|
June 19, 2008
STATEMENT
To: The Hon.
Phil Hardberger and Members, San Antonio City Council
Re: Z – 1.
Zoning Case Number Z2008120 – 157 Magnolia Drive
An Ordinance changing the zoning district boundary from “R-4
CD RIO-1” (CD-Duplex) Residential Single-Family River
Improvement Overlay District-1 with a Conditional Use for a
Duplex to “HS R-4 CD RIO-1” (CD-Duplex) Historic
Significance, Residential Single-Family River Improvement
Overlay District-1 with a Conditional Use for a Duplex on
Lot 15 and Lot 16, Block 2, NCB 6530, 157 Magnolia Drive, as
requested by City of San Antonio, Applicant, Billy L. and
Jeanette L. Morgan, Owners.
On February 6, 2008, the
Historic and Design Review Commission denied the demolition
requested by the new owner and approved a finding of
Historic Significance of l57 Magnolia Drive in the River
Road Neighborhood.
It is appropriate that the
zoning status of l57 Magnolia Drive be changed to Historic
Significance since it has been so designated by the HDRC and
because we believe it is truly a historic house in a
historic neighborhood. We seriously regret the 9 to 1 vote
of the Zoning Commission to not recommend historic
designation.
The house at 157 Magnolia
Drive is typical of the neighborhood, which consists of 135
l920s era houses, mainly small, cozy and charming, set in an
isolated enclave surrounded by tall heritage trees and
grassy fairways and fields.
However, the house at 157
Magnolia Drive is also a “signature” house in River Road – a
familiar landmark – as it sits in a prominent location on a
small hill on the corner of East Magnolia Drive and River
Road, across the street from the river and the golf course.
By allowing historic designation to go through, the owners
would have the opportunity to rehabilitate and add on to
this house. Although there would be design challenges, it
would be an opportunity to provide a “signature” house for
the owners, a model for the community to follow.
Because of its prominent
location, demolishing and replacing this house with a
larger, 21st century one would seriously change the
character and integrity of this historic neighborhood.
Across the country, the topic of McMansions being built on
sites of smaller cottages is raging. Our neighborhoods
deserve to be protected against incompatible development.
The San Antonio Conservation
Society urges City Council to further protect the historic
status of 157 Magnolia Drive by adding Historic Significance
to its zoning designation.
Thank you for your
consideration of our comments.
Marcie Ince
President
June 19, 2008
STATEMENT
To: The Hon.
Phil Hardberger and Members,
San Antonio City Council
Re: Agenda Item
84 – A Resolution directing the Development Services
Department to begin the process for landmark designations of
Historic Texas Farm and Ranch Complexes for seventeen (17)
nineteenth century farm and ranch complexes identified
within the San Antonio city limits.
In June of 2005 the San
Antonio Conservation Society formed the Historic Farm and
Ranch Complexes Committee. Using the l973 Bexar County
Survey, the committee worked in conjunction with the
Historic Preservation Office to identify and provide
protection for dozens of endangered farm and ranch complexes
as early as 1799. San Antonio Conservation Society
volunteers located each structure on area maps, contacted
owners, photographed buildings and did extensive research on
each individual property, while coordinating proposed
historical significance with Historic Preservation Office
staff.
In addition to the
Conservation Society allocating $42,000 to this project, the
Society was the recipient of a $10,000 grant from the
National Trust for Historic Preservation Invention Fund to
help fund this documentation project.
Today seventeen properties
are on the agenda for a finding of historic significance. It
is an honor for the City of San Antonio to recognize these
properties as symbols of Bexar County’s farm and ranch
history. We commend the owners as stewards of this legacy.
The San Antonio Conservation Society wholeheartedly supports
the designation of these properties.
Marcie Ince
President
June 19, 2008
Sheryl Sculley, City Manager
City of San Antonio
P. O. Box 839966
San Antonio, TX 78283-3966
Dear Ms. Sculley:
Based on the proceedings at
the June 10, 2008 Electrical Supervisory Board, we are
concerned about the interpretation of the digital billboard
sections of the sign ordinance.
The issues revolve around
what is considered “minimal modification” and what is
considered “significant modification” of existing erected
billboards. These definitions are important. From the
photographs it appears that the digital signs are entirely
new signs erected on existing sign poles. The old sign
boards are removed from the existing pole and a new digital
sign is hoisted up on the pole. This appears to be beyond
“minimal modification” and is instead “significant
modification.”
The definition of
“significant modification” and “minimal modification” are
important in controlling the location of new digital signs
and the removal of existing billboards.
For instance, the sign code
provides that a digital sign can be located in Corridors
(historic and scenic corridors) only if “minimal
modification” is made to the existing sign. If dismantling
the existing sign board and hoisting a new digital sign is
more than minimal modification, then no digital signs can be
located in the corridors. Six of the new digital signs are
scheduled for corridors.
Likewise, the sign ordinance
defines a “new sign” as one placed at a location now devoid
of signs or one placed at the location of an existing
erected sign if the existing erected sign structure requires
“significant modification” to support the new digital sign.
A “new sign” requires that two existing billboard locations
be removed. This is in addition to the conversion rations
set forth for digital billboards. Therefore, if an existing
erected sign structure requires “significant modification”
then it is considered a new sign, which requires, in
addition to the conversion ratio, two other billboards to be
removed.
The definition of
“significant modification” will also have an impact as to
the modifications that can be made to non-digital
billboards.
The staff memo included in
the reports raises questions about how the new digital
billboards are proceeding. This is an area that needs to be
closely watched. We will be submitting a freedom of
information act request to the Electrical Supervisory Board
requesting copies of the applications for permits for the
digital signs and all information supplied with the
applications for permits.
We do not believe it is
prudent for any permits to be granted for digital billboards
until:
- A complete list of signs
to be taken down, and their locations, is presented.
Photographs documenting the condition of the signs
should be available as well.
- A resolution to the
issue of the use of the terms “minimal modification” and
“significant modification” is approved by the Electrical
Supervisory Board. No billboards requiring “significant
modification” should be allowed in a scenic or urban
corridor.
- A methodology is
presented to City Council to monitor the traffic safety
issue prior to the installation of any signs – including
pre-digital sign erection measures and measures after
the signs are erected.
If San Antonio is to allow 15
digital billboards, they should only be allowed as city code
and council procedures have provided.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Marcie Ince
President
C: Mayor Phil Hardberger and
Members, San Antonio City Council
Rod Sanchez, Director, Development Services, City of San
Antonio
June 18, 2008
STATEMENT
To: Xavier
Gonzalez, Chair, and Members,
Historic and Design Review Commission
Re: Agenda Item
No. 19 – Case No. 2008-155
Hedrick Building - 601 North St. Mary’s Street
The San Antonio Conservation
Society has long been aware of the hidden gem behind the
1960’s false façade of the historic Real Estate Building,
now known as the Hedrick Building at 601 North St. Mary’s
Street. We are adamantly opposed to demolition of this
building. Instead, because it is such a likely candidate for
rehabilitation, it should be designated as a Significant
Landmark by the City of San Antonio.
The Real Estate Building was
built in 1927 for the San Antonio Board of Realtors by the
prominent local architectural firm of Adams and Adams. The
ten-story, reinforced concrete office building featured
brick veneer and terra cotta ornamentation, now hidden
behind a 1960’s false façade. This building is significant
for its architectural design by a prominent local
architectural firm during the building boom of the 1920’s.
During this prosperous period, the construction of
multi-story commercial buildings, such as the Medical Arts
Building (1926), the Milam Building (1928), and the Smith
Young Tower (1929), transformed the appearance and nature of
downtown San Antonio into a true urban center.
Architecturally, the original
appearance of the Real Estate Building closely resembled the
earlier Builders Exchange Building two blocks south, now
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Both
buildings featured applied ornamentation at the first and
second stories, along with an elaborate cornice with
finials.
The building’s designers,
Adams & Adams, officed on the tenth floor after the Real
Estate Building’s completion. This firm came to be known
locally for several significant commercial and institutional
buildings, including the San Antonio Drug Company, the
National Bank of Commerce, the Protestant Orphans Home, and
Thomas Jefferson High School, as well as for a number of
residences in Monte Vista.
In addition to the firm of
Adams & Adams, the Real Estate Building continued to be
associated with people of notable achievement throughout its
history. H.C. Thorman, the developer of Olmos Park and one
of San Antonio’s most successful home builders, had an
office on the ninth floor when the building opened. In 1963,
the building became known as the Hedrick Building. Architect
Wyatt Hedrick, who at one time headed the third largest
architectural firm in the country, had his office on the
tenth floor.
Like the Alamo National Bank
Building, recently converted into the Drury Plaza Hotel, and
the Medical Arts Building, now the Emily Morgan Hotel, the
Real Estate Building is a 1920’s boom era office tower.
We strongly recommend that
consideration be given to filing suit against the owner of
the Hedrick Building for Demolition by Neglect. No property
owner should be allowed to hold onto a building and allow it
to deteriorate to the point that it could be subject to
demolition. Due to the Real Estate Building’s historic and
architectural significance, the City should use tools
available to assist in preservation and productive reuse.
Thank you for consideration
of our comments.
Marcie Ince
President
|
