HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes,~ ~~
overla ordinance to the Commissioners rior to City Council consideration and that a copy
Y .p .
of the final adapted ordinance be Included 1n a Planning and Zoning packet.... Mr.
Hawthorne `seconded the motion which passed unopposed (S - ~}.
M N0.7: Consideration of an amendment to Section 6-B and 6-C of the
AGENDA ITE
~i of Colle a Station Subdivision Regulations ~rtainng to procedure and plat
~' ,
requirements. 91-814}
' veer Mar an resented the amendment to the Commission. The
~ Assistant to the. City Eng. g p
deadline as written In sect~an b-C.1 required ...submittal at least ten days prior to :the
Commission meetin which effectvel aye staff only- two days td review items before staff
g~ Y g
re arts were due. The new deadline would move that to twenty .calendar ..days before the
p_
Commission meetin thereb ivin staff adequate time to review submittals. One other
g Yg g
.:item amended was section ~-B in which the time frame was changed to read calendar .days
simiilar to that in section 6-C.1. The last item amended is section b-C.2.11. In this section,
clarifications have been made to the re uirernents for impact studies. Staff realizes that
q ...
there are snore corrections that need to be made to the Subdivision Regulations; however,
this section created: a roblem with the submittal of the impact studies of the Glenhaven IX
p
final plat and needed to be addressed immediately.
Mr. Esmond encoura ed staff to come forward with any more changes or amendments to
g
the :Subdivision Regulations that may help with the development review :process. Until the
ordinance com letel rewritten, staff should amend sections that require staff or the
. p -~'.
Comm~ssian to step outside the bounds of the ordinance to resolve an issue. He moved. to
recommend a royal of the amendment to the Subdivision Regulations as presented. Mr.
Pp
Hall seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 4}.
AGENDA ITEM N0 8: Clther .business.
. e lion Stud
xt n
8E
81
' tat there is a 2
Planning Technician .Thomas informed the Commission h
Y
subcommittee meeting scheduled far Tuesday,. October 29, 1991 at 6:~4 pm in the Council
Chambers. Staff and he Commissioners will meet with several property :owners along the
Mile Drive area.
Mr. Esmond directed the Commission's attention to the drainage information included in the
ticket. This information was resented to a few of the Commissioners at a meeting with
p P .
Assistant City Manager Brymer and City Manager Ragland. He referenced the,~i-
memorandum o Assistant Cit Mana er B mer from Assistant City Attorney l~emcik an
Y g rY ..~ ,
stated that he was unha with the Cit 's method of film ~ suit in ~~~~" ~'~~~~ °~~~~~ for the
ppy Y g
cost of maintenance services when a Homeowners Association fails to maintain the
commonl owned ro erty to City standards. fir. Esmond also stated that he disagrees with
y p p
the method of the.. property owner having the -only: option of ,:filing a lawsuit against .the
- Homeowners Association for failure of maintenance responsibilities. In the cases of
Holleman v. Mission Trace Homeowners Association and Gunnells v, North Woodland Hills
Community Association, cited in the memorandum, there was a great deal of legal effort and
expense involved in settling these suits. He added that a Homeowners Association has no .
police, eminent domain, or taxing .:power. The City: is asking: the. wrong ~~~~ to
maintain drainage easements. Mr. Esmond also handed out a memorandum pertaining to
the American Planning Association conference he ',.attended in Corpus Christi. At that
conference, he received discouraging comments from various Commission members. from
.. n pother
other... cities. concerning out new drainage policy. College Station .should leas from
cities' mistakes.
•
a~~
City Engineer Pullen approached the Commission and presented a time schedule including
he proposed drainage ordinance,. subdivision regulations, sidewalks, driveway access, etc,
All amendments should be in place by January 24,.1991.
P & Z Minutes :October 17, 199.1 Page 5