City schedules Crossman block, square discussion meeting

Feb. 14, 2017

The city of Garland has again been cautioned about a “cart-before-the-horse” approach to designing the Downtown Square’s central portion before the future of the historic Crossman block on the east side has been determined.

 

City council, in work session Monday night, directed that the scope of an upcoming public hearing Feb. 23 be widened. The hearing was to have as its key objective studying additional design options for the central area. Council asked that citizen opinion also be sought about the vital tie-in the east side, the Crossman Block, has to the overall downtown picture.

 

Similarly, at a public hearing in September citizens gave the city the identical message: Wait until the future of the historic buildings on the east side of the square has been determined before finalizing a landscaping plan and design work for the square’s central area.

 

At the Monday, Feb. 6, work session city staff presented two additional design plans beyond those that were advanced at a Sept. 8, 2016 public meeting by contractors David A. Baldwin landscape architecture and urban planning firm.

 

Assistant City Manager Rick Vasquez said the city is preparing to issue a Request for Proposal for parties interested in redeveloping the square’s east side. Vasquez said the request is “not specific to preservation” and will not designate whether the structure is or is not to be removed. He said outcome possibilities are demolition, a new structure or remodeling of existing structures.

 

He said a city-commissioned engineering study said the block can be restored with existing walls that are salvageable, but it would need a new floor and roof.

 

The Crossman block is named for the Curtis Crossman Sr. insurance firm that occupied a significant portion of the east side for many years. Crossman was a long-time resident of 400 S. 11th Street; his father, George Wilson Crossman, began selling insurance in 1890 and was Garland mayor and original Duck-Creeker.

 

The Crossman block was listed as a “contributing” structure in the city’s recent application for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. That nomination recently was approved by a state board of the Texas Historical Commission and will advance this spring to the National Park Service for final approval. A developer could receive as much as 50-percent tax credits for redeveloping the existing structure by leaving much of it in place. The listing itself would not prevent the block from being demolished or significantly altered because the listing imposes no restrictions.

 

He said the goals of the RFP would be to receive a proposal that would maximize housing, maximize retail on the ground level and have housing and retail amenities.

 

“Not having a building (there) at all is something we could consider. We haven’t been given that direction by council,” Vasquez stated when questioned.

 

Both of the new conceptual designs allow for more open space—one includes a pavilion and the other does not, allowing a temporary pavilion to be added when needed. City Planning Administrator Angela Self said this was based on citizen input from the September meeting—that perhaps the existing proposals contained too many elements. Some of the elements that were removed this time were a reading room, restroom and food kiosk.

 

Council Member David Gibbons asked, “Is the cart before the horse?”

 

He said the results of the successful RFP “could impact the entire square.”

 

“I’m concerned that the sequence of events is out of kilter,” Gibbons said.

 

Council Member Rich Aubin concurred.

 

“I would hate to go out to the public [at the Feb. 23 meeting] and communicate we are headed in a certain direction when the end-use of the Crossman building could change the whole thing,” he said.

 

Aubin suggested that the Feb. 23 meeting at Garland’s Central Library might be postponed until proposals for the east side come in.

 

“I don’t know what the process should be, but this isn’t it,” Aubin said.

 

Council Member Anita Goebel reminded council that the need for east side clarification was “one of the big things discussed” at the Sept. 8 public meeting.

 

Council Member Lori Barnett Dodson said she feared the city would be “starting over” if it took citizen input about the central portion before the future of the east side was determined. She said she was concerned that the city would be involved in “bait-and-switch” to have a meeting on the central design and then later come back and say those plans would be impacted by what happens with the east side.

 

“It would look like you misled someone,” she said.

 

Aubin also expressed concerned about how the goals for the RFP were developed.

 

Vasquez said the goals are consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan and plans for downtown redevelopment.

 

Dodson asked how much input downtown property and business owners have had. Self said she had walked the downtown area and spoken to some.

 

Vasquez stated that he had not encountered a unified downtown owner opinion as to whether to leave the building up or tear it down.

 

Council Member B.J. Williams asked that strong efforts be made to encourage the downtown business community to attend the Feb. 23 meeting.

 

City Manager Bryan Bradford said that one option discussed was to move the front wall of the east side former storefronts back some distance to enable more space on the square.

 

“If the Crossman building were to be moved back to give more room on the square, it changes the whole square,” Dodson said.

 

In envisioning possibilities, the city staff has studied other square designs and emphasized, in particular, the design in Sulphur Springs. Dodson noted that the 50,000-sqare-foot square there serves 25,000 citizens, compared to Garland’s 26,000-square-foot square for a vastly larger population. She said she objected to “trying to cram it [a design] into too-small spaces” and asked whether the consultant had created a design that took in the whole square [without the Crossman building].

 

“If we were not to have a building there, we could easily incorporate that blank space,” Vasquez said.

 

Williams said one of his main concerns was that the square be appealing to families and millennials.

 

“If one of our primary goals is to get families to be more frequent visitors, what are kids to do,” he asked.

 

Vasquez said the city’s Parks Department could create an events program, festivals, music series and farmers markets. He also mentioned the prospect of traveling art shows, game boards and furnishings for seasonal activities.

 

Williams asked that the east side matter “becomes the agenda” for the meeting Feb. 23. He added that he did not want to make the decision in a vacuum.

 

“Let’s change the direction of the hearing a bit,” Aubin said.

 

He added that the city can present all that is involved and gauge the temperature.

 

Archives