A local political group suffered a blow in its fight against multifamily developments in Sugar Land when the city ruled the group’s petition to rescind recent updates to the city’s development code invalid.

The petition drive highlights a growing concern among some residents over multifamily developments and the city’s development code as it pertains to planned developments.

Diana Miller, Sugar Land resident and founder of the political group Sugar Land Votes, submitted the petition, which was signed by more than 3,000 residents, to the city Jan. 11. The petition requested the city repeal Ordinance 2014, which contains its zoning and development regulations.

Miller led the drive to protest the city’s revamped development code because she said it promotes a vision that would open the door for the city to build unlimited high-density developments, such as multistory apartments, within planned developments. Miller also said code updates made in July were not compliant with the city’s comprehensive plan.

“I would say half the people who signed the petition are people who moved to Sugar Land from southwest Houston back in the 1980s and who saw what high-density, multifamily developments did to those neighborhoods,” Miller said. “The other half, I would say, are people who have their children in the schools who worry about overcrowding and closed enrollment statuses.” The petition, however, was ruled invalid by the city because state law does not allow the use of initiative or referendum to amend zoning regulations, City Attorney Meredith Riede said.

“Petitioners have chosen a legal path that is not available under state law,” City Manager Allen Bogard said.

Miller said she could challenge the invalid ruling of the petition by bringing a lawsuit against the city. However, she said that is unlikely as she would be asking taxpayers to help fund the lawsuit while the city also uses taxpayer money to fight the suit.

“We really don’t want to do that because we would have to raise money from the taxpayers to sue the entity that’s going to use the taxpayer’s money,” she said.

Instead, Miller said she will attempt to shake up City Council by running—along with other members of Sugar Land Votes—for office.

“Our committee members are stepping up and running for office in Sugar Land because it would be the most expedient, cost-effective way to allow the public’s choice to go forward,” she said.

Development code battle

The battle over updates to the city’s development code began when Newland Communities submitted an application to the city Aug. 31 that proposed developing an 87-acre tract of land near Hwy. 59 and University Boulevard into a mixed-use development that combined office, retail, hotel and apartment buildings. The application included plans for 900 apartments, which drew the ire of many residents.

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 original Newland application came in with a proposed 900 units because the city wrote a code that allows them to build 900 units,” Miller said. “The updates to the development code don’t give the city much ruling power over what goes in a planned development. The city needs to write a code that places some kind of limit or gives the city some kind of authority to cap the number of multifamily units.”

Miller said the city’s development code needs to be more reflective of what is stated in the city’s guiding document, which is its comprehensive plan.

According to the city’s comprehensive plan, multifamily developments should be dispersed throughout the city, and there should not be multifamily developments in any one area of high concentration. The city should seek to have low-density, single-family housing over high-density development.

“The updates to the development code don’t give the city much ruling power over what goes in a planned development. The city needs to write a code that places some kind of limit or gives the city some kind of authority to cap the number of multifamily units.”

—Diana Miller, Sugar Land Votes founder

City officials said the aforementioned guiding principles are reflective in most of the development code, but not as much when it comes to planned developments. This prompted the city to update its code in July to distinguish between urban and suburban developments.

“Everything requires limits, and those limits should be based on community sentiment and sound planning policy,” Council Member Harish Jajoo said. “Mixed-use developments pose a special challenge with the combination of commercial and residential venues.”

Road to petition

In October, Miller submitted a petition to the city that included more than 1,400 signatures of residents concerned about the number of apartments included in the Newland application.

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.

“We listened to the community and heard their concerns,” Thompson said.

Following that meeting, the council approved a resolution directing the city’s Planning & Zoning Commission to consider eliminating updates made to the city’s development code and to cap the number of apartments in planned developments at 200.

The city’s P&Z Commission held a meeting Dec. 8 and 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, Adolph said.

Miller said she decided to move forward with the submission of the petition after attending the P&Z meeting Dec. 8.

“We initially decided not to file the petition because we felt council went in the right direction,” Miller said. “But when we felt that Planning & Zoning was not supporting council’s resolution, we decided to submit the petition.”

At the Jan. 12 P&Z public hearing, the commission rejected placing a cap on multifamily units within a planned development, claiming restaurants and retail within a development would fail if there were not enough apartments to support them.The P&Z Commission held a workshop on Dec. 8 and a public hearing on Jan. 13.  Adolph said the commission will need to finalize their recommendation at a subsequent meeting before the item will return to City Council. It is unclear how the council will vote on the recommendation that will be made by P&Z or when the council will vote on it.

“Clearly, we need to grow responsibly and that will require certain limits,” Jajoo said. “Ultimately the answer is to embrace growth without straining our resources. I am for the plan that accommodates all sides.”

Moving forward

To promote change from within, Miller has announced her intention to run for City Council At-Large Position 1.

Another member of the Sugar Land Votes group, Myatt Hancock, is also running for office. Hancock, a local business owner, has thrown his hat in the ring to run for mayor of Sugar Land.

Hancock is the third candidate running for mayor. He joins council members Joe Zimmerman and Jajoo as the candidates looking to be the next mayor. Thompson is term limited and cannot seek re-election in the May city election.

“We will likely not go forward trying to bring a lawsuit or spend the taxpayers money doing that,” Miller said. “Our goal is to just get elected and propose that an initiative addressing the development code be put on the ballot and let people vote for it. It’s time to stop this five years of dividing our community.”