have been added. Commissioner WatIer made a motion to approve the April 11, 1994 minutes as amended. Commissioner Chaison seconded the motion. Motion carried 9.0. REGULAR MEETING 4) Chairman's Report Chairman Buttrill stated butt because there were only three members that went to the CLG Conference, the only topic of cortveVtion was code enforcements and different types of building codes. I e1eve` that the rest of the commissioners would benefit from learning something about code enforcement in the City of Beaumont. � , � 4 - --Ir- �<'I' 9 "�"%tCL(n) There are three types of codes: Southern Building Code, West Coast Building Code and East Coast Building Code. In these codes, there are conditions for historic buildings. The main reasons for codes are for public health, safety and welfare for residents. Building a new building has a distinct�yZtifferent_set of codes than for those of an old historic building. 11 2) Beaumont Building Codes - Fred Lemell At this time, Chairman Buttrill turned .the meeting over to Fred Lemell, Building Office for the City of Beaumont. He stated that the City of Beaumont has adopted the 1988 Standard (Southern) Building Code. That building code has been in effect for approximately six to seven years. Currently, the City is in the process of getting the 1994 codes ordered. The first printing was completed last week and we should be able to borrow those codes within the next few weeks. Currently, there is a section in the code that allows for exemptions for historical districts. Section 101.6 reads as follows: The provisions of this code relating to the construction, alterations, repair, enlargement, restoration, relocation or moving of building or structures shall not be mandatory for existing buildings or structures identified and classified by the state or local jurisdiction as historical buildings. Chairman Buttrill asked if there was a minimum maintenance provision in these codes or an anti -neglect provision where if a building is designated historic but the owners do not keep it up that you can go in and force them to do this in some way. 2 M] LrrFs Landmark Commission Meeting ApriQl .q"(1�� 11 �` } Mr. Lemell stated that such provisions pertain to the plumbing, HVAC, or special damage that would cause imminent danger to life or property, we can step in at that point. But, for general disrepair of property, the City can't do anything. Commissioner Foy asked if the problem of issuing demolition permits for structures in the Oaks District had been worked out. Mr. Lemell stated that the problem was in the process of being corrected. Chairman Buttrill thanked Mr. Lemell for attending the meeting and answering questions. Mr. Lemell handed out brochures. 1) SPARE Beaumont Survey 4dA Item nu ee-r�%a�ayVbecn ��•.-�1,�� put on the agenda for informational purposes only and does not require any action by the Historic Landmark Commission. It is in reference to how the Planning Division is going to handle the SPARE program. It has been mentioned before the problems and frustrations that the Planning Division staff has had with the past SPARE and questioned whether most of the work that has been done in the past is really valid and whether the past surveys has been done properly. As you know, our '94 CLG contract was approved at $6,000 to help us on our continuation of SPARE. When the state met with us in March, they expressed concern over our past procedures in doing SPARE. They said that they felt "it was long on research and short on analysis". They strongly suggested that we use the survey forms they provided with the contract. Upon review of that, we felt we do not have enough staff to provide sufficient time to administer the SPARE program. We sat down and took a long hard look at what we felt it would require as far as staff time, printing, film, etc. to get a complete SPARE survey done for the City of Beaumont. In view of the cost and the results to -date, we feel that the SPARE program should be terminated immediately. In addition, as priorities of the Planning Division change, there is little staff time to be devoted to the program. What I would like to bring out is that as part of our neighborhood planning program which we are beginning to get more and more heavily into, we will identify historic significant properties and take an approach that proposes adaptive reuses for those structures that are identified. We will actively ask for your cooperation in this new approach during this neighborhood planning process. Chairman Buttrill asked if it was legal for staff to make a decision such as this without the Landmark Commission's approval since they voted to continue with the M]NU1 3 Landmark Commission Meeting April 11, 1994 SPARE program with City Council's approval. Mr. Richardson stated that possibly City Council should have a workshop with the Planning Division. He stated that it doesn't require a vote by the Landmark Commission and that is how the Planning Division intends to handle it. After further questions and discussion, Mr. Richardson stated that the decision was made by himself and Mr. Sterling Pruitt, Assistant City Manager, who had discussed it with Mr. Ray Riley, City Manager. Mr. Richardson stated that during the neighborhood planning process, we will take particular parts of town or neighborhoods, we will try to identify the structures that are historically significant. Commissioner Foy stated that part of our responsibilities as a CLG is to maintain an inventory, not a survey, of significant historic structures. An inventory of historic structures in Beaumont( is one of the prime responsibilities of the CLG. She asked if the state offi was consulted about this decision. Mr. Richardson stated that he had talked to them about not doing the SPARE survey this year. He had not talked about dropping it altogether. As far as this year was concerned, they didn't have a problem with it. Chairman Buttrill suggested that a professional surveyor be hired. Mr. Richardson reminded Chairman Buttrill that the CLG contract funding is a matching grant and we have to provide an equal amount of time and money and the department does not have the time nor the money. The contract will be amended so that we would not be funded the SPARE money. We will still be getting the monies for CLG conference. Commissioner Foy asked Chairman Buttrill to share with the commissioners the response from the state office. Chairman Buttrill stated that she did call to see about our status as a CLG if we do not have a survey. The state stated that it weakens our CLG status but does not mean that we are totally out of it. They suggested that they could find someone who could do it faster but would cost approximately $15.00 - $20.00 per site. Mr. Richardson reminded the commission that he does not have the time nor the money to continue with SPARE. He stated that priorities are changing. We are getting more heavily involved in neighborhood planning. The comprehensive plan has to be updated per city charter. He said that Murray Duren is the only person who handles items that g before the Landmark Commission. Mr. Duren also handles the Board of Adjusthient, Planning Commission and Joint Public Hearings. Commissioner Sutton asked what had changed since last year in terms of priorities. Mr. Richardson stated that he has been instructed to carry out a neighborhood 4 MIWU MS Landmark Commission Meeting April 11, 1994 planning program. That is the number one priority that he has been instructed to carry out. Commissioner Chaison asked Mr. Richardson is any members of his department had been in the south end of town. Mr. Richardson stated that a plan has been done for West Oak and Pear Orchard. Commissioner Chaison said that he meant Charlton - Pollard. Mr. Richardson stated that there was a plan for Charlton -Pollard several years ago. Commissioner Chaison said that $6,500,000 was spent then, but he was inquiring about now. Mr. Richardson stated that he didn't know. Commissioner Pullig stated that he would like to introduce Mr. Richardson to some people in Austin who have rebuilt their oldest black neighborhood, getting federal monies to do it, through historic designation and every factor they had in their rebuilding process is in place in Beaumont. Mr. Richardson stated that if Commissioner Pullig could furnish him with the names, he would appreciate it. Chairman Buttrill stated that the first issue has not been resolved. Some conclusion must be reached about the procedure, which is somewhat unorthodox. The commission is used to receiving recommendations from staff, not directives or orders. Commissioner Pullig made a recommendation to defer the SPARE survey until December, 1994. He stated that he feels that the Planning Division would like the Landmark Commission involved in the neighborhood revitalization program. Mr. Richardson concurred. Chairman Buttrill stated that she felt that the Texas Historical Commission should be called for their recommendation on how the SPARE program could be done in a feasible manner with the least amount of cost to the matching from the city and the least amount of time for the city staff. Mr. Richardson stated that he would be happy to call TUC for their recommendations. Commissioner Foy asked if Mr. Richardson would really be willing to seriously consider this just a one year postponement. Mr. Richardson stated that his mind is still made up right now but he is willing to call THC and discuss it with them further. Commissioner Pullig asked that in effect the neighborhood planning program is going to re -SPARE or catalog the neighborhoods. Mr. Richardson stated that is correct, except for the fact that the survey forms would not be used. It is the intent of the Planning Department that the Landmark Commission will be involved in the process. Commissioner Foy asked what exactly the Landmark Commission's involvement will be in the process and what type of priority would be given the historic nature of these neighborhoods. Mr Richardson stated that he didn't have all of that worked out at the moment. He stated that what he would want to do would be to have a 5 4) A(UR IFS landmark Commission Meeting April 11, 1994 historical component of the plan whereby we would identify historically structures and then try to develop ways to rehabilitate, improve and find uses for those structures. The Landmark Commission's involvement would be trying to identify historically significant structures in the neighborhoods and then working with the Planning Division to try to find ways to put those buildings to good use Commissioner Pullig made a motion that the Landmark Commission agree not to use the monies designated for this year to perform work on the SPARE and that it be placed in abeyance until December, 1994 and in the interim that the Landmark Commission requests that the staff keep them informed and prepare ideas for procedures for our involvement in the neighborhood planning process which the staff would like to see implemented and that a formal decision on the continuation of the SPARE be made in December or later. Commissioner Chaison seconded the motion. Motion carried 8:0. (Commissioner Stiles left at 4:50 p.m.) Commissioner Stedman made a motion that the Planning Department with the Beaumont Heritage Society research other methods of funding the SPARE survey and bring a recommendation to the Landmark Commission by August 1, 1994. Commissioner Foy seconded the motion. Motion carried 7:0. Women's Club National Register Nomination Mr. Richardson stated that included in the packets is the nomination that the Women's Club of Beaumont sent to the state for nomination into the National Register. 5) Calendar of Events The May and June calendar of events was unavailable. Chairman Buttrill asked Mr. Richardson if the CLG activities are included in the by- laws. Mr. Richardson stated that they were not. hUNtlIM Landmark Commission Meeling April 11, 1994 Chairman stated that the ribbon -cutting ceremonies for the Oaks Historic District was very successful. Commissioner Sutton stated that Gladys City may be getting a house on Martin Luther King near Tri-Supply. The problem is moving it. He stated that the Landmark Commission has some money in the discretionary fund. Chairman Buttrill stated that the money should be used when the Landmark Commission is taking part in it themselves, such as a reception, etc. 'there being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 7