Strong resident opposition to multifamily units in the city has led Sugar Land City Council to consider the addition of a provision to its development code that would limit multifamily units to no more than 200 in planned development districts.
The city’s Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing Jan. 12 to consider the elimination of updates made to the city’s development code and the cap on apartments in planned developments.
The public hearing was set after City Council approved a resolution at its Nov. 3 meeting directing the P&Z Commission to consider the changes to the development code.
Council’s directive to the commission came on the heels of a petition received by the city that included more than 1,400 signatures of residents concerned about the number of apartments included in a proposed development plan for an 87-acre tract near Hwy. 59 and University Boulevard.
Assistant Communications Director Doug Adolph said after the city received the petition, Mayor James Thompson scheduled a meeting between city officials and a group of the petitioners that was held Oct. 27. The petitioners represented seven neighborhoods near the location where developer Newland Communities had applied for a planned development zoning district that included 900 optional apartments among other components.
“We listened to the community, and we heard their concerns,” Thompson said. “Public input has been important to us and has helped guide our past and current decisions. Balancing the interests of citizens to expand tourism initiatives, attract new businesses, maintain our very low tax rate and protect our neighborhoods will continue to be our focus.”
Newland application
Newland Communities submitted its application Aug. 31 that proposed developing the 87-acre tract of land, which is one of the last undeveloped parcels in the city, into a mixed-use development that combined office, retail, hotel and apartment buildings.
The proposed 900 apartments in the original application is what some residents took issue with. The opposition was concerned an influx of renters would increase traffic and crowd schools.
“Following a review of the [Newland Communities] proposal by city staff, the developer was notified that no further action would be taken on the application because it did not meet the requirements of the city’s new development code,” Adolph said.
Adolph said the city had concerns regarding the 900 proposed apartments, a number that far exceeds what the city has approved for previous planned development applications. The city also required Newland Communities to resubmit a new application that includes a school district impact study as well as a traffic impact analysis.
Kolbie Curtice, managing director for Colliers International in Fort Bend County, the company working with Newland Communities on the project, said the developer will resubmit its proposed plans for the tract of land within the next few weeks and has removed all multifamily units from its proposal.
Curtice said multifamily housing is a key element of a mixed-use development and provides housing for young professionals near work sites. However, since there is considerable opposition to multifamily units for this particular project, the developer has opted to no longer include them in the plan.
Development code
[polldaddy poll=9210928]
The Newland Communities project also sparked a grassroots petition drive led by Sugar Land resident Diana Miller. Miller said she led the petition drive to not only fight Newland Communities’ proposal but also protest the city’s revamped development code, which she said promotes a long-term vision that would make it easier for the city to build higher and more dense projects.
Updates made to the development code in July focused on technical revisions and implemented a few policy items that included details on planned development districts, private residential streets and the implementation for the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, said Lisa Kocich-Meyer, director of planning for Sugar Land. As a result of the changes, planned development zoning applications are to be submitted as either urban or suburban plans.
Kocich-Meyer said the changes to planned development districts had no effect on density, site distances or size of developments, and that nothing in the code changed to mandate more high-density urbanization. The petition drive specifically targeted the updates that established separate zoning regulations for urban and suburban planned developments, Miller said.
However, Kocich-Meyer said the petition could not repeal portions of the code, only the code in its entirety, which could have left the city without any zoning regulations for at least a year.
Miller needed to gather the signatures of 2,032 registered voters in Sugar Land to repeal the city’s development code and submit the petition by Nov. 6. Miller said she gathered more than 3,000 signatures. However, she opted not to submit the petition by the deadline as a result of the council’s resolution to revert back to the development code prior to updates made in July as well as the added provision capping multifamily units at 200 per planned development.
Assistant Communications Director Doug Adolph said after the city received the petition, Mayor James Thompson scheduled a meeting between city officials and a group of the petitioners that was held Oct. 27. The petitioners represented seven neighborhoods near the location where developer Newland Communities had applied for a planned development zoning district that included 900 optional apartments among other components.
“We listened to the community, and we heard their concerns,” Thompson said. “Public input has been important to us and has helped guide our past and current decisions. Balancing the interests of citizens to expand tourism initiatives, attract new businesses, maintain our very low tax rate and protect our neighborhoods will continue to be our focus.”
