Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Murphy council approves ordinance clarifying portable storage "pods," updates site-plan review and public-notice timing
Summary
The Murphy City Council on Feb. 4 unanimously adopted amendments to Chapter 30 of the city code to define and regulate portable on-demand storage units, revise concept- and site-plan review standards, and change timing and signage for public notice of zoning matters.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Murphy City Council voted unanimously Feb. 4 to adopt a package of amendments to Chapter 30 of the Murphy Code of Ordinances that (1) creates a permitting framework for portable on-demand storage units (often called pods), (2) repeals and replaces the city's concept-plan and site-plan review process, and (3) adjusts when the city submits public-notice language to the newspaper and adds on-site notification signs for certain residential zoning cases.
City staff said the changes are intended to provide clear rules for homeowners and developers and to shorten application timelines. Reagan (city staff) gave the presentation and described technical limits for storage units and timing windows for moves and construction-related uses.
Reagan told the council: "anyone that is placed within the city, just the general overview in a residential district, in all cases, must be placed on an improved surface. The maximum size permitted is 40 by 8 by 8 and a half." The ordinance allows pods in residential areas only on improved surfaces (normally driveways), prohibits placement in the street, requires screening for pods placed in front of commercial buildings, and does not set a numerical limit on the number of pods so long as space and other requirements are met. Staff said pods placed in association with an active building permit must be removed within seven days after final inspection; a separate move-related window tied to utility disconnect/connection requests also is included.
On site-plan and concept-plan review, the ordinance replaces standards that staff said had not been updated since 2004. The new language tightens and codifies evaluation criteria and narrows the scope of changes staff may approve administratively. Reagan summarized the administrative-approval limits and said staff retained criteria to prevent changes that would, for example, increase gross floor area ratios, reduce minimum separations required for fire safety, increase ground coverage or intensify variances previously approved by council.
The amendments also change when the city transmits notice to the newspaper for Planning and Zoning (P&Z) public hearings; staff said mailed notices to property owners within 500 feet will continue to be sent at least 10 days before a P&Z hearing in conformance with state law, but the timing for when the city provides the newspaper the P&Z notice will be adjusted to streamline the review schedule. The ordinance adds a requirement for on-site notification signs for certain residential zoning changes and for commercial proposals abutting residential properties. Reagan also asked council to adopt a submittal calendar that staff said will make timelines for developers more transparent; the presentation named a H‑E‑B project as a near-term example that followed the proposed schedule.
Council members asked about grandfathering of existing containers; Reagan said staff's intent is not to pursue retroactive enforcement where a container has been long-standing but that future placement and moves would be governed by the new ordinance. On administrative approvals, council discussed the balance between efficiency and ensuring council review when a developer repeatedly seeks changes; Reagan said staff would limit administrative approvals to the specific criteria in the ordinance and bring nonconforming changes back to Planning and Zoning and city council.
A motion to adopt the ordinance as presented was made and seconded; the motion passed unanimously. No effective date was specified in the meeting record.
Votes at a glance: Consent agenda (approved earlier in the meeting) — motion to approve consent agenda as presented; outcome: passed unanimously. Ordinance amending Chapter 30 (Item 9A) — motion to approve as presented; outcome: passed unanimously.
The city manager and planning staff said they will publish the adopted ordinance and the submittal calendar and begin implementing the new administrative-review procedures and on-site signage for qualifying cases.
