SL Logo

Planning & Zoning Commission

Agenda Request

Agenda Of:

March 09, 2010

Agenda Request No:

iii-a

Initiated By:

Nelda McGee,

Executive Secretary

Responsible Department:

City Secretary

Presented By:

Glenda Gundermann,

City Secretary

Department Head:

Glenda Gundermann,

City SecretaryINITIAL

 

 

Additional Department. Head (s):

N/A

Subject / Proceeding:

Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 25, 2010

Approve Minutes

Exhibits:

Minutes February 25, 2010

Clearances

Approval

Legal:

N/A

Director of planning:

sabine somers-kuenzel

Recommended Action

 

Approve the minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting February 25, 2010.

 

Exhibits

 

STATE OF TEXAS

§

COUNTY OF FORT BEND

§

CITY OF SUGAR LAND

§

 

CITY OF SUGAR LAND

Sugar Land Planning and Zoning Commission MEETING

Thursday, February 25, 2010

 

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 Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 6:00 o'clock P.M. and the roll was called of the members; to wit:

 

Bridget R. Yeung, Chairman

Carl Stephens, Vice Chairman

Farha Ahmed

Marlena Berger

Sandy Hellums

Harish Jajoo

Nancy Porter

James Shaw

Paula Stansell

 

QUORUM PRESENT

 

All of said members were present, with the exception of Commissioner Jajoo, who was absent, and Commissioner Hellums, who arrived at 6:03 o’clock p.m.

 

Also present were:

Sabine Somers-Kuenzel, Planning Director

Doug Schomburg, Assistant Planning Director

Aaron Dobbs, Assistant City Attorney

Nelda McGee, Executive 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.

 

workshop

 

Multi-Family and Nonconventional Single Family Development

 

Chairman Yeung introduced discussion on multi-family and nonconventional single family development.

 

Ms. Sabine Somers-Kuenzel, Planning Director stated the Strategic Project to research multi-family and other high-density, non-traditional residential single family development was created based on results from the Vision 2025 Community Summit and the April 2009 City Council Planning Session; the project establishes guidelines for future development and clarifies community and developer expectations for multi-family and non-conventional housing. 

 

The Development Code currently limits multi-family zoned sites to 200 units; the Comprehensive Plan includes the 200 unit limit and sets dispersion and separation limits.  The regulations apply to apartments, town homes and other non-traditional high-density developments unless exempted from zoning restrictions through the PD process.

 

Community Summit participants and City Council agreed that a new policy for the use should offer greater variety, more options, and increased density for owner-occupied housing; allow renter occupied high-density housing only as part of an integrated part of mixed-use developments; and not support conventional, stand-alone multi-family residential. 

 

Mr. Doug Schomburg, Assistant Planning Director stated the integrated approach to multi-family will be accomplished through the PD process; a development not part of a Planned Development District follows the applicable Comprehensive Plan guidelines:

 

·         20 units per acre maximum

·         Not more than 200 units on site

·         Maximum 300 units within one square mile

·         Dispersal at least .5 mile between multi-unit developments

 

Most non-integrated conventional multi-family has been built-out or brought in through annexation and includes garden style residential, semi-integrated residential, and mixed use integrated residential; existing safeguards for these types of development include:

 

Mixed-Use Integrated Residential incorporates commercial retail, restaurant, service, and office space and has restaurant and retail opportunities on the first floor; essential elements include structured parking, special focus on streetscape, and a pedestrian friendly environment with good connectivity through sidewalk, trail, bike, and transit features.  Sugar Land Town Square, Houston Midtown, and the Woodlands are examples of popular mixed use integrated residential developments.

 

Semi-Integrated Residential shares some elements of adjacent land uses, such as open spaces, common areas, and services within walking distance; typically is part of a master-planned area with pedestrian connectivity, structured parking elements, and may or may not have special focus on streetscape.  The Woodlands is an example of semi-integrated residential located between commercial and single-family residential within a POA/HOA.

 

Non-Integrated Residential consists of conventional apartment units in a stand-alone complex which may or may not be and is not connected directly to single-family residential or commercial uses; street sidewalks may be adjacent, but are not always connected to nearby uses and parking is typically on surface lots.  The Gables apartment complexes on Lexington Boulevard and Settlers Way are examples of well-landscaped, stand alone residential subject to POA overview; they are adjacent to single-family residential and commercial uses with limited pedestrian connectivity.  The Community Summit and City Council do not support future non-integrated residential development

 

Other possibilities for Non-Conventional Residential products include townhomes, garden homes, zero-lot line housing, and products other than duplex (4 or 6 units); townhomes and garden homes in the Lake Pointe Planned Development District are examples of desirable non-conventional residential.

 

The multi-family and non-conventional uses strategic project will link to the Sugar Land 2025 guiding principles:

 

·         Principle E - Destination Activity Centers (mixed-use development)

o    Minimum first floor percentage of commercial retail and services for actual mixed-use center

o   Pedestrian friendly standards for walkability beyond standard sidewalk requirement

o   Streetscape focus

 

·         Principle F – Great Neighborhoods (attractive/well-maintained/high-quality/high percentage owner occupancy)

o   Require specific building finish, landscaping, buffering tailored to multi-family mixed-use development

o   Provide incentives for condominium multi-family products (trade density numbers for owner-occupancy)

 

 

Possible impacts of new policies for Multi-Family and Non-Conventional Single Family Planned Development to integrated projects include:

 

 

Council direction for developing the new policies requires:

 

 

Commissioner Shaw suggested talking to integrated high-density developers to determine if the current economic market in Sugar Land has the depth to attract buyers for these types of uses.  Commissioner Stephens agreed that at least five to six high-quality, high-density builders should be contacted to discuss what is needed for successful development.

 

Commissioner Hellums commented that clarification was needed for how the variety of options and more density affects the style of development for planned communities stating her concern that neighborhood appeal might be lost 

 

Chairman Yeung commented she would like the variety of housing options expanded to include downsized, affordable, high-quality selections.

 

Commissioner Ahmed asked if the new policies would emphasize a specific lifestyle through aspects such as walkability and recycling.

 

Commissioner Shaw commented occupancy rate of existing units, 95%, needs to be taken into consideration.

 

Recess

 

Chairman Yeung recessed the meeting at 6:40 o’clock p.m.

 

reconvened

 

Chairman Yeung reconvened the meeting at 6:47 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.

 

Minutes

 

Chairman Yeung introduced consideration on the minutes of the regular City of Sugar Land Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held February 09, 2010.

 

Following a full and complete discussion, Commissioner Stephens, seconded by Commissioner Porter, made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular City of Sugar Land Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held February 09, 2010, with the correction to page 16, fifth bulleted item, changing “6,000” to “6,500”.  The motion carried unanimously

 

Public Hearing

 

Final Replat 7.9 Acres Alkire Lake Section Two

 

Chairman Yeung convened the public hearing to receive and hear all persons desiring to be heard on the Final Replat 7.9 acres, Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 4, Alkire Lake Section Two.

 

Mr. Harold Ellis, Planner II stated the Preliminary Replat was approved by the Commission in February 2008 and extended in February 2009; the Final Replat consists of 7.96 acres and replats three residential lots into five.  The property is currently zoned Residential Estate (R-1E).

 

The required Public Hearing for residential replats was held as a part of the Preliminary Replat February 28, 2008; due to public interest in the replat, staff made the decision to hold a Public Hearing for the Final Replat.

 

All requirements for the Public Hearing have been met; six informational inquiries were received and one call in opposition regarding detention and preservation of existing trees.  The Engineering Department is currently reviewing detention as part of the construction plans, and it is not approved at this time; the only trees on the site that would be protected are hardwood with eight-inch caliper measured at four feet above the ground.  The applicant intends to keep the existing trees on site as long as possible, but has no control over preservation once the lots are sold.

 

Staff recommends approval of the Final Replat.

 

Chairman Yeung entertained comments from the public. 

 

Mr. Rick Hosley, 427 West Alkire Lake Drive spoke on behalf of his wife, Cyril Hosley, former Planning and Zoning Commissioner and City of Sugar Land City Council Member, stating her concern that increasing the impermeable surfaces and developing a higher use of the property than the original drainage design intended will cause flooding issues; the developer should be required to detain excess run-off on his property, not widen and deepen the ditches so the City Right-of-Way can hold the excess drainage caused by subdividing the property. Ms. Hosley is also concerned the developer will change the rural character of the neighborhood if the perimeter trees are not protected.

 

Mr. David Edgar, 411 West Alkire Lake Drive, expressed concern that the developer is subdividing the property into five lots because he paid too much for the land, and the neighborhood is paying for his poor business decision.  The original drainage design was rural in nature; the more footprints the developer adds to the property, greater the drainage problems.  Mr. Edgar stated the 25 foot building setback required by the deed restrictions will be enforced and asked that staff continue to provide plans to the committee before permits are approved for construction of the homes.

 

Mr. Mike Newlin, 1414 Horseshoe Drive, stated Alkire Lakes is an oasis of unsophisticated elegance and quietude in the middle of the City and contributes to the texture of Sugar Land in a unique way; subdividing the property into five lots and building massive homes will forever change the character of the neighborhood.  Mr. Newlin asked for confirmation that the City is not planning to widen and deepen the ditch to accommodate the runoff from the development. 

 

Ms. Cindy Newlin, 1414 Horseshoe Drive, stated she has visited with approximately 90% of the residents, and all are concerned the development will change the landscape of the neighborhood forever, costing the City one of the last remaining sites reminiscent of what Sugar Land used to be like.  Ms. Newlin asked that the City help the developer and the neighborhood to work together to preserve the unique look of the area; residents have no desire to become another First Colony neighborhood.  Changing the look will affect the tax structure of the neighborhood; residents are willing to pay high taxes because of the unique quality of life this area affords. 

 

There being no further comments, Chairman Yeung closed the Public Hearing.

 

consideration and action

 

Final Replat 7.9 Acres Alkire Lake Section Two

 

Chairman Yeung introduced consideration on Final Replat 7.9 acres, Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 4, Alkire Lake Section Two.

 

Commissioner Shaw asked for clarification regarding the Commission’s ability to provide input on key Plat issues.  Mr. Ellis stated that the City Engineering Department would discuss drainage with the Commission, but since tree preservation is not addressed in the Development Code relative to platting, the Commission is not able to provide input on the issue of non-protected trees.

 

Mr. Robert Valenzuela, Assistant City Engineer stated several drainage options were reviewed, including widening of the ditch stating the construction plan has not currently been approved.  The minor increase from three lots to five lots will need to be mitigated; the revised drainage design for the project offers opportunities to save some of the existing trees, but the developer cannot guarantee which ones. 

 

Commissioner Shaw asked for clarification on how the developer will mitigate.  Mr. Valenzuela stated there will be a private detention pond on the interior portion of each lot, not on the City Right-of-Way.  There will be a discharge location to get the water from the private system into the City system as a conveyance; the water will be captured, slowed down, and released at the rate it is today. 

 

Commissioner Shaw asked if it would be behind the 50-foot building line and Mr. Valenzuela answered it would probably occur within the front.   Mr. Ellis clarified the building setbacks for the Development Code are 50 feet front and rear and 30 feet along the street side; that has been increased on the plat to reflect a 50 foot side building line.

 

Commissioner Stephens asked if the Final Plat is in compliance with all restrictions; Mr. Ellis responded affirmatively.   Mr. Stephens commented that the Commission cannot place constraints on the Plat if it meets all requirements of the City platting ordinance, the applicant and City will have to agree on a drainage plan before the Final Plat can be recorded stating the Commission has no choice except to approve the Plat.

 

Commissioner Ahmed asked if any of the lots are less than the minimum width of 125 feet.  Mr. Ellis stated all the lots meet the Development Code requirements for lot width measured from the building setback line; lot number one and lot number four are slightly larger.

 

Commissioner Porter asked if there were drainage problems in Alkire Lakes with the current plat; Mr. Valenzuela confirmed there were none.

 

Commissioner Porter asked for clarification on private detention.  Mr. Valenzuela stated it was mitigating the storm water runoff created by your lot on your lot; detention would be accommodated as part of the site development.  Options for onsite detention are open to creativity; mitigation could be as simple as a low depressed shallow swale (ditch) or a water amenity.   The intent for lot by lot mitigation is to maintain the current release rate.

 

Commissioner Porter asked what would happen if the plat was not approved.  Mr. Ellis stated the original Plat would remain recorded.

 

Commissioner Stephens asked how the City guarantees private detention on the five lots would be continuously maintained at the initial accommodation level.  Mr. Valenzuela stated the engineers can verify the ground storage that was created matches calculations for required storage.  Commissioner Stephens asked if the City can require the owner of the lot to add a restriction that requires detention maintenance.  Mr. Valenzuela stated there were several options, including a note on the plat stating they are required to provide a signed, sealed letter from the engineer stating how much capacity is required.  Commissioner Stephens asked if that would require subsequent owners to maintain the detention; the City should provide residents some assurance there will not be future drainage issues because of ownership changes.

 

Chairman Yeung asked under what circumstances the Commission could deny the plat.  Mr. Aaron Dobbs, Assistant City Attorney stated the plat can be denied only if it fails to satisfy applicable platting regulations as adopted in the Development Code.

 

Commissioner Porter asked if concern regarding possible negative impact to the community as a result of replatting was a valid reason for denial; Mr. Dobbs responded that the State Legislature has determined that if all platting standards are met, the Commission has to approve.

 

Commissioner Hellums asked for clarification on the lot width requirements; Mr. Ellis stated that every lot is in compliance with the 125-foot lot width.

 

Following a full and complete discussion, Commissioner Stephens, seconded by Commissioner Shaw, made a motion to approve the Final Replat for Alkire Lake Section Two.  The motion carried, Commissioner Porter abstained.

 

Public Hearing

 

83 Acres The Crossing at Telfair

 

Chairman Yeung convened the public hearing to receive and hear all persons desiring to be heard on zoning of 83 acres, Crossing at Telfair Section 2, 3, and 4 to Planned Development District.

 

Mr. Doug Schomburg, Assistant Planning Director stated the property includes University Boulevard, State Highway 6, U. S. Highway 90A, and borders New Territory; Bullhead Slough is behind the property, the AZ-02 Zone owned by Newland Communities is not part of the request.  There are currently several zones on the property, including Interim R-1 brought in with the annexation of Telfair and business Office M-1 and M-2.

 

Following the February 2009 workshop and applicant presentation, the Commission requested additional information regarding:

 

 

The original 112 acres, including Crossing at Telfair Section One, was submitted for B-2 zoning in 2006; Council directed the applicant to bring back the request as a Planned Development.  The applicant submitted a PD for 27 acres, Section One; Council directed the applicant to include all remaining acreage in one submittal.

 

The Telfair General Plan shows 27 acres in the area east of University Boulevard along the private street Bonaventure Way; the remaining 83 acres is being proposed as Telfair Sections Two, Three, and Four.  The AZ-02 Zone is adjacent to the 83 acres. 

 

All of Tract Four, including the 112 acres, is covered under an avigation easement which recognizes airport proximity, noise, and other effects; a note has been placed on each Tract Four plat as part of the Development Agreement and will apply to platting in the area.

 

The City of Sugar Land Regional Airport staff is working with the Planning Department to clarify height restrictions that apply to the development due to the close proximity to the airport and FFA requirements for place of assembly and runway protection zones.

 

The Plat approved for the 27 acres Crossing at Telfair Section One in 2006 includes the Hilton Garden Inn Hotel, Bonaventure Plaza Shopping Center, and commercial currently under construction.

 

The University Boulevard street connection and bridge in the east PD area was completed in May 2009; the west PD area Right-of-Way that connects to Section 15 is platted and the Easton Avenue Bridge is under construction for completion in 2010; traffic signals have been installed at Easton Avenue and U.S. Highway 90A.

 

Ms. Ruth Lohmer, Senior Planner stated the PD District proposal includes metes and bounds description of the property and Final Development containing:

 

 

Proposed uses are similar to those allowed in the B-2 District and delineated by Section; some uses were removed after the February 2009 Planning and Zoning Workshop, including:

 

 

Additional restrictions and conditions were placed on uses that would normally require a Conditional Use Permit in the B-2 District; requested uses with quantity restrictions include:

 

 

Potential totals for car washes in the PD are six and four for gas stations

 

Requested uses with conditions similar to by right uses in B-2 include:

 

 

Setback requirements for the PD District either meet or exceed B-2 regulations.  Building setbacks exceed B-2 requirements along the levee and along the private access easement; proposed parking setbacks exceed the B-2 requirements along the levee, private access easement, and Section 4 State Highway 6 and U.S. Highway 90A.

 

Proposed building regulations include:

 

—  Maximum building height – eight stories or 100 feet (may be modified based on Airport findings)

—  Minimum 80% primary finish

o   Primary finishes: brick, stone, stucco, glass wall

o   Secondary finishes: EIFS, wood, ceramic tiles

—  Single material may not cover more than 80% of front of a building

—  Facades & Exterior walls

o   Requirements to break up/ prevent monotonous walls

—  Fenestration

o   Requirements for windows

—  Detail Features

o   Use of repeating pattern

—  Roofs

o   Parapets or overhanging eaves

 

Proposed landscaping regulations include:

 

—  Street trees at 30 feet on center, four inch caliper at planting

—  20% Open Space per site

o   Different from Open Space as defined in the Development Code

o   Does not include impermeable areas

                                                                                                         

Landscape buffers for the PD District exceed B-2 District requirements along U.S. Highway 90 A, Easton Avenue, the private access easement, and levee in Section Two; State Highway 6, University Boulevard, the private access easement, and levee in Section Three; U.S. Highway 90A, the private access easement, and levee in Section Four.  Landscape Plan requirements are in addition to the landscape regulations in the Development Code.

 

Circulation and pedestrian elements for the PD District include:

 

—  Internal circulation routes now shown – 28 foot width

—  5 foot Sidewalks added

o   Along AZ-O2 boundary

o   Along internal access easements

—  Sidewalk trail along Bullhead Slough increased to 5 feet to compliment trail on south side

 

Mr. Richard Mancilla, Engineer II stated the 2009 TIA identified several measures to mitigate impacts:   constructing right turn deceleration lanes at driveways one, three, four, and five; adding a left-turn lane to U.S. Highway 90A, providing two left turn lanes onto Easton Avenue; convert thru lane at Easton Avenue intersection to shared thru and left lane; installing No U-turn signs at U.S. Highway 90A and State Highway 6 to discourage traffic from making a right turn to do a U-turn at the major interchange; and adding a channelized left-turn lane at University Boulevard into Phase II.  If U.S. Highway 90A expands in the future and TxDOT approves a median opening at driveway 3, traffic signals with 2 left turn lanes will need to be installed.

 

Ms. Lohmer stated that all requirements for the Public Hearing have been met; staff received two informational inquiries and no calls in opposition.  Staff will address issues for possible consideration and action at the March 09, 2010 Planning and Zoning meeting.

 

Chairman Yeung entertained comments from the public.

 

Mr. Peter Jacob, Weaver, Davis, and Jacob Realty Group expressed appreciation to staff stating most of the issues brought up during the February workshop have been addressed. 

 

There being no further comments, Chairman Yeung closed the Public Hearing.

 

discussion and direction

 

83 Acres The Crossing at Telfair

 

Chairman Yeung introduced discussion and direction on zoning of 83 acres the Crossing at Telfair Section 2, 3, and 4 to Planned Development District.

 

Commissioner Stephens referenced the chart on page 8 and 9 of the packet under Preliminary Analysis of Proposed Uses and asked what “see cumulative” meant for allowable number of mini-warehouses.  Ms. Lohmer stated mini-warehouses would not be limited by number, but would be based on 50,000 total maximum square footage allowed. 

 

Commissioner Stephens expressed concerns of:

 

 

Commissioner Stephens asked why there was not a left turn onto University Boulevard for full access by Telfair residents.  Mr. David Worley, Assistant Public Works Director stated the goal is to minimize conflicts with left turns out of the development and left turn bays going out towards the intersection without compromising safety.

 

Commissioner Berger stated concerns of:

 

·         The Commission should limit the number of car washes and gas stations; Ms. Lohmer stated that the Commissioners could give direction for the number deemed appropriate.

·         More specification is needed for mini-warehouses.

·         Traffic impacts for elementary schools and daycare centers; this is a busy intersection with limited access and could cause more potential issues than other locations have.

·         Removing time limit restrictions for the outdoor bazaar will encourage music after midnight.  Ms. Lohmer stated the City has a noise ordinance that would address any nuisance issues.

·         The “lumber and other building materials” usage (page 29) will allow pile-up of construction materials.  Ms. Lohmer stated outdoor storage will not be allowed; the usage is for an indoor business like Home Depot.

·         Valet parking services (page 31) aren’t needed if there is no outdoor storage of vehicles. 

·         Amusement and recreation services should be restricted to prevent amusement rides and slot car race tracks; Ms. Lohmer requested the Commission provide direction.  

 

Commissioner Ahmed asked if the Promenade would be a total green area and if there are limitation on how many people could gather at one time.  Mr. Peter Jacob, Weaver, Davis, and Jacob Realty Group stated the Promenade would be similar to a scaled-down version Sugar Land Town Square; there will be some green area, but 10 acres is already lost behind AZ-02 and more acreage may disappear, depending on FAA requirements and SLRA concerns. 

 

Mr. Jacob stated the challenge is to determine which uses make the most sense for development of 85 acres with 4,000 linear feet frontage along State Highway 6 and over 6,000 linear feet along U.S. Highway 90A; with the exception of Lake Pointe, this is the largest commercial land development in Sugar Land.    City Council direction requires everything under one PD and general use possibilities included under SIC Code permitted uses.  Defining what uses are best in each area is a cumulative endeavor between the developer, the Commission, and City staff; it requires a broad-spectrum approach from the standpoint of what uses are appropriate for each section and how that fits in the overall development.

 

Mr. Jacob stated every tract of land needs to be integrated and cohesive, many factors are considered in determining appropriate uses, including:

 

·         FAA restrictions and Sugar Land Regional Airport concerns, height restrictions and POFZ and RPZ zones

·         Traffic Impact Analysis mitigation

·         Market conditions

o   Velocity of sales below expectations

o   Investigating possibility of medical and/or major office complex

·         Company location preferences

·         Planning and Zoning Commission/City Council direction

·         Required platting

·         Best interest of Community

 

Commissioner Ahmed asked if all parking would be surface parking.  Ms. Lohmer stated parking is not addressed in the PD; Development Code minimum requirements would apply.

 

Commissioner Stephens asked if pads in Section Four would front the interior-street or State Highway 6 and U.S. Highway 90A.  Mr. Jacob replied the configuration would be similar to the Fountains with front doors facing the parking area and roadway.  Mr. Stephens asked if it would be the same design for State Highway 6 and Section Two; Mr. Jacob stated the majority of the pads, between driveways 4 and 5 and 5 and University Boulevard, will face State Highway 6.  Commissioner Stephens asked if there would be direct access from any of the pads to State Highway 6; Mr. Jacob stated there is no direct access from the pads, the driveways shown on State Highway 6 are approved by TxDOT and City traffic engineering.

 

Mr. Worley clarified Mr. Jacob’s statement by stating nothing to date has been approved; TIA is analysis, projections, and recommendations.  He expressed concerns regarding the driveways stating the concerns have been shared with the City Engineer; the goal is to prevent congestion and accidents.

 

Commissioner Porter stated concern with non-compatible uses being grouped together.  Uses like gas stations and convenience store and grocery store gas bays generate heavy traffic in different directions, stating locating a daycare or business involving children would not be appropriate; without the CUP process or section by section approval impacts of one business on another cannot be taken into consideration.

 

Ms. Lohmer reiterated this is the Final Development Plan and the Commission will have to determine what is and is not appropriate.  Ms. Lohmer stated that staff research indicates the majority of gas stations in Sugar Land have a six pump maximum; the developer is proposing an eight pump maximum.  

 

Commissioner Hellums asked if there would be any connection of the drive around the AZ-02/Object Free area.  Ms. Lohmer stated that the developer cannot have a connection there because of FAA requirements for

Object Free areas.  Commissioner Hellums commented this could be an opportunity to separate uses.

 

Commissioner Hellums expressed that amusement and recreation services provide good options and allow creative development for entertainment opportunities.

 

Commissioner Shaw stated entertainment and amusement options are desirable in the high-traffic area, but not if that means transient carnivals.  Ms. Lohmer stated carnivals set up in parking lots and would not be allowable in the development because it would take away required parking spaces.

 

Commissioner Shaw stated concerns with:

 

 

Mr. Jacob stated the Rocky Creek Crossing project in Missouri City is an example of their high-end interior storage with minimal outdoor storage.  It was created through the PD as part of an 8.5 acre mixed use including office, retail, and self-storage containing 500 units of internal air-conditioned self storage with stucco finish, windows, canopy, automated doors, and gated access. 

 

The mini-warehouses at Rocky Creek are approximately 70,000 square feet at one location; the mini-warehouses in the Crossing at Telfair are 50,000 square feet cumulative or any combination of mini-warehouse locations totaling 50,000 square feet.  The buildings would adhere to the 80% primary material requirement and any other architectural guidelines recommended in the PD. 

 

Mr. Jacob suggested the Commission recommend screening the mini-warehouse exterior doors with a perimeter wall, so it won’t be seen from the roadway.

 

Commissioner Shaw stated he also felt gas stations and combination gas station/convenience/grocery stores should be limited to six pump maximum.

 

Commissioner Stansell stated concerns of:

 

 

Ms. Lohmer stated that gas stations by right are only allowed in M-1 Districts and there is no restriction on the number allowed on those sites; a CUP would be at the discretion of the Commission. 

 

Commissioner Stansell asked if there were any previous CUPS with requests for gas stations the Commission could use.

 

Mr. Doug Schomburg, Assistant Planning Director stated the First Crossing PD with Sam’s and Wal-Mart on State Highway 6 is similar and closest in proximity; the PD specified eight pumps and delineated Sam’s as the area, it was built exactly according to the PD.  Four to six pumps is typical in Sugar Land, with a few stations having eight maximum.  

 

Commissioner Stansell commented it is difficult to determine how to maximize market demands without overcompensating on the number of stations.

 

Commissioner Shaw stated most entities looking at the gas element will be looking at signalized intersections stating there are only two, University Boulevard and Easton Avenue.  Mr. Jacob commented that in-and-out accessibility is an important consideration for gas stations; ultimately there should be three signalized intersections and there could be one gas station, six pumps, allowed in each section.  It could be associated with a grocery store and satisfy that restriction in that particular section.

 

Commissioner Stansell asked if the Commission passes the conditions for outdoor bazaars and street vendors, could a creative venue not on the current list be added at a later date.  Ms. Lohmer stated that staff is charged with interpreting the codes and ordinances, if there is a way the venue could fit the existing categories, it would be allowed;  if not, the ordinance would have to be amended.

 

Commissioner Stansell asked if there is a way for proposed uses to go through engineering review to determine if they can be denied based on possible traffic impacts that cannot be mitigated.  Ms. Lohmer stated that site plans are submitted with a traffic impact worksheet that contains the number of trips generated by the site or proposed use, which is used to determine the need for additional traffic impact study.

 

Mr. Robert Valenzuela, Assistant City Engineer stated site plans are reviewed as they come in to make sure the assumptions used are in compliance.  If staff does not agree, it has to be mitigated; if it cannot be mitigated, it may require a change in the use or location.

 

Commissioner Stephens asked if a use could be denied if it doesn’t satisfy queuing requirements.  Mr. Valenzuela stated with respect to queuing for a school or daycare, staff is charged with protecting the public right-of-way; if cars backed up onto State Highway 6, U.S. Highway 90A, University Boulevard, or Easton Avenue, there would be an issue. 

 

Commissioner Stephens asked if the City had any jurisdiction on the private interior streets. Mr. Valenzuela stated staff’s approach is on a case-by-case basis and check to make sure it is mitigated.  Commissioner Stephens asked what assurances the Commission has that issues on the private streets will be addressed in the same manner as public streets.  Mr. Valenzuela stated that the engineering process requires site plans be routed through traffic to identify potential issues; if there is, TIAs are reviewed, amended or redone to accommodate the uses and mitigation measures are reviewed as they come through.

 

Chairman Yeung stated the question was whether there is enforcement on private streets.  Mr. Valenzuela stated there is not; the engineering process is the best assurance traffic issues on the private streets will be addressed.  Mr. Worley stated that he does a worst case scenario study based on the TIA; if there is an issue, he will do mitigation.  If the applicant disagrees with the mitigation, he will recommend Council deny the use.  Mr. Valenzuela stated there are tools available to the Commission for enforcement, such as adding a condition to the PD.

 

Ms. Lohmer stated that Ms. Sabine Somers-Kuenzel, Planning Director suggested the Commission place a restriction that queuing would have to occur on-site; this will prevent queuing on the private access easement.

 

Commissioner Porter stated U.S. Highway 90A passes through AZ-02, and asked why private streets cannot connect to Section Two.  Mr. Schomburg stated that the FAA explained that U. S. Highway 90A and the railroad were grandfathered; nothing can be built there today.

 

Commissioner Porter asked about signage in the PD and Ms. Lohmer stated that Development Code requirements will apply unless the Commission determines to be more restrictive.

 

Chairman Yeung expressed concerns with:

 

 

Chairman Yeung stated the hotel was out of proportion with the rest of the development in Phase I, and that should be avoided in the next three sections; she suggested defining the sections by use as a possibility.  Ms. Lohmer stated different height restrictions for the different sections would be one way to address the problem, but there could still be an eight story building next to a two story building because of a maximum height restriction, not minimum. 

 

Commissioner Stephens commented it would be difficult to ensure proportionality unless you restrict building to all office or hotel; most of the uses are one-story. 

 

Mr. Jacob stated another office building would positively affect the existing proportionality and from a design standpoint, the higher buildings will be located in the back; expressing the concern is the ability to control what a developer is allowed to build. 

 

Chairman Yeung stated concern is the PD is supposed to be a superior development and the look of a strip shopping center in front of a Hilton is not a superior development. 

 

Chairman Yeung expressed concern that:

 

 

Chairman Yeung stated direction for zoning of 83 acres The Crossing at Telfair:

 

  1. Mini-warehouses:  allow one mini-warehouse, staff to research the appropriate size; the mini-warehouse should not be built next to the Promenade; roll-up exterior walls will be screened by a perimeter wall
  2. Residential care:  facility will have the same conditions staff listed for the Terrace; these are currently listed in the use table, but will be moved to the front section of the Final Development Plan.
  3. Schools and residential care:  facilities should not be located in the flight path; staff to research appropriate sites.
  4. Queuing:  on-site restriction
  5. Valet parking services:  clarify intent
  6. Car repair shops:  staff to research prevention of outside storage of automobiles

 

Commissioner Stephens asked if noise generated by any of the automotive uses would be a problem for residential; Ms. Lohmer stated that the proposed sites were not near residential areas.

 

Chairman Yeung asked if there were concerns regarding signage regulations.  Commissioner Shaw stated concern that they were so restrictive it left no room for creativity.  Ms. Lohmer stated that there were no color restrictions and corporate logos were permissible; only the height and area are limited.  The PD would have to be amended for anything outside the City signage regulations.  Ms. Lohmer stated there may be deed restrictions in Telfair that affect signage.

 

Chairman Yeung requested Ms. Somers-Kuenzel read the list of Commissioner Stephen’s SIC Code concerns.  Following a brief discussion, the following direction was given:

 

  1. Fleet storage, eliminate fleet parking in the PD

 

Chairman Yeung asked the Commission for direction regarding items in the Matrix (page 8 and 9), beginning with Hotels.

 

Commissioner Hellums stated she was uncomfortable with the haphazard approach involved with one PD, rather than section by section.  Ms. Lohmer stated there is a two-step option for PD process that requires a General Development Plan and Final Development Plan; the developer chose to do the entire project as a final development plan; Council did not specify a Final Development Plan for the entire 83 acres.  The developer could have done a General Development Plan for the entire acreage and a Final Development Plan for each section.

 

Chairman Yeung asked Mr. Dobbs if the two-step process was something the Commission could request.   Mr. Aaron Dobbs, Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission could vote on approval of the PD as submitted and the applicant could bring it back as a two-step process. 

 

Ms. Somers-Kuenzel stated the process in the Development Code is laid out as a two-step process with the option to go directly to the Final Development Plan.  The Commission has to feel comfortable that they have enough detail to make an informed decision that this is ready as a Final Development Plan. 

 

Chairman Yeung asked if direction should be given to the City if the Commission felt more comfortable with the two-step process.  Ms. Somers-Kuenzel confirmed and stated staff would need to confer with legal to discuss if a new Public Hearing would need to be advertised for clarification.

 

Commissioner Stephens asked if the Commission decided on the two-step process, could the developer bring forward individual site developments.  Ms. Somers-Kuenzel stated the Commission is not restricted from going phase by phase or site by site; stating the understanding is the General Development Plan will not expire as long as there is activity and requests are being submitted.

 

Mr. Jacob stated that he would submit the same plan for the two-step process; Section Two is service oriented, Section Three is office or retail, and Section Four is the Promenade and the matrix shows which uses were requested in each of those sections. 

 

Ms. Kira Martinez, Weaver, Davis, and Jacob Realty Group stated the landscaping, architecture, setbacks, and parking would remain the same whether in a one-step or two-step process and asked if the concern is the uses.  Commissioner Stephens stated the concern is that what is built will not be exactly what the Commission approves.  Ms. Martinez asked if that means approval of each use individually site by site; Commissioner Stephens confirmed, stating the Commission has no concept of how the uses fit together and the potentially look.

 

Commissioner Hellums stated all the elements are there for a perfectly executed beautiful location, but there is nothing specified that makes it great; it could be a mini-storage, a gas station, grocery store, another mini-storage, and daycare.  Ms. Martinez stated certain uses have been restricted for certain sections, for example, mini-warehouses can be built in Sections Two and Four, but are not allowed on State Highway 6 and Section Three, that process has been addressed in the plan. 

 

Mr. Jacob stated the market has changed since the workshop a year and a half ago; there is very little activity now.   The plan as presented, from the development standpoint, is conducive to uses, location and land prices that have been set.

 

Chairman Yeung stated the Commission is uncomfortable with the lack of control and wants to investigate procedure for moving forward with the two-step process. 

 

A discussion ensued regarding items in the Matrix (pages 8 and 9); the Commission provided the following direction:

 

  1. Gas stations:  Three total, one per section, gas facilities, either stand alone and/or in conjunction with a grocery/convenience store
  2. Free-standing car wash:  Three total, one per section, car wash facilities, either free-standing or in conjunction with the stand alone/grocery/convenience store gas stations
  3. Landscaping:  Address line-of-sight

 

recess meeting

 

Chairman Yeung recessed the meeting at 9:57 o’clock P.M.

 

Reconvene Meeting

 

Chairman Yeung reconvened the meeting at 10:02 o’clock P.M.

 

variance

 

Chairman Yeung introduced consideration on Subdivision Regulations Variance, Chapter 5, Sections 5-24 and 5-25 for lot depth, minimum lot size, and front building line requirements for Robinson Landing Section 1, New Territory.

 

Ms. Lisa Kocich-Meyer, Senior Planner stated the 0.2938 acre property is located in the city ETJ, New Territory, Robinson Landing Section 1, and is located along Scarlett Maple Drive; the northern property is at Birch Hill Drive and the southern property at Planetree Court. Currently the properties are platted as 60-foot rights-of-way. The applicant is proposing to create two residential lots, variances are required from the subdivision regulations. Three variances are being requested: 1) Lot depth; standard is 110 feet and the applicant is requesting 105 foot lot depth.  2) Lot size; standard is 6600 square feet and applicant is requesting 6400 square foot lot.  3) Front building line; standard is 25 feet for single-family residential lot and request is for 20-foot front building line.  The applicant is requesting the ability to create the lots to mirror the existing lots in the subdivision.

 

Variance Criteria in the Development Code include: 1) There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved; 2) Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area; and 3) will not prevent the orderly subdivision of other lands in the area; 4) A more appropriate design solution exists which is not currently allowed in the Code.

 

Staff identified points for consideration: 

 

land subsequently became part of Sugar Land ETJ.

 

Staff recommends the Commission make a recommendation to City Council to grant the variances for lot depth, minimum lot size, and front building line requirements with the following condition: any easements that the City requests are to be provided at the time of platting.

 

Commissioner Ahmed inquired about the side setbacks; Ms. Kocich-Meyer stated the applicant is mirroring what the Code requires; the side setbacks are not listed on the plats of the surrounding area but will likely follow the same regulations.

 

variance

 

Mr. John McCoy, Applicant commented that the homes in the surrounding area are set 20 feet back and have a 5-foot side setback. Mr. McCoy stated he wants to make lots that were originally developed for road rights-of-way into residential lots. The lots do not meet the requirements that the City now has in place for the 6600 square foot minimum size of the lot, but are larger than the adjacent lots. 

 

Following a full and complete discussion, Commissioner Stephens, seconded by Commissioner Shaw, made a motion to approve a recommendation to the Mayor and City Council to grant the Subdivision Regulations Variance, Chapter 5, Sections 5-24 and 5-25 for lot depth, minimum lot size, and front building line requirements for Robinson Landing Section 1, New Territory, with the condition that any easements the City requests are to be provided at the time of platting.   The motion carried unanimously.

 

fact, finding, and recommendation

 

25.05 acres telfair section 31

 

Chairman Yeung introduced consideration on a recommendation to the Mayor and Members of City Council for zoning 25.05 acres Telfair Section 31 from Interim Standard Single Family Residential (R-1) to Permanent Standard Single Family Residential (R-1).

 

Ms. Lisa Kocich-Meyer, Senior Planner stated the 25.05 acres are located south of Telfair Avenue and east of Kempton Avenue and currently zoned Interim R-1. The request is in compliance with the approved Telfair General Plan.

 

A public hearing was held February 9, 2010 and no members of the public spoke. The Commission had questions and comments regarding noise mitigation and layout due to proximity of the section to U.S. 59.

 

The preliminary layout shows 55 lots that gain access off Kempton Avenue. Telfair Section 31, is approximately 178 feet from U.S. 59 frontage road to the rear property lines of lots that are along the southern property line.

 

Noise mitigation, Chapter 5, Article 3 of the Development Code provides requirements for noise mitigation barriers where proposed residential use abuts upon the rights-of-way of a major roadway, which is defined as highway, freeway, or frontage road of a freeway. If a noise mitigation barrier is located along a freeway, highway, or frontage road of a freeway, an additional noise analysis is required to determine the height and setback of any noise mitigation barrier. In 2005 to comply with the requirement, the developer provided a study and City accepted, which concluded that any additional measures in addition to the levee that was proposed to construct, would not provide any additional noise mitigation.  The existing levee that was proposed, constructed and designed has satisfied the requirements. The developer has complied with the development regulations.

 

Staff recommends the Commission make a recommendation to City Council to approve permanent R-1 zoning.

 

Commissioner Shaw stated he questions that the noise mitigation study was done before U.S. 59 was completed and constructed at the existing elevations, stating concern is the major noise penetration that comes from U.S. 59 directly into the backyards of the residential developments. Commissioner Shaw requested that the Commission hold a workshop in the future regarding the issue.

 

Following a full and complete discussion, Commissioner Stephens, seconded by Commissioner Berger, made a motion to approve a recommendation to the Mayor and Members of City Council for zoning 25.05 acres Telfair Section 31 from Interim Standard Single Family Residential (R-1) to Permanent Standard Single Family Residential (R-1).  The motion carried unanimously.

 

subdivision plat

 

branford place street dedication preliminary plat

 

Chairman Yeung introduced consideration on Branford Place Street Dedication Preliminary Plat.

 

Ms. Lisa Kocich-Meyer, Senior Planner stated the preliminary plat consists of 1.98 acres and provides a connection from University Boulevard to the future extension of Wescott Avenue.  The Preliminary Plat has been submitted.  

 

Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat with the condition that any necessary corrections to the Curve Table be made prior to submittal of the Final Plat.

 

Commissioner Shaw inquired if the 60 foot right-of-way is the same width as the esplanade cut that creates access across University Boulevard.  Mr. Keith Behrens, Newland Communities commented his engineer said that the median is right-of-way plus 10 feet; he believes it is 60 feet, but that will have to be verified. 

 

Mr. Richard Mancilla, Engineer II stated in this case, the pavement would be 36 feet plus 10 feet or 46 feet; standards for the median cut are the width of the pavement plus 10 feet or a minimum of 50 feet, whichever is greater. Staff will research the issue further and verify that 50 feet is the minimum requirement.

 

Mr. Shaw asked if the connection at Wescott would be at the foot of the bridge, and Mr. Robert Valenzuela, Assistant City Engineer replied there will be a bridge that crosses the levee in that area and ties in; staff will research for possible site distance issues.  If there are safety concerns, there would be no turning movement on the bridge, only a right-out at that point; staff will investigate these issues further.

 

Following a full and complete discussion, Commissioner Berger, seconded by Commissioner Ahmed, made a motion to approve Branford Place Street Dedication Preliminary Plat with the condition to provide any necessary corrections to the Curve Table prior to Final Plat. The motion carried unanimously.

 

reports

 

planning and zoning commission liaison reports

 

Commissioner Hellums, Planning and Zoning Commission Liaison, commented on the City Council Meeting held February 16, 2010, stating items of interest included:

 

 

city staff report

 

Ms. Sabine Somers-Kuenzel, Planning Director, stated there were no reports.

 

ADJOURN

 

There, being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner Stansell, seconded by Commissioner Stephens moved that the meeting adjourn.  The motion carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned, time at 10:28 o'clock P.M.

 

                                                           

Bridget Yeung, Chairman

 

 

(SEAL)