Planning & Zoning Commission
	Agenda Request
Agenda Of:	March 27, 2008	Agenda Request No:		III B
Initiated By:	Kathy Munoz, Executive Secretary	Responsible Department:		City Secretary
Presented By:	Glenda Gundermann, City Secretary	Department Head:		Glenda Gundermann, City Secretary
		Additional Department. Head (s):		N/A
Subject / Proceeding:	Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 11, 2008 Approve Minutes
Exhibits:	Minutes March 11, 2008
Clearances			Approval
Legal:	N/A		City Planner:
Recommended Action
Approve the minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting March 11, 2008.
Exhibits

STATE OF TEXAS	§
COUNTY OF FORT BEND	§
CITY OF SUGAR LAND	§

CITY OF SUGAR LAND

Sugar Land Planning and Zoning Commission MEETING

March 11, 2008

REGULAR MEETING

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 Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 6:00 o'clock p.m. and the roll was called of the members; to wit:

Bridget R. Yeung, Chairman

Joe Zimmerman, Vice Chairman

James Shaw

Carl Stephens

Farha Ahmed

Marlena Berger

Paula Stansell

Ke Chen

Larry Davidson

QUORUM PRESENT

All of said members were present with the exception of Commissioner Chen and Commissioner Shaw who were absent.

Also present were:

Kathy Munoz, Secretary, and

A Number of Visitors and Staff

CONVENE MEETING

Chairman Yeung convened the session, open to the public, to order at 6:00 o’clock p.m.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chairman Yeung 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.

workshop

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD) CRITERIA

Chairman Yeung introduced review of and discussion on Planned Development District (PD) criteria.

Mr. Douglas Schomburg, Assistant Planning Director, stated that a planned development is preplanned with subdivision and zoning controls applied to the development as a whole rather than to individual lots. Densities are calculated for the entire development usually permitting a trade off between clustering of housing and provisions of common open space. The site plan review provides public officials to be involved in determining the character of the development. In municipalities planned developments typically are used for 40 acre tracts or larger; a trend in Texas in recent years has been toward smaller acreages.

Planned Developments may be any size and may involve single or multiple land uses depending on municipality regulations and typically are tied to approval of a development plan; flexible zoning techniques were developed to overcome the uniform standard of traditional zoning. The PD District allows for a development containing uses or combination of uses in a design that would not otherwise comply with regulations of the primary zoning districts; and provides an overall design, increased open space or other features or amenities that result in a superior development or offer special benefits to the community. A PD District may not be used for the primary purpose of avoiding zoning regulations applicable to the primary zoning districts.

Under Sugar Land Development Code, tract sizes of 25 acres are required for mixed use commercial and residential planned developments; residential use requires 10 acre tract sites as a minimum; and commercial has no minimum acreage requirements. Planned Developments can be less than minimums if the development meets the intent statement of higher quality, unique benefits or special design and layout is such as increased open space, grouping of mixed uses or special elements or features.

There are two processes that applicants may choose to follow; a two step process where a General Development Plan is submitted for review and approval, followed by a Final Development Plan or a one step Final Development Plan if sufficient detail is present for final determination. The two step process is appropriate when large acreage is involved; such as the Imperial redevelopment that includes 700 acres.

Sugar Land Town Square Planned Development is 32 acres of mixed used development that has a defined use list, bulk standards, landscape plan, buffering and street layouts; the PD has been amended multiple times.

Lake Pointe Planned Development has lot layouts and is a mixed use development with flexibility in development demonstrating a higher quality development. The Royal Crescent development failed to meet the intent statement of demonstrating a higher quality or unique benefits to qualify as Planned Development and was denied. The Crossing at Telfair is a 27 acre Planned Development; the use list was modified in Phase I to exclude automotive and gasoline sales.

Future planned developments in Sugar Land include a parcel at State Highway 6 and U.S. Highway 90A that was not part of the Telfair annexation; Imperial Tract 3, a two step process, has a general land plan that has been approved with rezoning of acreage at a later date; and the Telfair Central PD that includes the Central State Prison Farm building which is the new home for the Museum of Natural Science–Sugar Land and other future commercial development.

Points for Consideration:

PD’s often benefit the developer by establishing uses and densities that might otherwise not be approved. The developer may benefit from a different list of bulk regulations and design standards that could give the development a unique edge. These rights and regulations will be clearly listed in the PD ordinance and presented to the Commission and Council.

· PD’s benefit the City by creating areas with a strong sense of place, increasing open space, preserving areas unique to the character of the City, or other elements that the City does not currently require or regulate. The Commission and Council need to be confident that a proposal will offer a public benefit as well as to the developer.

· Planned Development (PD) Districts have traditionally been considered on the merit of each case. The zoning nature of the process is discretionary and allows the Commission and Council to more directly influence the quality of the proposed development.

· The Commission role is to provide a recommendation to City Council regarding the PD application. In some cases, the Commission has added specific conditions / changes to the recommendation for approval of a PD. The Commission has recommended denial in some instances due to a determination that there was inability to mitigate negative impacts or inability to fully meet the intent of a PD under the Development Code.

· Staff recommends that Conditional Use Permits (CUP) not be integrated into Planned Development Districts. The separate listing of conditional versus by right uses has proven to delay the question of uses, which can frustrate citizens and the developer; the PD process is generally a longer, more involved process, adding more complexity could further discourage future submittals.

· Project density/lot coverage is specified through Building Envelope approaches rather than specific footprints and exact square footages that may result in increased flexibility to the applicant and give decision-makers a parameter for the size and scope of the development.

· Two-step process of General Development Plan, to initiate rezoning and development concepts and uses for specific acreage followed by a Final Development Plan indicating all required details provides an effective tool for the development community and decision-makers for areas of large acreage and for preparation of final details.

REPORTS

CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS

There were no reports.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LIAISON REPORTS

There were no reports.

CITY STAFF REPORT

There were no reports.

ADJOURN

There, being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner Ahmed, seconded by Commissioner Berger moved that the meeting adjourn. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned, time at 7:10 o'clock P.M.

Bridget Yeung, Chairman

(SEAL)