Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 1986-05-15 RegularMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIENDSWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 15, 1986 The Friendswood Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on Thursday, May 15, 1986, at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers. The following Commissioners were present. Holt - Chairman Beeth Todd Cress Ballard Baker Councilman Prihoda With a quorum present and with Beggs absent, the following items were considered. PROPOSED PIPELINE ORDINANCE - COUNCILMAN PRIHODA Councilman Prihoda requested a discussion on the proposed -pipeline ordinance changes with the Planning and Zoning commission for their input. The present ordinance states the following: Easement boundaries must be tied by dimensions to all adjacent lot and tract corners. Where the private easement has no defined location or width, an effort shall be made to reach agreement on a defined easement. Where no agreement can be reached, then pipelines shall be accurately located and tied to lot lines, and building setback lines shall be shown at a distance of FORTY (40) feet from and parallel to the center line of the pipeline. The Proposed change is as follows: Adding a new sentences to Subparagraph b of paragraph 3 of subsection E of Section III: "b where there is a defined pipeline easement, a building setback line of not less than TEN (10) feet from and parallel to such easement shall be provided." Councilman Prihoda told the Commission the 10- set back for habitable structures would be a significant change. Page 2 May 15, 1986 Councilman Prihoda explained he did not know the instigator, but the proposed change appeared on the City Council agenda without a sponsor. The only item that had been reviewed by Council was a variance for a structure with a pipeline that is located on F.M. 528 and Windingway (Irish Green Office Park). Commissioner Holt explained that the variance was from a consistency standpoint. The history on that particular piece of property was a property trade. One of the conditions of the trade was to be able to build on the F. M. 528 property because of the existing pipeline. The pipeline was located and a 40' easement was made with the pipeline in the middle. Councilman Prihoda said he feels there are 3 alternatives. 1. 10' set back 2. 10' set back for non habitable structures 3. No ordinance on the subject at all (many cities do not have a pipeline ordinance). Councilman Prihoda asked if it would be beneficial to remove the 40' set back and go with the 10' set back for non habitable structures only and maintain the 40' for habitable structures. Several of the Commissioners feel the 10' for non habitable structures would help in very few cases such as detached garages and pools. Commissioner Holt feels the risks are such that Friendswood addressing what goes in the lines must not be passed up and the ordinance recognizes the need to be safe around the lines. A 40' easement, not knowing what is on the other side, when a developer lays out a subdivision, seems like a prudent way to go about it. Commissioner Holt does not have a problem with a non habitable structure 10' from the easement giving the property owner the use of his back yard. Councilman Prihoda told the Commission he was going to meet with City Attorney John Olson before meeting with the Commission again at their next regular meeting. Commissioner Holt requested the pipeline report from the late 70's be obtained from the office of the City Secretary for review at.the next regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. COMMISSIONER TODD ABSTAINED FROM THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION OF LEISURE LANE AND WINDINGWAY: Page 3 May 15, 1986 PRE-APP PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - MFR-L - LEISURE LANE AND WINDINGWAY Mr. Gartrell and Mr. Horn presented drawings for a proposed MFR-L development located on Leisure Lane and Windingway on a 5.0 acre tract of land. The drawing indicated 30 units with one -ingress -egress, a private cul-de-sac, named Leisure Way. The developer has provided a common or park area as requested at a previous presentation of this proposed develop- ment. Mr. Gartrell told the Commission he feels they can further shift one or two of the buildings to allow for the park or common area to have more frontage on the end of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Horn told the Commission each building is to be approximately 2500 sq. ft. (each duplex 1250 sq. ft.). Commissioner Holt expressed,his previous concerns with this type of development 'on a lon&_ term,, basis when the owner -at some point wants to sell the duplexes,. Then ,you have a situation involving ownership of a building versus ownership of a lot and building. The situation on a development of this kind is that you are in a zone for a certain density, but have a lot minimum to meet in order to set lots up. When you cannot meet the lot minimum you can still meet the density by removing the lot lines. Commissioner Holt advised the developers there will need to be notations on the milar for recording indicating the conditions it was set up by,such as: 1. No further subdividing of the property 2. Intent on the common or park area 3. Parking for park area 4. Sidewalks on Leisure Lane and Windingway He feels you can say it falls by the letter of the law, but the spirit of the ordinance has been violated by putting duplexes without lot lines, and that is his opinion. Commissioners Beeth and Baker expressed they prefer what was presented versus a four plex or one long building. Commissioner Cress feels this project doesn't seem equit- able since you cannot do the same - with single family homes in the same zone with lot lines. When you drive down the street you don't see the lot lines. Commissioner Holt suggested the Planning and Zoning Commission send a memo to City Council reflecting the past concerns with a copy of the proposed drawings. The project is before the Commission and based on the letter of the law,We have advised them we need assurance "there will be no further subdividing of the property. Page 4 May 15, 1986 BOB MC KEE - RETIREMENT LIVING, INC. Mr. Mc Kee addressed the Commission giving them a status report and a copy of his letter from FHA on his proposed development to be located on F.M. 528. He has met with FHA _who has reviewed the site plan and basically approved. He hopes to be ready to present his request to the Planning and Zoning Commission the first meeting in June. The Commission gave Mr.McKee a copy of the steps previously discussed with him in March. Commissioner Cress addressed the 89' buffer strip between the proposed development and Pilgrims Point Subdivision. This tract could require a replat, because the 89' buffer strip was dedicated to The Park for green area and is presently zoned MFR-L. Commissioner Holt questioned calling a public hearing on the proposed request for Specific Use Permit without subdivid- ing the 89' MFR-L buffer strip. He feels we need to make sure we don't have to further subdivide, so we don't get to the PUD stage and find we have a subdivision we did not take into account. It was requested the recorded plat be verified as to the status of the 89' buffer strip. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 84-15 (ZONING ORDINANCE - SIGNS) PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. I AS PRESENTED BY CITY COUNCIL To delete in its entirety Paragraphs 14 and 15 of Subsection Kof Section 8 and substitute the following: "14. Portable/Temporary Signs a. It shall be unlawful for any person to erect, structurally alter, or relocate within the City any portable or temporary sign, except as specifically provided herein. b. Grand Openings. A portable or temporary sign, not exceeding thirty-two 32 square feet in sign area, may be displayed by a new business to give notice of its grand opening for a period not to exceed fourteen (14) consecutive days. C. Limited Diswel One portable or temporary sign, not exceeding t irty-two square feet in sign area, may be displayed on non-residential property, in addition to that allowed for grand openings for forty-two (42) days during each calendar year; provided however, use of such sign shall be in increments of seven (7) consecutive days. p age 5 May 15, 1986 d. The use and display of any such sign shall otherwise comply with Paragraphs 2-13, and Paragraph 27 of this Subsection. e. Pennants, banners, spinners, and other similar temporary devices shall be prohibited. f. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prohibit the display of the flag of the United States, State of Texas, or any other political subdivision or any flag or banner of a bonafide religious or fraternal organization. 15. Reserved." The purpose of this amendment is to remove any distinction between portable and temporary signs with regard to grand openings and the permitted six weeks of use which is currently authorized. The Planning and Zoning Commission had a very lengthy discussion with conflicting opinions on the proposed change of amendment No. 1. The following recommendation was made in the form of a motion. MOTION: (BEETH) To r-commend to City Council approval of amendment no. 1. SECOND:(BALLARD) VOTE: FOR: Beeth, Ballard and Baker AGAINST: Todd, Cress and Holt MOTION FAILED Proposed amendment no. 1 will be placed on the next agenda of the Planning and Zoning Commission for further discussion and recommendation. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 84-15 (ZONING ORDINANCE) PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 2. AS PRESENTED BY CITY COUNCIL To delete the first paragraph of Subsection c of Paragraph 2 of Subsection I of Section 8 to provide as follows: "c. Off -Street Parking Landscaping: All areas, other than those located within the Industrial. District, that are used for parking or display of vehicles, boats, construction equipment Page 6 May 15, 1986 or production equipment, shall conform to the minimum landscaping requirements of this subsection. Areas that are of a drive-in nature such as filling stations, grocery and dairy stores, banks and restaurants also shall conform to the minimum landscape requirements of this subsection..." The purpose of this proposed amendment is to remove the parking area landscape requirements from business and industry operating within the Industrial District. MOTION: (TODD) To recommend to City Council approval of proposed amendment no. 2. SECOND: (BALLARD) VOTE: UNANIMOUS FOR MOTION CARRIED PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 84-15 (ZONING ORDINANCE) PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 2. AS PRESENTED BY CITY COUNCIL To delete in its entirety Subsection of Paragraph 1 of Subsection A of Section 8"and substitute the following: "y. New Business, A project or undertaking which involves the use of any property, building, or structure, permanent or temporary, for the primary purpose of conducting in said building or structure or on said property a legitimate commercial enterprise, or other non-residential use, in compliance with all ordinances and regulations of the City of Friendswood, and when such project or undertaking is new to the premises. Provided however, a change in ownership of at least fifty percent (50%) of an ongoing project or undertaking shall constitute a new business for the purposes herein and, provided further, expansion of an existing building or structure shall constitute a new business if such expansion increases the -size of the area devoted to the primary use, in building floor square footage, by not less than fifty percent (50%). The purpose of this amendment is to allow the erection of a portable or temporary sign to advertise grand openings when there is a change in ownership of an ongoing business. Page 7 May 15, 1986 MOTION: (TODD) To recommend to City Council approval of proposed amendment no. 3. SECOND: (BALLARD) VOTE: UNANIMOUS FOR The meeting was adjourned. MOTION CARRIED Ruth P. Henry - Secretary