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

 logo2013.png

 

 

Historic Commission

Regular Meeting

November 19, 2015

6:00 PM

City Council Chambers, 200 W. Walker Street

 

I.                   Call to Order and Roll Call of Members

 

II.                Approval of Minutes

A.              October 15, 2015

III.             Public Hearing & Action Items

A.              Hold a public hearing and take action on HC 15-13, 804, 808 and 812 E Main Street

           (Parking Modification), a request to continue paving work on three commercial lots,

           located along the north side of East Main Street, east of Kansas Avenue and west of

           Iowa Avenue with the approximate addresses of 804, 808 and 812 E Main Street.

 

B.              Hold a public hearing and take action on HC 15-14, 804 E Main Street (Concrete Pavers),

           a request to retroactively approve the installation of concrete pavers in the front of the

           property, located on the north side of East Main Street, east of Kansas Avenue and west

           of Iowa Avenue with an approximate address of 804 East Main Street.  

IV.              Commissioners’ Comments

  

V.                 Staff Comments

 

VI.              Adjournment

 

 

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, ON OR BEFORE THE 16h DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015, BY 6 PM, AND WAS POSTED 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.

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM OF THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THE ABOVE-REFERENCED PROCEEDING MAY CONSTITUTE A MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.  BY THIS NOTICE, THE PUBLIC IS HEREBY ADVISED OF SAID MEETING NOT LESS THAN 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION NOTED ABOVE.

 

 

___________________________________

Ryan Granata, AICP

Planning Manager

MINUTES

CITY OF LEAGUE CITY

HISTORIC COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 6:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers

200 West Walker Street

I.                   Call to Order and Roll Call of Members of Historic Commission
Steph McDougal opened the meeting at 6:01 PM.

Members present:                                         Members absent:
Steph McDougal                                              Fay Dudney
Dick Calkins                                                                      
Elizabeth Schroeder                                                   
David Hake                                                                       

Michael Hendershot, ex-officio.                                                                                                                     

City Representatives:
Matthew Grooms, Planner
Richard Werbiskis, Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning

II.                Approval of Minutes

      A.                 October 15, 2015

Mr. Calkins motioned to approve the minutes of October 15, 2015.

Mr. Hake seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0-0.

III.             Public Hearing & Action Items

  A.     Hold a public hearing and take action on HC 15-13, 804, 808 and 812 E Main Street (Parking Modification), a request to continue paving work on three commercial lots, located along the north side of East Main Street, east of Kansas Avenue and west of Iowa Avenue with the approximate addresses of 804, 808 and 812 E Main Street.        

Ms. McDougal asked if the asphalted area was represented by the dotted area in the picture that was presented. Mr. Grooms stated yes.

Ms. Schroeder asked what the squiggly area on the map represented. Mr. Grooms stated that it was the sidewalk that ran along Main Street.

Ms. McDougal asked if there were two strips of asphalt in the front of the structure. Mr. Grooms stated that the two strips were concrete cover. Ms. McDougal asked if that added to the impervious cover and Mr. Grooms stated that it did.

Ms. McDougal asked if the survey showed what was on the ground now. Mr. Grooms stated that it did. Mr. Grooms commented that the original map was done by the applicant, but the current map was done by a surveyor.

Ms. Schroeder asked for the percentage of area covered by impervious asphalt. Mr. Grooms stated it was just under 55 percent.

Ms. McDougal asked if the previous intention to expand the asphalt to Main Street would not be permitted. Mr. Grooms stated that standard asphalt would not be permitted, as it falls under the condition that all ordinances be enforced for any work that goes forward, therefore a water pervious surface would be required. 

Ms. McDougal asked if the applicant wanted to continue with the asphalt, there was a way for them to do so. Mr. Grooms stated yes. 

Ms. McDougal asked if an image was available that showed the asphalt that needed to be removed. Mr. Grooms stated no.

Ms. McDougal asked if the asphalt on the right-of-way of Kansas is going to remain. Mr. Grooms stated that they would allow the asphalt up to where the gravel stopped.

Mr. Calkins asked where the 55 percent impervious coverage came from. Mr. Grooms stated that it was part of the City ordinance.

Mr. Hake asked for an explanation for how each lot meets the 55 percent impervious coverage. Mr. Grooms stated that the entire site falls under the 55 percent. Mr. Hake asked if that meets the code, or should each lot be considered separately. Mr. Grooms stated that it would be something the Zoning Board of Adjustment would have to approve. Mr. Hake asked if the site would have to be replatted as one lot. Mr. Grooms stated that replatting was an option, but was not currently being considered.

Ms. McDougal asked if it was common practice to look at lots as a group when considering the 55 percent impervious coverage or if it was an exception. Mr. Grooms stated that it was an exception, and was partly due to the unique nature of the three lots and how the buildings are built over the lot lines.

Ms. McDougal asked if information about the pavement being laid down in accordance to building codes and the building inspector’s review of it was available. Mr. Grooms stated the information was not available because the Building Department decided to wait to review it until the work was completed and the pavement had been removed from the cross section.

Ms. McDougal asked what the Commission’s role was, as not all of the City’s requirements had been met. Mr. Grooms stated that they were looking for approval from the Commission to move forward and to complete the other conditions not yet met. Ms. Schroeder asked what that was based on. Mr. Grooms stated that it was based on discussion with the Commission and with the applicant.

Ms. McDougal asked if the Commission would be voting to allow the completion of the list already agreed to. Mr. Linenschmidt stated that the item set before the Commission is to seek a Certificate of Appropriateness, and that the presented conditions were created after City staff’s review and were required to be met for a Certificate of Appropriateness.

Ms. McDougal asked if there was anything in the Historic District Overlay or the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay that should be considered. Mr. Grooms stated that there was also a 30 percent open space requirement for properties in the Historic District.

Ms. McDougal asked if the Certificate of Appropriateness was approved and the applicant did not meet all of Staff’s conditions, what would happen, and what would happen if a building official finds that the pavement was not laid correctly. Mr. Grooms stated that the board could approve certain conditions to move forward before approving the Certificate of Appropriateness.

Ms. McDougal asked what the procedure was in the event that a building official determined the pavement was not laid correctly and would it go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance. Mr. Grooms stated that the City could work with the Code Compliance Department for that matter, and if it is done incorrectly that Certificate of Appropriateness would be null and void.

Mr. Calkins asked what would replace the asphalt that was laid on public property. Mr. Grooms stated that the asphalt in the alleyway would be removed, there has been no discussion on what would replace it, and currently, there is grass and gravel under the asphalt.

Mr. Hake asked if the impervious coverage was just under 55 percent, and Mr. Grooms responded yes. Mr. Hake asked if additional pavement would take it above 55 percent. Mr. Grooms stated that all additional pavements would be water pervious.

Mr. Hake asked if there was public property adjacent to the sidewalk that the asphalt was over-flowing onto. Mr. Grooms stated that the property extended to the sidewalk, and there is no easement on the property, as the property was built prior to current platting standards.

Mr. Hake asked if there would be any landscaping done to soften the appearance of where the asphalt and sidewalk meet. Mr. Grooms stated that one of the conditions was that the property complies with parking requirements of the City’s ordinance, which include landscaping requirements. Mr. Hake commented that he did not understand what that entailed. Mr. Grooms explained that the parking requirements require landscaping islands to be put in next to parking isles and landscaping buffers.

Ms. McDougal asked if a landscaping island was typically concrete curbing with soil and plant material in them. Mr. Grooms stated yes.

Mr. Hake asked if asphalt would come up to make room for the island, and Mr. Grooms responded yes.

Ms. Schroeder asked if there should be a division between the sidewalk and parking, and Mr. Grooms responded yes, and that a plan for that will have to be provided.  Ms. Schroeder asked if the three lots met the 30 percent open space requirement, and Mr. Grooms responded yes.           

Mr. Hake asked for an explanation of the Engineering Department’s analysis, and Mr. Grooms stated that the Engineering staff reviewed the site and stated they had no objection.

Noah Espinoza – owner of All About Plumbing – stated that he was planning to add landscaping to divide the parking lot and to landscape the front upon approval, and commented that the appearance will be improved, the alley was a mud pit before the asphalt was laid, but they would remove the asphalt.

Crystal Espinoza – owner of All About Plumbing – stated they were waiting to find out the outcome of the asphalt before they proceeded with landscaping and that they have a letter from the City stating they did not approval for landscaping.

 

The public hearing was opened at 6:32 P.M.

The public hearing was closed at 6:32 P.M.       
    

Mr. Hake motioned to deny a Certificate of Appropriateness for 804, 808 and 812 E Main Street Parking Modification. The motion was not seconded and did not carry.

Ms. Schroeder motioned to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for 804, 808 and 812 E Main Street Parking Modification with the conditions listed by the City. The motion was not seconded and did not carry.

Ms. McDougal made a motion to table the item.

Mr. Calkins seconded the motion.

Mr. Hendershot asked if the landscaping would come before the Board to get a Certificate of Appropriateness, when they get a site plan based on discussions with City, and if this Certificate of Appropriateness was just for the asphalt there. Mr. Grooms stated that was correct, and the Certificate of Appropriateness would be for the work that has been completed.

Mr. Hendershot commented that a motion to approve or deny would be a time to deliberate, but the Board motioned to table the item. Mr. Hake commented that the current site was not appropriate. 

Ms. McDougal commented that the Board does not feel it has enough information, on the landscape and the parking islands, to take action on the item. Mr. Calkins agreed.

Ms. McDougal made a motion to table the item until a building inspector tested the asphalt and a parking plan. Mr. Linenschmidt commented that a motion should be to approve or deny, for discussion purposes.

Ms. McDougal retracted her motion to table the item.

Ms. McDougal made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness.

Mr. Hendershot seconded the motion.

Ms. McDougal commented that the Board has previously worked with the applicants, but the Board does not have enough information to move forward.

Ms. Schroeder asked how the survey of the flooding in the Historic District would pertain to this site. Mr. Linenschmidt stated that would be a question for Engineering, but if the Board tabled the item, staff would seek further clarification for the questions the Board is asking and would invite Engineering to be here.

Ms. McDougal made a motion to approve the request to continue paving work on three commercial lots at 804, 808 and 812 E Main Street.

Mr. Hendershot seconded the motion.

The motion was unanimously denied by a vote of 5-0-0.

 

Mr. Hake made a motion to table the item.

Mr. Calkins seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0-0.

B.   Hold a public hearing and take action on HC 15-14, 804 E Main Street (Concrete Pavers), a request to retroactively approve the installation of concrete pavers in the front of the property, located on the north side of East Main Street, east of Kansas Avenue and west of Iowa Avenue with an approximate address of 804 East Main Street. 

Matthew Grooms, Planner for the City of League City, presented for the City, and City staff recommended approval of the request.

Mr. Calkins asked if the items were actually pavers or concrete. Mr. Grooms stated that they are pavers.

Mr. Hake asked how the issue occurred. Mr. Grooms stated that he told the applicants that landscaping did not need to be reviewed by the Board.

Ms. Schroeder asked if the letter was about the pavers or the plants. Mr. Grooms stated that the letter was for landscaping in general, but the assumption was that the landscaping was going to be shrubbery, bushes, etc.

Noah Espinoza – owner of All About Plumbing – stated that he believed that pavers were a part of general landscaping, and he believed that the pavers were discussed at the last meeting.

 

The public hearing was opened at 6:57 P.M.

The public hearing was closed at 6:57 P.M.

Mr. Hake made a motion to approve the concrete pavers at 804 E. Main Street.

Mr. Calkins seconded the motion.

The motion was passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0-0.

IV.             Commissioner Comments

            Ms. Schnoeder commented that the building’s appearance has improved.

            Mr. Hake asked if there was any information about asphalt paving between Main St. & Second Street.
    Mr. Grooms stated no.

Ms. McDougal commented that she sent a message to Mark Rohr stating that now would be a good time to take picture and do an inventory for the Historic Resource survey because the leaves are off the trees and Galveston is updating their property records, and Mark Rohr agreed, so she will be bringing plans for that to the next meeting.

V.                Staff Comments

Mr. Grooms commented that the training session has been postponed until the Board is fully staffed, and, as part of the training, there will be an ordinance review of the ordinances under the purview of the Board, which will be used to help to revise the Historic Overlay and RNC.

Mr. Linenschmidt commented that it is anticipated that City Council typically votes on appointments to Boards and Commissions in December, however, staff is unsure of which meeting it will be, or who will be appointed to what position, but will keep the Board informed, possibly in January.

VI.             Adjournment

The Meeting was adjourned at 7:04 PM.

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 NOVEMBER, 2015 AND WAS POSTED 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.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM OF THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THE ABOVE-REFERENCED PROCEEDING MAY CONSTITUTE A MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.  BY THIS NOTICE, THE PUBLIC IS HEREBY ADVISED OF SAID MEETING NOT LESS THAN 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION NOTED ABOVE.

 

_______________________________________                  _____________________________________

Mr. Ryan Granata                                                     Ms. Steph McDougal  

Planning Manager                                                      Vice-Chair, Historic District Commission    

 

Date minutes approved: ___________________