City Council

Agenda Request

Agenda Of:

11/07/06

Agenda Request No:

III C

Initiated By:

danny batts,

management assistant

 

Responsible Department:

planning

Presented By:

danny batts,

management assistant

Department Head:

Sabine somers-kuenzel, aicp

director of planning

 

danny batts, management assistant

Additional Department. Head (s):

n/a

Subject / Proceeding:

amendment of chapter two, article i, development code regarding conditional use permit expiration provisions

second reading of ordinance no. 1592

Exhibits:

supplemental information, ordinance no. 1592

Clearances

Approval

Legal:

meredith wilganowski,

asst. city attorney

Executive Director:

Jim callaway,
community development

Purchasing:

n/a

Asst. City Manager:

n/a

Budget:

n/a

City Manager:

Allen Bogard

Budget

Expenditure Required:  $

n/a

Amount Budgeted/Reallocation:  $

n/a

Additional Appropriation:  $

n/a

Recommended Action

Approval of the proposed Development Code amendment.

Executive Summary

This is a City-initiated amendment to Chapter Two (Zoning), Article I of the Development Code to change the provisions for the expiration of Conditional Use Permits.

 

The City Council held a workshop meeting on May 16, 2006 regarding a number of Development Code topics, including the subject of CUP expiration. The Council decided to form a Task Force of three members to further study the issues and to work with staff on proposals. Among other things, the Task Force discussed the fairness and reasonableness of our current CUP expiration provisions. The proposed amendment is based on two primary criteria given to staff by the City Council Development Code Task Force:

1. Fairness to medium and long term multi-phase projects that span more than two years; and

2. Reasonable trigger points.

 

This amendment increases the time limits and changes the trigger points of the “default” CUP expiration provisions.  Currently, (unless the Commission and Council set different time frames) applicants must begin construction within one year and completely finish the project within two, or their CUP expires.  This amendment would better address multi-phase and large scale projects because it will allow applicants up to two years to apply for building permits after the granting of their CUP, and up to five years to apply for additional building permits (for multi-phase projects) after the initial permit.  These trigger points for CUP expiration would change from construction completion (current regulations) to building permit application (proposed amendment).  This is also more consistent with State statutes related to issuance of local permits.  The Commission and Council will retain the ability to recommend and adopt any expiration scheme they feel will better serve the interest of the public, on a case-by-case basis.

 

The Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on this amendment on August 8, 2006. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the amendment on September 12, 2006. 

Exhibits

 

Supplemental Information

 

Current City of Sugar Land CUP Expiration Provisions:

 

Sec. 2-25. Expiration.

Unless specified otherwise in the ordinance granting the permit, the conditional use permit terminates if construction for the use permitted by the ordinance has not begun within one year and is not fully established and operational within two years of the date of the ordinance granting the permit. The Council may, upon written application and after receiving the recommendation of the Commission, grant an extension of time to make use of the permit, for good cause shown.

 

Common Factors Contributing to CUP Expiration

 

            One of the primary issues that prompted this review of our CUP expiration provisions was the efficacy of the 1 and 2 year time limits for project initiation and completion.  There are two main factors which contribute to applicants being unable to operate within these timeframes: Physical and Financial Constraints.

 

Physical Constraints

 

            Staff has researched timelines associated with many types of small to medium scale projects.  Of course, actual timeframes vary widely, depending on many factors.  These timeframes are general and are intended to facilitate discussion.  They are not meant to represent any actual project for which a CUP has been issued. 

 

The following represent a broad range of timeframes for the various stages of project completion:

 

Conceptual Phase:                                       months to years (Not subject to CUP expiration)

CUP application and adoption:                    4 months (Not subject to CUP expiration)

Design Phase:                                              6-15 months

City of Sugar Land Review & Permitting:     1-2 months

Actual Construction

Single Phase:                                     10-13 months                          

Multi Phase:                                        6-13 months per phase (varies widely)

Total Timeline Subject to CUP expiration: 

Single Phase:                                     17-30 months                           

Multi Phase:                                      11-15 months per additional phase (varies widely)

 

The timeframes above indicate that medium to large scale projects, as well as multi-phase projects of any scale, could easily exceed our “default” CUP expiration time limits

 

Financial Constraints

 

            Financial considerations may delay the completion of Multi-Phase projects.  Multi-Phase projects, in this case, would be projects that will eventually consist of several structures which will not be built simultaneously.  This can be due to the fact that the some structures will not be needed until some future point, or when funds for their construction have been raised. Thus, the first phase (or structure) of their project will be built rather quickly, but additional structures or expansions will not be built until justified by demand.  In the second case, some social organizations, such as churches, depend on periodic fundraising to finance their projects.  Thus, while they will wish to proceed with the construction of their main facility (ex. Rectory) , ancillary structures (classrooms, etc.) will be constructed at later dates as funds are raised. 

 

Conclusion

The time limits for CUP expiration have been expanded and made more flexible so as to accommodate a larger spectrum of projects under our default provisions.  These changes will allow reasonable time frames that recognize that, due to physical or financial constraints, not every project can be totally completed within two years.

 

 

ORDINANCE NO. 1592

 

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AMENDING THE SUGAR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXPIRATION PROVISIONS.

 

            WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended this ordinance be adopted; and

 

WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on the proposed amendment for which notice was published at least fifteen days prior to the hearing date; NOW, THEREFORE,

 

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS:

 

            Section 1.  That Section 2-25 of the Sugar Land Development Code is amended to read as follows:

 

Sec. 2-25. Expiration.  Unless specified otherwise in the ordinance granting the permit, the conditional use permit terminates if:

 

(a) A building permit application to construct for the use authorized by the ordinance has not been obtained within two years of the date of the ordinance granting the permit; or

 

(b) A building permit application to fully construct all phases of the uses authorized by the ordinance has not been submitted within five years of the date of the ordinance granting the permit.

 

The Council may, upon written application and after receiving the recommendation of the Commission, grant an extension of time to make use of the permit, for good cause shown.

 

            Section 2.  That the provisions of this ordinance are severable and the invalidity of any part of this ordinance will not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance.

 

            APPROVED on first consideration on __________________________, 2006.

 

            ADOPTED upon second consideration on _______________________, 2006.

 

                                                                        __________________________

                                                                        David G. Wallace, Mayor

 

ATTEST:

 

 

____________________________

Glenda Gundermann, City Secretary

 

Reviewed for Legal Compliance: