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

 

 

Historic Commission

Regular Meeting

September 15, 2016

6:00 PM

City Council Chambers, 200 W. Walker Street

 

I.                   Call to Order and Roll Call of Members

 

II.                Approval of Minutes

 

A.     July 21, 2016

 

III.             Public Hearing and Action Item

 

A.     Hold a public hearing and take action on HC16-09 (All About Plumbing) for a variance request of the League City Historic District Design and Materials Guidelines to allow asphalt pavement in front of 804, 808 and 812 E Main Street.

 

IV.              New Business

 

A.     A training session is presented to the Historic Commission (City Attorney).

B.     A training session is presented on the Sign Ordinance and how it relates to the Historic Commission.

C.     Report on the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Conference.

D.     Discuss topics for potential training sessions to be held with the Historic Commission.

  

V.                 Commissioner?s Comments

 

VI.              Staff Comments

 

VII.           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 12h DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016, 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.

 

 

 

___________________________________

Kris Carpenter, Planning Manager

 

 

MINUTES

CITY OF LEAGUE CITY

HISTORIC COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

Thursday, September 15, 2016 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 6:00 PM.

Members present:                                                          Members absent:

John Schoellkopf
Dick Calkins    
Elizabeth Hetico          
David Hake     
Steph McDougal, Chair
Gary Walding
Michael Hendershot, ex-officio

City Representatives:    
Korrie Becht, Senior Planner
Kris Carpenter, Planning Manager
Nghiem Doan, City Attorney     

 

II.                Approval of Minutes

A.                 July 21, 2016

 

Mr. Hake made a motion to approve the minutes of July 21, 2016.

Ms. Hetico seconded the motion.

 

Mr. Calkins requested the minutes be amended to make minor corrections.

 

Mr. Hake made a motion to amend the minutes of July 21, 2016.

Ms. Hetico seconded the motion.

The amended main motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0-0.

 

III.             Public Hearing

A.                 Hold a public hearing and take action on HC16-09 (All About Plumbing) for a variance request of the League City Historic District Design and Materials Guidelines to allow asphalt pavement in front of 804, 808 and 812 E Main Street.

Ms. McDougal, Chair, presented a timeline of events on the request.

Kris Carpenter, Planning Manager for the City of League City, presented on behalf of the City and City staff recommended approval with conditions.

 

Ms. McDougal requested staff to confirm that the Preservation Plan was superseded when the ordinance was updated and was no longer in effect.

 

Ms. McDougal asked if Engineering had addressed the asphalt in the alley.

Mr. Carpenter answered that Engineering had approved the asphalt in the alley.

 

Ms. McDougal inquired about the site survey completed in October 2013 and questioned the 55% impervious cover requirement, parking ordinance applicability, and landscape requirements.

Mr. Carpenter answered that the landscape islands were not required as improvements were grandfathered under the previous zoning ordinance, and as the improvements did not exceed 50%, the current zoning ordinance would not apply.

 

Ms. McDougal asked if the building department reviewed the laying of asphalt, and if that was the case then they would not ask for removal. She stated that it was her understanding that the conditions agreed upon on August 27th have been satisfied either by the applicant or not able to be satisfied by the City.

 

Mr. Calkins said that installing landscaping to hide the asphalt did not address drainage issues caused by the pavement.

Mr. Carpenter answered that the design guidelines did allow for concrete, which was impervious, therefore drainage impact would be unchanged.

 

Mr. Hendershot asked if the applicant were to replace the asphalt with concrete, would it be grandfathered due to it being classified as an improvement.

Mr. Carpenter answered as the applicant was not expanding the parking area, the City could not require them to meet ordinance requirements for improvements.

 

Mr. Hendershot asked if the asphalt in the alley was poured onto the street into the public right-of-way.

Mr. Carpenter stated that Engineering inspected the site and deemed placement was acceptable.

 

Ms. McDougal clarified that the only portion of right-of-way affected was the alley; the street abutting was unaffected.

 

Mr. Schoellkopf asked if the applicant would repair the asphalt, and if asphalt would be poured on the adjacent side of the property as well.

Mr. Carpenter informed that only repairs to existing asphalt would be made.

 

Mr. Hake stated he would challenge whether concrete could be poured onto the site, and asked if the applicant still planned to remove broken asphalt.

Mr. Carpenter answered the most recent agreement was to keep the existing asphalt and new landscaping would be installed.

Ms. McDougal added that the mention of removal of asphalt stemmed from a request to replace damaged asphalt with landscape islands.

 

Mr. Walding stated if the applicant requested a permit they would not be there tonight. He continued that the Historic Commission had voted no on the request, and the Zoning Board of Adjustment also voted no on the appeal. He said it was his understanding that the applicant was required to put pervious down but they put impervious down instead, and questioned what had changed as City Engineering had since approved the asphalt on the site.

 

Ms. McDougal asked whether, the Commission should allow the asphalt to remain and the applicant be required to repair damaged areas, additional conditions would be imposed. She continued that the decision to combine three lots to calculate impervious cover presented a dangerous precedent and asked for conditions to be drafted in order to resolve the issue.

 

Ms. McDougal proposed a condition stating the three parcels were to be re-platted to one parcel so the 55% impervious cover requirement would apply.

Mr. Doan stated the most legally defensible way would be not to make it a condition, but rather to deny the variance request and inform the applicant that their option would to be legally replat their lot.

Mr. Walding stated that they should proceed with caution, as it would not be in the applicant?s best interest financially to combine the lots.

 

Ms. McDougal inquired if denying the request based on the amount of impervious cover was a viable option.

Mr. Hake replied that he was concerned about setting a precedent.

Mr. Carpenter replied that the interpretation of combining three lots was not shared by current planning staff; therefore it would not set a precedent.

Mr. Doan informed that the potential conflict would arise from equal treatment rather than precedent.

 

Mr. Schoellkopf proposed a concrete parking lot as it would require drainage requirements to be met and stated he was concerned about approval as it could be interpreted that the Commission was codifying the illegal installation.

Mr. Doan suggested that grading or drainage improvements be made and informed that the Commission could legally require the applicant to remove the asphalt.

 

Ms. McDougal asked if any problems may arise due to the fact that Engineering already approved of the asphalt.

Mr. Doan replied that would not be a legal issue but rather a public relations issue.

 

Mr. Hake noted that Engineering did review the drainage and did not note any issues.

 

Ms. McDougal asked how the Commission would handle future applicant requests for similar projects to ensure their decisions are legally defensible.

 

Mr. Walding stated that it was the job of the Commission to protect owners in the historic district, and it was unfortunate that the Commission was in this position. He requested it go on the record that he would vote no to the original request; however he would vote yes if it allowed the asphalt to remain.

 

Mr. Hake stated that the Commission had addressed a number of issues in regard to the request and wanted to caution that it would not be how he would vote in the future.

 

Mr. Calkins stated he would like a stipulation that the new asphalt steer drainage toward to FM 518.

Mr. Carpenter replied that he would send staff to inspect to ensure proper drainage.

 

Ms. Hetico asked what would happen if drainage was not appropriate.

Mr. Doan answered he would recommend postponement in order to ensure the condition could be met.

 

Ms. McDougal asked if there were options to correct drainage issues.

Mr. Carpenter replied that options existed and, regardless of the Commission?s recommendation, staff would inspect the drainage.

 

Mr. Doan recommended mitigating the issue at hand to ensure zero impact on drainage by applying specific conditions.

Ms. Hetico asked what would happen if the applicant did not comply.

Ms. McDougal answered that the Commission would either table or deny the item and request the applicant return with a drainage plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness.

Mr. Carpenter informed that it was illegal to drain onto someone else?s property; therefore staff would look into the issue further.

 

Ms. McDougal requested a motion to table the request and asked staff to provide a report on drainage situation and a plan to remedy should drainage issues occur.

 

Mr. Calkins made a motion to table item HC16-09 to the next scheduled meeting in order to allow staff to investigate drainage on the property, determine if it was sufficient, and bring back a plan to which the applicant has agreed, which would address discovered drainage deficiencies.

Mr. Walding seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0-0.



IV.              New Business

A.     A training session is presented to the Historic Commission (City Attorney).

Mr. Doan, City Attorney for the City of League City, presented training materials for the Historic Commission Annual Training.

 

Mr. Calkins asked about quorum requirements in the Open Meeting Act.

Mr. Doan answered that discussion regarding Commission topics should end once a quorum of the membership was present.

 

Mr. Hake asked about exceptions to written disclosures in regard to Public Information Act during internal debate.

Mr. Doan replied that most items are subject to disclosure, with certain exceptions in regard to attorney-client privilege.

 

Mr. Hake asked about conflict of interest in regard to neighbor requests.

Mr. Doan replied if there was a conflict, the Commissioner should file an affidavit and recuse him or herself from discussion.

 

Ms. McDougal asked staff to provide an affidavit to Commissioners who submit applications to the Historic District, since filing an affidavit was required.

Mr. Doan requested the Commission to contact him directly during an application process so he may assist with such items.

 

Ms. McDougal requested clarification on the Commissions options for making motions and proposed to place an agenda item on the follow month?s agenda to discuss.

Mr. Doan replied that, on matters that were clear and where denial was the general consensus of the Commission, a motion to deny was appropriate.

Ms. McDougal stated the Commission would continue to make motions as they have done in the past and requested a handout from Mr. Doan containing the presentation material.

 

Ms. Hetico asked about the approval of variances and certificates of appropriateness.

Mr. Doan replied that the only item the Historic Commission had the authority to approve was the certificate of appropriateness; however appeals may go to the City Council. In addition, the Commission may recommend a variance to other agencies and Commissions, but they were not a decision-making body in that regard.

 

Ms. McDougal requested an update to the Historic Commission section of the ordinance and stated she looked forward to working with Staff.

B.      A training session is presented on the Sign Ordinance and how it relates to the Historic Commission.

Kris Carpenter, Planning Manager for the City of League City, presented on sign ordinance requirements in the Historic District.

 

Mr. Hake asked if wind flags, banners, and balloons would be prohibited under wind-driven signs.

Mr. Carpenter replied wind flags were specifically allowed, however wind-driven signs and flags were not allowed.

 

Ms. McDougal asked if off-premises signs were not allowed, would builder advertisement signs for the sale of homes be permitted.

Mr. Carpenter replied they would not be allowed based on the ordinance.

 

Ms. McDougal asked what happened when a certified letter was undeliverable.

Mr. Carpenter replied once staff received the green card labeled as non-deliverable the ten day clock would start.

 

Ms. Hetico asked about an illegally placed sign within the Historic District.

Mr. Carpenter replied the sign had been removed by Code Enforcement and he personally spoke with the business owner. He informed that there were exceptions where non-profits may apply for a permit; however, placement was limited to 48 hours before and after the event.

 

Mr. Hake asked if new signs required a certificate of appropriateness.

Mr. Carpenter stated that sign requests would come before the Commission for approval.

C.     Report on the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Conference.

Ms. Hetico moved to postpone items 4C and 4D to the next scheduled meeting.

Mr. Hake seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0-0.

D.     Discuss topics for potential training sessions to be held with the Historic Commission.

 

V.                Commissioner Comments

Mr. Calkins commended Ms. McDougal on how she conducted the meeting.

Ms. Hetico thanked Mr. Doan and Mr. Carpenter for their guidance.

Mr. Hake stated he appreciated the training topics provided.

Ms. McDougal thanked Mr. Doan for his time, welcomed Ms. Becht, and thanked Mr. Carpenter for his help.

 

VI.             Staff Comments

Mr. Carpenter introduced new staff member, Korrie Becht.

 

VII.           Adjournment

The Meeting was adjourned at 8:08 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, 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.