Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff asks whether to restrict "places of assembly" on undeveloped planned developments
Summary
Missouri City staff asked the council and Planning & Zoning Commission for policy guidance on whether to remove "places of assembly" (schools, churches, event centers and similar uses) as an automatic entitlement on undeveloped planned development districts; staff said any change would apply to new applications and require extensive PD-by-PD review.
City staff opened a discussion about amending the city's planned development (PD) and special use permit (SUP) regulations to remove "places of assembly" as an automatically allowed use on undeveloped PD parcels.
Assistant City Manager Shashi Kumar told the joint City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission meeting that staff is seeking policy guidance, emphasizing the proposal would apply only to undeveloped properties and that any ordinance changes would follow standard public hearing and amendment procedures. "Staff is seeking policy guidance on amendments to remove place of assembly users from undeveloped properties, and I want to emphasize that it's from undeveloped properties," Kumar said.
Kumar provided scope figures: the city has 118 PDs and staff identified about seven PDs where places of assembly are allowed; staff also noted 220 SUPs approved with 61 active and approximately seven SUPs permitting assembly uses. He warned the body that evaluating amendments would be a heavy staff lift because each PD and SUP would need individual review.
Council members pressed staff on the treatment of pending applications and on the idea of time caps for entitlements. Staff replied that rules in effect when a current application is filed would continue to govern that application, but a new ordinance could apply to future filings. On time limits, staff said the city can adopt development-schedule caps in zoning ordinances to require activity within a defined timeframe.
Members voiced both interest in tighter control over future land-use expectations and concern about property-owner objections and vested-rights claims. Kumar said staff would return to Planning & Zoning and Council with recommendations, including potential time-limit options and a PD-by-PD analysis.
The item was a public hearing/policy discussion only; no ordinance was introduced or voted on during the meeting.
Ending: Staff will prepare detailed recommendations, including a PD-level review and suggested time caps, and bring the item back to Planning & Zoning and then City Council for formal action.
