|
STATE OF TEXAS
|
§
|
|
COUNTY OF FORT BEND
|
§
|
|
CITY OF SUGAR LAND
|
§
|
CITY OF SUGAR LAND
Sugar Land Planning and Zoning Commission MEETING
tuesday, october 26, 2007
The City of Sugar Land Planning and Zoning Commission
convened in a regular meeting open to the public and pursuant to notice thereof
duly given in accordance with Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas
Codes, Annotated, as amended, in Sugar Land City Hall within said City on
Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 7:00 o'clock p.m. and the roll was called of the
members; to wit:
Joe Zimmerman, Chairman
Jesse DeLaRosa
James Shaw
Carl Stephens
Bridget R. Yeung
Farha Ahmed
Marlena Berger
Paula Stansell
James Wong
All of said members were present with the exception of
Commissioner James Shaw.
Also present were:
Meredith Wilganowski, Assistant City Attorney
Grace Tamez, Assistant City Secretary, and
A Number of Visitors and Staff
Chairman Zimmerman convened the session, open
to the public, to order at 7:00 o’clock p.m.
Chairman Zimmerman introduced Public Comment stating that
citizens desiring to address the Planning and Zoning Commission with regard to
matters on the agenda would be received at this time.
There were no public comments.
Chairman Zimmerman introduced minutes of the regular City
of Sugar Land Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting held October 10, 2006.
Following a full and complete discussion, Commissioner
DeLaRosa,
seconded by Commissioner Stansell, made a motion to approve
the minutes of the regular City of Sugar Land Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting held October 10, 2006 with the amendment to exclude open meetings
review during the orientation workshop and spelling correction of name Farha
Ahmed. The motion carried unanimously.
TELFAIR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 3
Chairman Zimmerman introduced discussion on Telfair
General Plan Amendment No. 3.
Ms. Sabine Somers-Kuenzel, Director of Planning, stated the Telfair
Planned Development had been amended several times and is in accordance with
the city master plan. The workshop is an
opportunity for the developer to provide the Commission with the future
development vision and the purpose forof the amendment
request. During the next review before
the Commission, staff will compare the general plan to the
comprehensive plan, master plans, subdivision plans and design standards; and provide an
analysis and recommendation to the Commission; followed by the Commissions’
recommendation to City Council.
The 2003 development agreement outlined the infrastructure and cost and
the requirements of the developer for unique concepts. Approval of the general plan will be followed
by the zoning process, the subdivision process, the final plat process, the
site plan and the building permit review.
The PD is conceptually broad however through each step of the process it
becomes more detailed and more specific.
During each process the developer presents their ideas to the
city to determine if it fitsthe vision is in keeping
with what the city seesvision for the future.
Mr. Douglas Schomburg, Assistant Planning Director, briefed the Commission on the development
to date stating the original General Plan was approved by City Council in 2003
for 2018 acres known as Sugar Land Tracts 4 and 5, which later was renamed Telfair. Telfair was annexed into the City during the summer of 2004 as
stipulated inpursuant to the development agreement. There have since been
two prior amendments to the General Plan; one in December
2004 and one in and April 2006. The majority of the property is zoned
Interim-R-1, Standard Single Family Residential (R-1), with some areas being
zoned Zero Lot Line Residential (R-1Z) or patio home zoning. Permanent zoning to date includes
269 acres zoned to Standard Single Family Residential, 146 acres Zero Lot Line
Residential and 27.3 acres at University Boulevard to Planned Development.
There are 719 lots recorded in Fort Bend County from in Sections, 1, 2,
3, 4 5, 6, 7
and 11 in the model home park. A total of 682 lots have been recorded as
Standard Single Family Residential and 37 lots recorded as Zero Lot Line
Residential. Section 28 has 100 lots which are not recorded. Staff met with the applicant to
has reviewed with the applicant issues
regardingof additional
buffering, clarification in notes for the mixed use cells and town home density. The Planning and Engineering departments are
reviewing the General
Plan to the city ccomprehensive
plan and traffic plans. The
Land Use Plan includes Phase I.
The Traditional Neighborhood Development includes the model
homes with a suburban traditional design of stone fronts and
multi-material. Development to the
exterior edges includes more conventional products.
The proposed amendments include:
·
Removal of the residential Planned Development
(PD) at the northeast intersection of U.S. Highway 59 and University
Boulevard
·
Reduction of the future commercial acreage at
University Boulevard and New Territory Boulevard
·
Introduction of a mixed use concept for the area
north of the future Madison Avenue to expand commercial uses mixed with
multi-family residential. The previous
multi-family residential sites on Tracts 4 and 5 would be removed from the
previous locations, consolidated and distributed within the mixed use concept,
to include town homes located between Telfair Avenue and U. S. Highway 59
·
Clarification of intent for future potential
R-1Z (zero lot single family) to be limited to the PF 1, 2, 3, 5,7, and 16
areas
·
Reduction in acreage for Traditional
Neighborhood Development (TND).
·
Reconfiguration of collector streets in
northwest quadrant with three road extensions
·
Redistribution of the minimum required acreage
devoted to State-owned petroleum drill sites from two 6 acre sites to four 3
acres sites
·
Minor adjustments to acreage within other land
use cells
Travis Stone, Newland Communities, reviewed the purpose of
the amendment request with the Commission.
In 2003, Newland Communities hired Thomas Consultants of Vancouver to do
a research study to locate sites in Sugar Land that were conducive to a village
center development and found the area to be the best scenario. A recent focus
group study in Sugar Land indicates less of a market than originally thought
for the Traditional Neighborhood Development; warranting the request for a
reduction in the development type.
Further clarification to the Traditional Neighborhood Development
involves changing street patterns to reflect a loop extending around the lake
under the noise cone, thus allowing a better entrance at Highway 90A. The request to change
Standard-Single Family Residential to commercial will result in a better
commercial strip rather than having large box retail along U.S. 59 and a shift
of some commercial development from 30 acres to half is requested to be able to
bring the village center closer to U.S. 59. A portion of the planned
development has been flipped with the concept that there is an interest in
assisted living. The elderly that are
fully active would live in courtyard complexes with the fully assisted living
in the rest of the area. At this time it
is only a concept, and it could change to Standard Single Family Residential in
the future. The 90 acres on University
Boulevard is being approached as a PD; it is difficult to develop considering
the adjacent commercial development. The proposal is to divide the property
into two sections, which would allow development to incorporate multifamily
into the area. The area creates a
density issue as there cannot be less than a specific amount of commercial to
lend to living over retail, which would be easier to plan if acreage was
approximately 30 each.
levee goes away and a new
street pattern will be drawn. Priority
concerns are connectivity and providing a
TELFAIR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 3 (Continued)
The levee indicated is an issue, but once the LOMAR is
approved the quality product in line with market demand.
Developers for the patio homes are being encouraged
to use the same design concepts used in other parts of Telfair so that there is
a nice entry. The market shows baby
boomers looking for homes with lower maintenance and less yard. These are located in the area assessable to
the lake, and to further extend the product a community center is
included. Singles and couples without
children typically prefer town homes or patio homes. This could mean limiting the zero lot line to
allow for a higher end pod in the future.
It should be noted that the original drill sites included 6 acres on 2
sites, but has been changed to 3 acres on 4 sites to accommodate a General Land
Office agreement. Mr. Stone stated
Newland Communities has a considerable amount of money invested, so naturally
any impact or benefit to the project is of high concern. There are 20 different concepts for possible
layouts. A possible layout could be
retail with office or possibly a condominium overlooking the lake. Plans evolve according to changes in
lifestyles.
The Commissioners discussed buffering to
residential areas, location and circulation of schools, water detention areas,
mixed use development areas, reduction in higher density town homes and patio
homes due to market demand. The
Commissioners requested a breakdown of changes to the General Plan from past
amendments to date at the next review.
Travis Stone, Newland Communities, reviewed the purpose of the amendment request. In 2003, Newland Communities hired Thomas
Consultants of Vancouver to do a research study to locate sites in Sugar Land
that were conducive to a village center development, and found that this area was the best
scenario; a recent focus group
study in Sugar Land indicates less of a market than originally thought for the
Traditional Neighborhood Development.
Hence, the developer is requesting a reduction in this type of
development. Further clarification to
the Traditional Neighborhood Development would involve changing street patterns to reflect a loop
extending around the lake under the airport noise cone, thus allowing a better
entrance at Highway 90A.
The request to change Standard-Single Family
Residential to commercial use will result in a better commercial development along U.
S. Highway 59, rather than having the
large box retail, and by adjusting the development of 30 acres to half that
size, the village center could be moved closer to U.S.59.
Market analysis shows there is an interest in
assisted living. The developer envisions a courtyard type
environment for those who are still active and another for the assisted
living. This may not come to fruition,
however, and could revert back to Standard-Single Family Residential at some point in the
future.
Given the commercial development on U.S.59, it is difficult to
develop the 90 acres directly behind. With
development being approached as PD, we propose to
divide the section into two, which would allow us to
incorporate multifamily sites. The relocation creates a
density issue because there cannot be less than a specific amount of
commercial therefore the conditions lend toward living space over
retail. This would be easier to plan in
30 acre segments. Although the map shows
a levee as an issue, it should be noted
that once the LOMR is approved the levee could go
away and a new street pattern could be drawn.
The market shows baby boomers in the area looking
for homes with lower maintenance and less yard.
Singles and couples without children typically prefer town homes or patio
homes. Developers for the patio homes
are encouraged to use the same design concepts used in other parts of Telfair
so that there is a nice entry into Telfair.
These are located in the area accessible to the lake; to further extend that
product a central community center would be included. This could mean limiting zero lot lines to allow for a higher
end pod in the future.
The original drill sites included 6 acres on 2
sites, which have been changed to 3
acres on 4 sites to accommodate a General Land Office agreement.
Mr. Stone stated Newland Communities has a
considerable amount of money invested any impact or benefit to the project is
of high concern. There are 20 different
concepts for possible layouts. A
possible layout could be retail with office or possibly a condominium
overlooking the lake. Plans evolve
according to changes in lifestyles. Priority concerns are connectivity and
providing a quality product in line with market demand.
The Commission discussed buffering to residential
areas, location and circulation of schools, water detention areas, mixed use
development areas, reduction in higher density town homes and patio homes due
to market demand. The Commission
requested a breakdown of past amendments to the General Plan to date for the next review.
Conditional Use Permit 203 century square
Chairman Zimmerman introduced discussion on a request for
a Conditional Use Permit to operate a dry cleaning plant in the General
Business District (B-2), 203 Century Square.
Ms. Lisa Kocich-Meyer, Senior Planner, stated the facility will offer
pick-up/drop-off services and garment pressing; no drive-thru access is
provided. , . The pick-up/drop-off and is
is allowed by
right in the B-2 District, while the dry cleaning plat requires a CUP.. The site occupies 2,425 square feet out of a
newly constructed shell building totaling 18,146 sq.uare feet. The applicant is relocating the business from
a previous space in Sugar Creek Shopping Center, which will allow him to remain close to his
existing customer base. Ms. Meyer
reviewed cCity
and sState
requirements for operating a dry cleaning plant.
Commissioners discussed traffic
patterns, parking, access for receiving commercial supplies, air conditioning,
residential proximity and types of chemical use. The Commission requested further information
regarding previous conditions
in cases for cleaners and the applicability to ethe current request.
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
There were no comments.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LIAISON REPORTS
Commissioner Yeung commented on approval of a 27 acre PD for
Telfair Crossing, Burney Road Municipal Utility DistrictdDistrict bond
approval, redistricting, animal control facility workshop, Highway 6 traffic
flow study to improve safety, Brazos River Park naming, approval of the 2007
legislative agenda, and recognition of senior exercise programs.
Ms. Sabine Somers-Kuenzel, Director of Planning, commented
on future workshops that will be scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. rather than
7:00 p.m.
There, being no further business to come before the
Commission, Commissioner Yeung, seconded by Commissioner
Stephens
moved that the meeting adjourn.
The motion carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned, time at 8:40
o'clock p.m.
Joe Zimmerman, Chairman
(SEAL)
