	City Council
	Agenda Request
Agenda Of:	02-20-07	Agenda Request No:		VII B
Initiated By:	sabine somers-kuenzel, aicp director of planning	Responsible Department:		planning
Presented By:	sabine somers-kuenzel, aicp director of planning	Department Head:		sabine somers-kuenzel, acip director of planning
		Additional Department. Head (s):		n/a
Subject / Proceeding:	update of fy 2007 strategic project - development code changes workshop
Exhibits:	draft requests for qualifications/proposals; draft amendment outline
Clearances			Approval
Legal:	n/a		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
Receive workshop presentation; discussion and direction
Executive Summary
Several months ago, the City Council discussed issues related to updating the Development Code. Council formed Task Force to review all of the issues. The Task Force, consisting of Council Members Jones, Hosley and Schiff, identified key code sections for updating and revising. We recommended some areas that required outside consultant time and experience, but also identified certain amendments that should go forward in the interim. This workshop provides an update of the project, our proposed process and gives Council an opportunity to provide further input and direction. We will also present an outline of a proposed amendment to address parking garage aesthetics. We propose to divide the consultant services for this project into two separate contracts. There are two distinct and separate areas of work. One will take less time and requires a thorough knowledge of Zoning Board of Adjustment proceedings and procedures as well as the Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code (commonly referred to as the “Texas Vesting Statute”). The second will take more time and will require a more expansive range of consultant experience and public input to address the following issues: Non-single Family Infill Development Development Quality Single Family Infill Development Performance Measures & Standards for mitigating development impacts Regarding parking garages, we have researched past Council actions dealing with parking garages for developments receiving Economic Development incentives. We also researched existing garages here and in other cities. We are proposing to go forward with an amendment that will address screening, landscaping, building finishes, and lighting as listed in the attached outline.
Exhibits

CITY OF SUGAR LAND

Community Development Department

2700 Town Center Blvd. North

Sugar Land, Tx 77478

281-275-2218

Web address: www.sugarlandtx.gov

DRAFT

(Zoning Variances)

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSALS

Objective

The City of Sugar Land seeks the services of a qualified consultant with a broad range of expertise on specific development issues. The firm will provide research services, analyze alternatives, and make recommendations for Development Code amendments that regulate specific development aspects (listed below).

ackground

Founded as a sugar plantation in the mid 1800s and incorporated in 1959, Sugar Land is located in Fort Bend County, 20 miles southwest of downtown Houston. Sugar Land is a full-service municipality providing police and fire protection, water/wastewater utilities, solid waste collection, curbside recycling, a regional airport, parks and recreation, public works, planning/zoning and other services. The City’s Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2003.

Project Objectives

Scope of Services:

1. Perform an extensive review of State statutes and the practices of other Texas municipalities (of comparable size) as they pertain to vested rights, as well as procedures and standards related to the granting of variances from municipal zoning ordinances.

2. Develop options for the implementation of a Vested Rights recognition process,

3. Develop proposals for effective variance standards and processes.

Consultant will conduct meetings with City staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, Zoning Board of Adjustment, City Council, and stakeholder groups as necessary to determine current code issues, community values and Council vision. Consultant will recommend a more structured and formal process for Zoning Board of Adjustment proceedings. Consultant will also make recommendations regarding legal underpinnings in Zoning Board variance decisions.

Consultant will recommend a process by which development rights that have been vested under state statute can be formally recognized by the City, which will enable the City to grant the most precise concessions allowed under law.

Consultant will work closely with City Council committees, task forces or other groups as necessary.

Key Issues:

Vested Rights: Recent state law changes, especially to Ch.245 of the Local Government Code, have increased restrictions on the issuance and denial of municipal permits. We would like to examine options for establishing a formal process by which vested rights can be determined, in order to avoid litigation, unnecessary variance requests, extended development review delays, etc.

Zoning Variances: The Development Code provisions relating to the standards under which variances may be granted are imprecise and possibly overbroad. Under a conservative interpretation it would be difficult to grant practical and reasonable variances. We need a comprehensive analysis of our current standards and practices, in the context of Texas statutes. We need to identify the important principals embodied in our current standards and develop code language that will maintain those principals while at the same time establishing appropriate flexibility for the Zoning Board of Adjustments. Additionally, the Board of Adjustments, needs formalized processes and procedures (receiving testimony, hearing evidence, issuing decisions, and the general conduct of its meetings).

Specific Code Sections for Review:

The following sections of the Development Code include provisions for Zoning Board of Adjustment variances:

ARTICLE I Part 5. VARIANCES

Budget

The City has allocated $10,000 for this part of the Development Code Update Program.

Timeframe for Completion

The City anticipates that the updates to the Development Code can be completed within six months of contract award.

Proposal Requirements

The proposal must include the following:

• A cover letter expressing your firm’s interest and ability to complete the update within the required time frame.

• Information about the firm, including experience with similar projects.

• A description of the firm’s methodology and philosophy utilized during similar projects, including public agency staff involvement and public involvement.

• The names and resumes of all key personnel who will be assigned to perform services pursuant to this agreement, their specific involvement or role, and the percentage of project effort to be spent by each. It is anticipated that one or two key personnel will be adequate. Any proposed substitutions of personnel are discouraged and must be approved in advance by the City.

• A minimum of three references for similar undertakings. The reference should identify the client, a contact name and a telephone number, a description of the service provided, and the location where the service was performed.

• Any comments or suggestions that the consultant believes necessary to improve the scope of work or to comply with the requirements of this RFP.

• The hourly rate of the specified key personnel and any necessary support staff.

• A cost proposal to complete all of the requested revisions.

RFQ/RFP Submittal Deadline

Proposals are due by ___________. Proposals can be e-mailed, mailed, or delivered.

Deliverables

Per phase:

• Screen check draft – one electronic copy.

• Public hearing draft – one electronic copy.

• Final document – one electronic copy.

Upon completion of the Agreement:

• One electronic copy (CD) and one hard copy that contain all of the changes.

Selection Process

Community Development staff will review the submitted qualifications and proposals and select the consultants most qualified to provide the specified planning services. The top candidates will be interviewed by staff, and a final selection from those candidates will be given an opportunity to present their qualifications, proposal, and approach, to the City Council.

The City will evaluate all eligible responses based on the following criteria:

• Demonstrated qualifications of the key personnel and assurance of their principal involvement in the project until its completion.

• Ability to meet the time schedule.

• A satisfactory record of ability and performance in other similar projects.

• Demonstrated familiarity with and concern for the general planning issues of the City of Sugar Land.

• Ability and experience to work closely with staff, Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council, Zoning Board of Adjustment, and the community.

• Completeness of the entire proposal.

• Information provided by references.

Contact

Sabine Somers-Kuenzel, Director of Planning

2700 Town Center Blvd. N.

Sugar Land, Tx 77479

281-275-2218

CITY OF SUGAR LAND

Community Development Department

2700 Town Center Blvd. North

Sugar Land, Tx 77478

281-275-2218

Web address: www.sugarlandtx.gov

DRAFT

(Development Code Update)

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS/PROPOSALS

Objective

Background

Project Objectives

Scope of Services:

1. Perform a diagnostic review of specified sections of the Sugar Land Development Code, with particular attention to code requirements necessary to implement the City’s Comprehensive Plan, assure quality development and achieve the City Council’s vision for the Community.

2. Develop options for more effective regulation based on Community values.

3. Ensure proposed options including innovative city planning and urban design principles with a sound legal basis.

Consultant will conduct meetings with City staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council, and stakeholder groups as necessary to determine current code issues, community values and Council vision.

Stakeholder groups will include Home Owner Associations, citizen and neighborhood groups, as well as the business and development community.

Consultant will work closely with City Council committees, task forces or other groups as necessary.

Code amendments should result in improved compatibility of uses for the City of Sugar Land.

Key Issues:

Non-single Family Infill Development- Sugar Land has transitioned from a suburban community near Houston to a community that is part of a large, urban mass. Sugar Land has maintained its unique identity and quality. Current development is moving to a more urban style of development, resulting in increased densities, increased building heights, increase use of structure parking, etc, at times resulting in conflicts between suburban neighborhoods and urban site developments.

Development Quality- Traditionally, Sugar Land’s “modern” growth resulted from annexing developed Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs). These MUDs contained high-quality master planned communities. Deed restrictions and property owner association review processes were private regulations that ensured development quality and protected the community. New growth is occurring outside of these communities, or in areas with no private restrictions. The Sugar Land Development Code provides basic regulations that may not achieve the quality level Sugar Land citizens and City Council have come to expect.

Single Family Infill Development- Sugar Land housing is relatively new and the average home is relatively spacious. However, the City is facing issues of magnitude for new or replacement homes. We would like to examine options to ensure new construction is compatible with existing neighborhoods without discouraging private investment.

Performance Measures & Standards for mitigating development impacts- The City Development Code does not adequately address mitigation of the adverse impacts of development, such as noise, lighting, odors, screening, etc.

Specific Code Sections for Review:

The following sections currently regulate single family and non-single family infill development:

Article II ZONING DISTRICTS AND LAND USES Part 2 thru Part 8 - Single Family Residential - infill; tear downs; the “too big” house

ARTICLE II ZONING DISTRICTS AND LAND USES Part 10 Sections 2-125 and 2-126; Part 11 Section 2-133; Part 12 Section 2-143; Part 13 Section 2-151 – Commercial infill development/redevelopment

ARTICLE V. OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS Section 2-211, 2-212, and 2-216; Non-Residential infill development/redevelopment

ARTICLE VI NONCONFORMING USES; Redevelopment of existing single family and non-single family sites

ARTICLE X BUILDING FINISH STANDARDS; Non-single family infill development

Chapter 3 LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS; Single family and non-single family infill development

Budget

The City has allocated $60,000 for the Development Code Update Program.

Timeframe for Completion

The City anticipates that the updates to the Development Code can be completed within one year following contract award, and wishes to take the proposed amendments forward in phases.

Proposal Requirements

The proposal must include the following:

• A cover letter expressing your firm’s interest and ability to complete the update in phases, within the required time frame.

• Information about the firm, including experience with similar projects.

• A description of the firm’s methodology and philosophy utilized during similar projects, including public agency staff involvement and public involvement.

• Recommendations for prioritizing the changes to complete as many updates/revisions as possible within the budget.

• Any comments or suggestions that the consultant believes necessary to improve the scope of work or to comply with the requirements of this RFP.

• The hourly rate of the specified key personnel and any necessary support staff.

• A cost proposal to complete all of the requested revisions.

RFQ/RFP Submittal Deadline

Proposals are due by ________. Proposals can be e-mailed, mailed, or delivered.

Deliverables

Per phase:

• Screen check draft – one electronic copy.

• Public hearing draft – one electronic copy.

• Final document – one electronic copy.

Upon completion of the Agreement:

• One electronic copy (CD) and one hard copy that contain all of the changes.

Selection Process

The City will evaluate all eligible responses based on the following criteria:

• Demonstrated qualifications of the key personnel and assurance of their principal involvement in the project until its completion.

• Demonstrated flexibility in completing the updates in phases.

• Ability to meet the time schedule.

• A satisfactory record of ability and performance in other similar projects.

• Demonstrated familiarity with and concern for the general planning issues of the City of Sugar Land.

• Ability and experience to work closely with staff, Planning & Zoning Commission, City Council, Zoning Board of Adjustment, and the community.

• Completeness of the entire proposal.

• Information provided by references.

Contact

Sabine Somers-Kuenzel, Director of Planning

2700 Town Center Blvd. N.

Sugar Land, Tx 77479

281-275-2218

Outline for Development Code amendment

Parking Garage Finishes and Screening Concerns

Prepared by: Douglas P. Schomburg, AICP, Asst. City Planner

Issue: Parking Garages and Screening Walls

Parking garage structures can currently be constructed without any horizontal screening walls on any of the floors, including ground floor. Although the Development Code has screening requirements for parking lots, these do not apply to parking garages.

Proposal:

Require a continuous horizontal screening wall on ground floor of at least four feet in height to screen the vehicles on surface portion.
Include a provision to ensure that total enclosure for each building wall, shown on applicant elevations, to equal at least 50% of area. Alternatively, up to 80% enclosure may be required before mechanical ventilation is mandated.

Issue: Parking Garages and Absence of Landscaping Requirements

Parking garages are considered structures, not parking lots under the Development Code and do not have any landscape requirements currently. Additional landscaping around parking garages in the City have been the results of applicant preferences, or City-applicant incentive agreements.

Proposal:

Clarify code application, require additional landscaping for parking garages.
Require ground floor of the Parking Garage Structure to have a continuous hedge, berm, or series of planter beds that screen a minimum height of 3 1/2 feet, located between the Parking Garage Structure on all sides.
Include provision to require one Tree (ornamental or shade tree) for each 30 linear feet of the structure.
When raised planter beds are used for hedge plantings, boxes are required to use the same exterior finish as the Parking Garage Structure screening walls, and must not be placed further apart than 4 linear feet.
Optionally, require trees at every 15 linear feet when property with parking garage abuts the rear, side or street side of a residential district. This would provide additional buffering.

Issue: Lack of Adequate Building Finish Standards for Parking Garages

The current building finish standards in Ch. 2, Art. X are not well-suited to the unique aspects of Parking Garage Structures. Issues such as exposed cables, guardrails, amount of relief on concrete panels, etc. have been identified.

Proposal:

Require that when concrete finish / pre-cast panels are used, there must be at least 50% of the panel area that is sculpted, fluted, profiled, or contain an architectural finish (other than just paint). In cases where garage walls are partially enclosed on each floor, the surface area shall be calculated as 50% of each screen wall per floor.
Prohibit certain architectural finishes such as exposed aggregate in ordinance if desired, and include thin-brick application as an allowable finish if desired.
Prohibit exposed structural steel, exposed metal guardrails exposed metal cables. However, ornamental metals could be used above the screening walls. (ex. Town Square Texas Garage)
Ensure that External ramps for Parking Garage Structures visible at eye level from any point on the lot line of the abutting premises or from any point on a public street must contain screen walls and meet finish requirements.
Finish requirements would apply to all perimeter walls, whether permanent or designed for future expansion / build-out. Exterior of screening walls would need to meet building finish standards.
Examine option of more-restrictive building finish standards when property with parking garage abuts rear, side or street side of a residential district. Example: 100% enclosure of walls that abut residential. Would require ventilation systems, which may result in trade-off on how this could affect a neighborhood.

Issue: Brightness of Exterior Parking Garage Lighting

Proposal:

Photometric studies for submittal at Site Plan stage rather than building permit stage.
Continue to apply the existing code requirements in a diligent manner.