HomePrint
Email

Go To Search
City Council and Boards and CommissionsDepartments - City ConnectionsResidents - Resources and InformationHow Do I...? - How Can We Help?
Click to Home

 

View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

Historic District Commission

Regular Session Agenda

March 19, 2009

6:00 PM

Council Chambers

200 West Walker Street

 

I.                   Call to order and Roll call of members

II.                Approval of Minutes

A.           February 19, 2009

III.             Public Hearings

A.           Hold a public hearing and take action on HDC08-44R (Green), a request for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a privacy fence on approximately 0.2 acres zoned “RSF-7-RNC” (Single-family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet with a Residential Neighborhood Conservation Overlay), legally described as Lot 1 and the northeastern half of Lot 2, Block 13 of the League City Townsites Subdivision, generally located south of 4th Street and west of Wisconsin Avenue with the approximate address being 1023 4th Street.

IV.              New Business

A.           Consider and take action on HDC09-05 (Quality of Care), a request to waive the sign requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness of a sign permit for a monument sign at 1025 East Main Street, Suite 102 and 103.

B.           Consider and take action on HDC09-05 (Quality of Care), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness of a sign permit for a monument sign at 1025 East Main Street, Suite 102 and 103.

V.                 Other Business

A.           Consider and take action on an electronic distribution of Historic District Commission packets.

VI.              Commissioner’s Comments

                Commissioner Dudney

1.      Status of the HD Architectural Design and Materials List being incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.

2.      Identification of the Historic District along the Main Street Corridor.

      

VII.           Adjournment of the Meeting

 

CERTIFICATE

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE NOTICE OF MEETING WAS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD AT CITY HALL OF THE CITY OF LEAGUE CITY, TEXAS, BY THE 16th DAY OF MARCH 2009, AT 12 PM, AND WAS P0STED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 551, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT).  ITEMS POSTED IN THE OPEN SESSION PORTIONS OF THIS AGENDA MAY ALSO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED OR EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

 

 

 

__________________________________________

LASHONDRA HOLMES, AICP

PLANNING MANAGER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MINUTES

CITY OF LEAGUE CITY

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 6:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers

200 WEST WALKER

******************************************************************

VIII.        Call to order and Roll call of members

 

Ms. Hall called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.

 

Members present:                                                      Members absent:

Madeline Hall, Chair                                                    David Hoffman (Ex-Officio Architect)

Fay Dudney                                                                 Marie Sesher                                       

Sandra Christiansen                                                     Peter Guglielmo

Dennis Ruhl                                                                

 

City Representatives:

Mark Linenschmidt, Senior Planner

Rodney Glasper, Planner

Susan Wologo, Recording Secretary   

 

IX.              Approval of Minutes

 

A.           February 19, 2009

 

Ms. Dudney made a motion to approve the minutes of February 19, 2009.

 

Ms. Christiansen seconded the motion.

 

No discussion was held.

 

The motion passed with a vote of 3-0-0 with Mr. Ruhl abstaining as he was not appointed.

 

X.                 Public Hearings

 

A.           Hold a public hearing and take action on HDC08-44R (Green), a request for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a privacy fence on approximately 0.2 acres zoned “RSF-7-RNC” (Single-family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet with a Residential Neighborhood Conservation Overlay), legally described as Lot 1 and the northeastern half of Lot 2, Block 13 of the League City Townsites Subdivision, generally located south of 4th Street and west of Wisconsin Avenue with the approximate address being 1023 4th Street.

 

Mr. Glasper restated the staff report for this item and explained that the applicant’s request is that the Commission would reconsider the height of a privacy fence from the approved height of 5-feet to permit a height of 6.5-feet.  Mr. Glasper gave a brief history of the project and explained that on September 25, 2008 the Commission granted approval of the construction of the fence with the condition that the fence would not exceed 5-feet in height.  The applicant constructed the fence at 6.5-feet after receiving approval from Mr. Moses, a neighbor who was in opposition of the fence at the September 25th meeting. Mr. Glasper explained that the Planning Department was notified by Code Enforcement who informed them that the fence did not conform to the agreed upon height of the fence.  Mr. Glasper advised that the Planning Department contacted the applicant and informed him that the height of the fence did not conform to the height agreed upon at the September 25th meeting.  After further research the Planning Department discovered and then informed the applicant that backyard fences may be constructed to a height of 6-7 feet and there is nothing within the Architectural Guidelines that would limit a privacy fence to a height of 5-feet. 

 

Ms. Christiansen questioned why notes supporting the Commission’s decision to restrict the fence height to 5-feet were not included in the packet.  Mr. Glasper advised that the minutes from the September 25th meeting were not included in the packet but are available online.

 

The Commission questioned why the applicant constructed the fence to 6.5-feet after receiving approval to construct the fence no higher than 5-feet.

 

Ms. Hall opened the public portion of the hearing at 6:15 p.m.

 

Mr. Mike Green, applicant, came forward to explain his position on the constructed height of the fence pointing out the heavy traffic and noise along Wisconsin Street. He distributed a photograph and drawing of the property to illustrate that the height elevation of Wisconsin Street is almost two feet higher than the yard.  He further explained his reason for constructing the fence at 6.5-feet and stated that he and neighbor Mr. Moses, who had initially opposed the fence, had a conversation in which Mr. Moses gave approval of the fence.  Mr. Green stated he misunderstood by assuming that if Mr. Moses no longer was in opposition of the fence he could proceed in constructing the fence.  He further stated, however, the fence does meet the suggested standards of the Architectural Guidelines.

 

With no one else present from the public to speak, Ms. Hall closed the public portion of the hearing at 6:29 p.m.

 

 A discussion was held regarding modifying and implementing fence height standards within the Main Street Plan.

 

Ms. Christiansen made a motion that the Commission reconsider the height of the privacy fence from the approved 5-feet to permit 6.5-feet for the property located at 1023 4th Street.

 

Mr. Ruhl seconded the motion.

 

No discussion was held.

 

The motion passed with a vote of 3-1-0 with Ms. Dudney voting to deny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

XI.              New Business

 

A.           Consider and take action on HDC09-05 (Quality of Care), a request to waive the sign requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness of a sign permit for a monument sign at 1025 East Main Street, Suite 102 and 103.

 

Mr. Glasper restated the staff report for this item.

 

Ms. Keisha Robinson, applicant, came forward and reminded the Commission that she came before them back in October requesting an Operations Permit for her business.  She gave a brief description of the business stating it is a day habilitation facility providing services to individuals with developmental disabilities and individuals with mental retardation and special needs.  Ms. Robinson explained her request for the additional verbiage on the sign is due to the importance of the wording needed to indicate the business is an HCS provider and day habilitation center.  She stated it is not an attempt to advertise since all of her clients come from the Texas Department of Aging and Disability and from the Texas Department of Rehabilitation Services.

 

The Commission discussed with the applicant various signage options.  Mr. Ruhl stressed the importance of including the address on the sign.

 

Ms. Dudney made a motion to deny HDC09-05 (Quality of Care), a request to waive the sign requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness of a sign permit for a monument sign at 1025 East Main Street, Suite 102 and 103.

 

Ms. Christiansen seconded the motion.

 

In a discussion Mr. Glasper recalled a previous applicant whose sign request for additional verbiage was denied by the Commission, but upon going to the Building Department and changing the name of his business on his Operations Permit to include the additional verbiage, he was able to include it on his sign. The Commission agreed to this as a possible option for Ms. Robinson.

 

The motion to deny HDC09-05 (Quality of Care) passed with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

B.           Consider and take action on HDC09-05 (Quality of Care), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness of a sign permit for a monument sign at 1025 East Main Street, Suite 102 and 103.

 

Ms. Dudney made a motion to approve HDC09-05 (Quality of Care), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness of a sign permit with the condition that the applicant comply with the Scenic Byways Ordinance and redesign the proposed sign to include the Commission’s recommendations and to be Administratively Approved.

 

Ms. Christiansen seconded the motion.

 

The motion passed with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

XII.              Other Business

 

A.           Consider and take action on an electronic distribution of Historic District Commission packets.

 

Mr. Linenschmidt introduced the possibility of electronic distribution of the Historic District Commission meeting packets.  He provided an overhead example and stated the idea is to go toward “paperless” which would save money as well as time since delivering them electronically would expedite delivery time.  He stated the Commission would receive an agenda by email with links that would then pull up the attachments.  The Commission discussed the advantages and disadvantages of electronic distribution.

 

Ms. Dudney made a motion to table this item to be discussed at the next meeting.

 

Ms. Christiansen seconded the motion.

 

The motion passed with a vote of 4-0-0.

 

XIII.        Commissioner’s Comments

 

                Commissioner Dudney

1.      Status of the HD Architectural Design and Materials List being incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.

2.      Identification of the Historic District along the Main Street Corridor.

 

Ms. Dudney requested to postpone her comments to a later date.

 

XIV.        Adjournment of the Meeting

 

Mr. Ruhl made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Ms. Christiansen seconded the motion.

Ms. Hall adjourned the meeting at 7:14 p.m.

 

___________________________________              ______________________________

Mark Linenschmidt, Senior Planner                         Madeline Hall, Chair

                                                                                               

 

 

Date minutes approved: ___________________