HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 1996-02-15 RegularI
I I
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
FRIENDSWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 15, 1996
A Regular meeting of the Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission was held on February 15,
1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 910 S. Friendswood Drive,
Friendswood, Texas with the following members in attendance:
Finger -Vice Chair
Grace
Hoover -City Planner
Brinkman -Secretary
Whittenburg Henry -Development Coordinator
Burke
Cress
Clark
With a quorum present, and with Baker absent, Vice Chair Finger opened the meeting to consider the
following:
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC:
None
BUSINESS:
1.Consideration and possible action regarding the Preliminary plat of Cedarwood
Subdivision located at the corner of Castlewood and Cedarwood.
James Thompson with Lentz Engineering presented the plat of Cedarwood. Note 7 will
be changed to reflect that the fence will be erected prior to the recordation of the plat.
There is a 1 O' utility easement and a 20' drainage easement to the rear of the property.
Thompson explained the sanitary sewer extension and the location of water lines.
Commissioner Burke asked questions regarding the electricity and maintenance of
detention facilities to which Thompson replied that the electricity would be overhead
and there would be swales between properties that would be maintained by property
owners.
MOTION: Commissioner Cress made a motion that the preliminary plat of Cedarwood
Subdivision be approved.
Second: Burke
Vote: Unanimous FOR Motion Carried
2.PRE-APP FOR STEVENS SUBDIVISION LOCATED IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF MELODY AND FM 2351.
Stevens stated he was refurbishing the yellow house located on FM 2351 adjacent to
Mr. Fred Crisley. Drainage was discussed, as well as a problem regarding 5' of
property that was sold and never platted. The Commission recommended that he
confer with an engineer to determine the required drainage for the property. The
Commission also recommended that Mr. Stevens consider less parking and more
landscaping than was indicated on the pre-app.
3.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS FOR:
A.FENCES
City Planner Hoover explained that the purpose for the proposed ordinance
amendment was to curb the number of requests that were presented to the Board of
Adjustment. The current ordinance prohibits front yard fences. Discussion followed
regarding ornamental fencing and lot size restrictions. There were four concerns: the
wording should be changed to include "no hazardous visual obstruction to traffic" and
that the term "fences, walls, and hedges" be consistent throughout the ordinance, the
word "thoroughfare" would be added to the verbiage on the cover sheet, and the size
of the acreage for front yard fencing.
MOTION: Cress made a motion to recommend the ordinance to City Council for their
approval after changing the wording regarding visual obstruction, the consistency of
fences, walls, and hedges and the word thoroughfare added to the cover sheet. Cress
recommended the size of the yard remain at one acre.
Second: Clark
Vote For: Cress, Clark, Whittenburg, Burke, and Finger
Opposed: Grace Motion Carried
B.TREE SURVEYS
Commissioner Burke stated that developers are aware that wooded property is more
valuable and marketable than that which is bare. Burke also stated that he did not feel
a vote in opposition to the tree survey indicated that a person disliked trees; however,
in his opinion, the tree survey would create unnecessary cost to the developer without
apparent benefit to the City. Hoover explained that the ordinance was designed to
make the developer aware of the trees on the property and to encourage their
preservation, although the City would not require the trees be preserved as this was not
a Tree Preservation Ordinance. Discussion followed regarding intent and enforcement.
MOTION: Whittenburg made a motion to recommend the ordinance to City Council for
their approval.
Second: Cress
Vote For: Whittenburg & Cress
Opposed: Grace, Clark, Burke, Finger Motion Failed
C.ENTRYWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
City Planner Hoover stated that in the original public notice, reference was not made to
the attached map indicating the boundaries for the entryway overlay district. As a
result there had been some confusion regarding those boundaries.
MOTION: Whittenburg made a motion to recommend to City Council that appropriate
measures be take to adopt the original map designating district boundaries.
Second: Cress
[
l
4.
Vote For:
Opposed:
Whittenburg, Cress, Burke, Clark & Finger
Grace Motion Passed
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL -FEBRUARY 1, 1996
Approved as read
5.COMMUNICATIONS FROM:
A.STAFF
The Comprehensive plan will be considered at a workshop for the City Council and has
been proposed for February 23, 1996 or March 8, 1996.
B.COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Cress asked that the tree survey be added to the next regular meeting for
discussion and possible recommendation.
6. /7he meeting
�
ed at 10:00 p.m. JdfllL �� CLAUDIA L. BRINKMAN, SECRETARY