City of Sugar Land

Update: May 7, 2012
On April 17, 2012, the City Council approved the Imperial / Tract 3 General Plan Amendment No. 1 and the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1852 rezoning the 690 acre property to a Planned Development (PD) District. The rezoning represents the initial PD zoning for the property, known as a General Development Plan, and sets up the zoning framework for future individual final PDs known as Final Development Plans.

Imperial General Plan Amendment No. 1
Ordinance 1852

Update: April 5, 2012

Second and Final Reading on the Proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Zoning set for April 17

On April 3 at the regularly scheduled city council meeting, the agenda included a public hearing on a general development plan and zoning for approximately 690.2 acres in the proposed imperial development. After staff and developer presentations as well as extensive public input, City Council approved the items on first reading. The second and final reading on the proposed general plan amendment and planned development zoning is scheduled to occur at the April 17 City Council meeting.

Update: March 22, 2012

Imperial/Tract 3 City Council Public Hearing Set for April 3

Sugar Land, TX – Sugar Land City Council has scheduled a public hearing for April 3 on the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation for a General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Zoning for the Imperial/Tract 3 development. The hearing will begin at 5:30 p.m. during the regularly scheduled City Council meeting.

The commission’s unanimous recommendation on Feb. 23 came after a year of deliberations that included an unprecedented public input process and significant concessions from the developer, including a drastic reduction in the number of proposed luxury apartments.

City Council held a workshop meeting with the commission on March 7 to better understand the recommendation. A meeting of both groups is rare but was considered necessary to ensure clear communication of the commission’s recommendation for one of the City’s most iconic and historical areas and the City’s last General Plan and Planned Development Zoning that may include apartments.

If approved as proposed, Sugar Land’s total number of apartments is projected to represent just less than 9 percent of total dwelling units upon final build-out of the City. This percentage remains approximately the same in comparison to the percentage of apartments existing in the City in 2000.

The proposed development of the Imperial/Tract 3 property began years ago when Imperial Sugar sold its vacant industrial refinery site to Cherokee Investments. To make the environmental remediation feasible for the former industrial site, Cherokee partnered with the Texas General Land Office, owner of additional acreage to the northwest. Working with Cherokee, a Development Agreement and General Plan was approved in 2007. Southern Land Company was later added to the team.

An agreement to work through the City’s development process is important as the State of Texas may circumvent local zoning restrictions.

The original 2007 General Plan allowed up to 459 luxury apartments near the Imperial Char House and water tower, as well as an undetermined amount of stand-alone apartments west toward State Highway 6.

With Southern Land’s departure from the project in 2009 due to economic changes, Cherokee and the General Land Office brought in Johnson Development to reassess the project’s economic viability.

Consistent with requirements of the agreement, Johnson Development submitted an amended General Development Plan more than a year ago that included 1,950 luxury apartments as part of a mixed-use, lifestyle community modeled after the successful Sugar Land Town Square. After extensive input from the Planning and Zoning Commission and community, the total number of proposed apartments is now less than a third of Johnson's original proposal.

The Planning and Zoning Commission’s unanimous approval of the amended plan on Feb. 23 came after an exhaustive review by the City and the Commission and included the following concessions:

The total number of multi-family units is capped at 625 and limits the number in the historical district to less than the 2007 plan.
The total number of multi-family units in the historical area near the char house is limited to 325 – a reduction from 459 – and no multi-family units are permitted in the historical area east of Main Street.
The developer will follow a phased approach for multi-family units to ensure healthy occupancy rates. Any multi-family units developed must first occur in the area near the baseball park, located north of Oyster Creek and east of State Highway 6. Following 75 percent occupancy of Phase 1, a second phase may occur in the historic area near the char house.
Structures identified for historic preservation greatly exceed the original requirements of the City, including additional buildings and numerous oak trees.
Historic site corridors allowing scenic views from surrounding areas help preserve the historic elements of the project.

Approval of the recommendation was consistent with Vision 2025, a document approved by City Council in 2009 to shape the future of Sugar Land. Vision 2025 was the result of a citizen Visioning Task Force and a community summit that included more than 70 members of the public.

Citizen input will continue as City Council considers the commission’s recommendation. Read more about the project and recommendations at www.sugarlandtx.gov/imperial.

Update: March 13, 2012

Imperial/Tract 3 Recommendation Approved After Significant Concessions

Sugar Land, TX – The Sugar Land Planning and Zoning Commission recently recommended approval for a General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Zoning for the Imperial/Tract 3 development -- an important milestone in the project.

General Plan Amendment

Planned Development Rezoning

Plan Comparison (2007 vs Recommended)

2007

General Land Plan

2012

Recommended Plans

Areas allowed for Multi-Family Uses:

No of

Multi-family

Units Allowed:

Historic Refinery Districts 1 & 2 and the Business / Residential Tract on SH 6

The density is limited at 10 units per acre for the Historic Refinery Districts 1 & 2 (45.9 Acres); The specified density would allow up to 459 units in the Historic Districts 1 & 2.

There is no limit or density restrictions for multi-family in the 52.8 Acre Business / Residential Tract on SH 6.

Historic District 1 and The Ball Park District

The entire plan is capped at a total of 625 multi-family units.

The multi-family in the Historic District 1 is limited to 325 out of the maximum 625 units.

The Ball Park District is shown to have 300 units up to the maximum 625 units – depending on the number of units in the Historic District 1.

2007 Plan

Recommended Plan

The commission’s unanimous recommendation came after a year of deliberations that included an unprecedented public input process and significant concessions from the developer, including a drastic reduction in the number of proposed luxury apartments.

City Council held a workshop meeting with the commission on March 7 to better understand the recommendation. A meeting of both groups is rare but was considered necessary to ensure clear communication of the commission’s recommendation for one of the City’s most iconic and historical areas.

The development of the Imperial/Tract 3 property began years ago when Imperial Sugar sold its vacant industrial refinery site to Cherokee Investments. To make the environmental remediation feasible for the former industrial site, Cherokee partnered with the Texas General Land Office, owner of additional acreage to the northwest. Working with Cherokee, a Development Agreement and General Plan was approved in 2007. Southern Land Company was later added to the team.

The 2007 agreement granted development rights in exchange for assurances of a quality project through the development process and preserved key historic structures including the Imperial char house and water tower, iconic structures identified for preservation by the City. The deal also included a museum to showcase Sugar Land’s history.

An agreement to work through the City’s development process is important as the State of Texas may circumvent local zoning restrictions.

The original 2007 agreement allowed 459 luxury apartments near the Imperial char house and water tower, as well as an unlimited amount of stand-alone apartments west toward State Highway 6.

With Southern Land’s departure from the project in 2009 due to economic changes, Cherokee and the General Land Office brought in Johnson Development to reassess the project’s economic viability.

Consistent with requirements of the agreement, Johnson Development submitted an amended General Development Plan more than a year ago that included 1,950 luxury apartments as part of a mixed-use, lifestyle community modeled after the successful Sugar Land Town Square. The recommended project includes a mix of main-street retail, Class A office space, parkland, historic and cultural venues and upscale residential development. The recommended plan capped the total number of apartments at 625 and limited the number in the historical district to less than the 2007 plan.

The Planning and Zoning Commission’s unanimous approval of the amended plan on Feb. 23 came after an exhaustive review by the City and the Commission and included the following concessions:

The total number of multi-family units is capped at 625.
The total number of multi-family units in the historical area near the char house is limited to 325 – a reduction from 459 – and no multi-family units are permitted in the historical area east of Main Street.
The developer will follow a phased approach for multi-family units to ensure healthy occupancy rates. Any multi-family units developed must first occur in the area near the baseball park, located north of Oyster Creek and east of State Highway 6. Following 75 percent occupancy of Phase 1, a second phase may occur in the historic area near the char house.
Structures identified for historic preservation greatly exceed the original requirements of the City, including additional buildings and numerous oak trees.
Historic site corridors allowing scenic views from surrounding areas help preserve the historic elements of the project.

The commission worked diligently during the past year holding numerous workshops, reviewing revisions, visiting various sites and hearing extensive public comments. Approval of the recommendation was consistent with Vision 2025, a document approved by City Council in 2009 to shape the future of Sugar Land. Vision 2025 was the result of a citizen Visioning Task Force and a community summit that included more than 70 members of the public.

Citizen input will continue as City Council considers the commission’s recommendation.

Read more about the project and recommendations at www.sugarlandtx.gov/imperial.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the current occupancy rate for multi-family complexes within the City of Sugar Land?
How many multi-family units are included in the recommended Development Plan.
It is my understanding that the Developer had proposed "triggers" for the multi-family and the City took this out. Can you please explain.
There are no other districts that multi-family would be appropriate other than what has been included in the recommended plan?
I have signed a petition that requests that no Plan be approved that would result in density higher than the 2007 General Plan.
What is considered a healthy occupancy rate for multi-family?
Is there a statistical difference between the crime rate in our MF areas versus the city as a whole
Vision 2025 was approved in 2009. How many citizens were involved in the visioning? Was there a public hearing prior to the City Council vote?
I see a TIA is required for approval. What happens if the traffic impact is greater than what the developer says?
Why don't we make the Developer put in University Blvd north? Why is the City not pushing for this project?
How were Rental Rates in Sugar Land impacted during the economic downturn?
When were the first multi-family units in Sugar Land Constructed?
How many multi-family units are in Sugar Land?
Why use multi-family as a buffer for development?
Does the City have any plans to use Eminent Domain in Mayfield Park?
What is the maximum height allowed for multi-family buildings within the Historic District?
Concerning the density issue for the historic district, some people are saying that the 2007 plan agreement allowed 10 multi-family units per acre and the proposed plan allows for twice that density in the historic district. Is this true?

What is the current occupancy rate for multi-family complexes within the City of Sugar Land?

According to an analysis conducted by the City’s Planning and Environmental Services Department through the City’s Residential Rental Licensing Program, the occupancy rate in Sugar Land is averaging 94.5 percent per complex. Some complexes have lower and some higher, but none have less than 90 percent.

How many multi-family units are included in the recommended Development Plan.

The Plan recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission caps the number of multi-family units at 625. The multi-family units are allowed in the Ballpark District. All 625 units could be sited in the Ball Park District. Multi-family is also shown as an allowable use in the Historic District 1; however, only 325 out of the 625 units are allowed in the Historic District 1. Again, there are only 625 units allowed in the entire plan within these two districts.

It is my understanding that the Developer had proposed “triggers” for the multi-family and the City took this out. Can you please explain.

The Developer did propose “triggers” for the phasing of the multi-family proposed in the two Districts – the Ball Park District and the Historic District 1. Their proposal included the term “substantially complete“ as the trigger. The Plan stated that phase one of the multi-family would occur in the Ball Park District and the second phase for multi-family (in the Historic District or Ball Park District) could begin when phase 1 is “substantially complete.”

The Planning Staff recommended and the Developer agreed to tie the triggers to the development process since the City is able to track this through our Rental Registration Program and our Zoning Process. The triggers are as explained below:

Phase 1, which includes 300 multi-family units, will be required to be built within the Ballpark District. Phase 1 must receive a certificate of occupancy for the buildings, must obtain the City’s Rental License and have a 75 percent occupancy before a Final Development Plan (2nd Step for the Zoning) can be submitted to the City for the second phase of multi-family. The Phase 2 multi-family can be located either next to the Ballpark Phase 1 units or can be located in the Historic Refinery District I.

The Final Development Plan process includes Public Hearings and Action at both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Upon approval of the zoning, site plans and building permits for Phase 2 can be obtained.

There are no other districts that multi-family would be appropriate other than what has been included in the recommended plan?

Resolution 10-21 provides direction to the Planning Staff, Developers, and the Planning and Zoning Commission that it is the City’s intent that multi-family development be incorporated into a mixed used development. The Ball Park District and the Historic District are the areas that provide for these mixed use opportunities.

I have signed a petition that requests that no Plan be approved that would result in density higher than the 2007 General Plan.

The 2007 General Plan was unanimously recommended by the Planning and Zoning on May 24, 2007. The City Council unanimously approved the General Plan on June 26, 2007. The General Plan is an attachment to the Development Agreement unanimously approved by the City Council on June 26, 2007.

A petition has been submitted to the Planning Department that requests that “no Plan be approved that would result in density higher than the 2007 General Plan.” We believe that the 2012 Plans meet this request as shown below by the multi-family comparisons between the 2007 General Plan and the 2012 Recommended General Plan and PD Application.

2007

General Land Plan

2012

Recommended Plans

Areas allowed for Multi-Family Uses:

No of

Multi-family

Units Allowed:

Historic Refinery Districts 1 & 2 and the Business / Residential Tract on SH 6

The density is limited at 10 units per acre for the Historic Refinery Districts 1 & 2 (45.9 Acres); The specified density would allow up to 459 units in the Historic Districts 1 & 2.

There is no limit or density restrictions for multi-family in the 52.8 Acre Business / Residential Tract on SH 6.

Historic District 1 and The Ball Park District

The entire plan is capped at a total of 625 multi-family units.

The multi-family in the Historic District 1 is limited to 325 out of the maximum 625 units.

The Ball Park District is shown to have 300 units up to the maximum 625 units – depending on the number of units in the Historic District 1.

What is considered a healthy occupancy rate for multi-family?

Vacancy at 9.8% or 90.2% occupancy is considered a very healthy market. Growth is expected to stay strong as companies consolidate operations in major office districts, employees will continue to migrate closer to workplaces. A 2.6% increase in job growth for well paid professionals is pushing demand for Class A apartments. Houston is ranked the 24th market in the US for Top Tier apartments and the Sugar Land market is even healthier than the Houston statistics.

Is there a statistical difference between the crime rate in our MF areas versus the city as a whole

Crime is down 27% from 2010 to 2011 in the City’s multi-family areas (apartments). We have approximately 2,015 apartment units with an estimated population of 3,526 (based on 1.75 per unit). Based on our 2011 citywide crime rate of 17.95 crimes per 1,000 residents, we would expect to have an average of 63 crimes in the multi-family units in 2011. Instead, we finished 2011 with a total of 40 crimes in the multi-family areas, which is actually 36.51% less than the rest of the city.

Vision 2025 was approved in 2009. How many citizens were involved in the visioning? Was there a public hearing prior to the City Council vote?

Vision 2025 was a result of significant public involvement. It began with our Visioning Task Force and continued with our Community Summit. Approximately 70 members of the public attended.

It is now being incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan through the public process. We held the public hearing at Planning and Zoning and are proceeding to the City Council in April; however, additional workshops have been held and the draft has been on the City’s website for comment.

I see a TIA is required for approval. What happens if the traffic impact is greater than what the developer says?

Per the City of Sugar Land's Land Development Code, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required as part of the Planned Development (PD). The Traffic Impact Analysis is a living document that the City can require be updated for a variety of reasons, items such as Conditional Use Permits, rezoning requests, Trip Generation for sites exceeding city criteria (100 trip/hr or 1,000 trip/day), or if traffic impacts are greater than predicted. The City’s Traffic Division of Public Works is continuously monitoring the City’s corridors and evaluating the existing levels of service.

Why don't we make the Developer put in University Blvd north? Why is the City not pushing for this project?

University North from it's current terminus to US 90 A (the portion South of US 90A) is currently under design and is being constructed as part of the City's Capital Improvement Program.

University North from US 90A to the ballpark area is being analyzed by the city in conjunction with Johnson Development. Steps have been taken to establish funding for the roadway once the permitting activities can be met through Union Pacific Raiload. Application has been made to Union Pacific to better understand the requirements to gain this access to US 90A, We are currently awaiting a response from UPRR with their comments and requirements to better understand and be prepared to address them.

The extension of University Blvd. to the Ball Park is considered a major roadway to be utilized by traffic as a result of existing development, not just new development. That is why it is not the sole responsibility of the developer.

How were Rental Rates in Sugar Land impacted during the economic downturn?

Staff research has indicated that the rates for the multi-family units and complexes within the City of Sugar Land have remained steady, and some have risen during the last several years. In addition, the majority of the units formerly owned by "The Gables" have recently been purchased by a separate company, and units are being upgraded internally as they become vacant. The upgrades are resulting in rising rates as well.

Information on Property Values of Multi-family Sites in City of Sugar Land during Economic Downturn- Fort Bend CAD information was examined for the main apartment complexes in Sugar Land. In all but one case, the assessed value of the multi-family locations increased since 2008 (this is the earliest year available). In the one case where assessed value decreased, the decreased occurred in 2009, but the assessed value has remained constant since then (2009-2011). The decrease in the individual case was approximately 1.8 percent between 2008 and 2009.

For individual condominiums, a more in-depth analysis would have to be done, because the units are owned individually. The research does indicate that the assessed value of the common areas for Sugar Land's condominiums has remained constant since 2008.

When were the first multi-family units in Sugar Land Constructed?

According to the FBCAD, 1982 was the earliest built multi-family complex. Please note that this occurred prior to the property being annexed into the City limits of Sugar Land. Technically, the only multi-family that has been built while in the City are the condos located here in Town Square; all others were built prior to being annexed into the city limits.

How many multi-family units are in Sugar Land?

The City currently has 9 multi-family locations; 6 are multi-family apartments and 3 are multi-family condos. The total number of multi-family units is 2,013; 1,689 units are multi-family apartments, and 324 units are multi-family condos.

Why use multi-family as a buffer for development?

General Planning principles have supported the concept of multi-family development as a land use bufffer between single family neighborhoods and commercial zones throughout the past. AS a part of original zoning concepts set forth in the 1920's the single family home as a primary land use always contained the next land use category as multifamily, prior to commercial and ultimately industrial homes. Townhomes and apartments have been determined to form good buffers between single family neighborhoods and other types of land uses in City Planning, and are most effective when combined with open space areas.

The Residential Development Handbook from ULI, as well as Rutger's Subdivision & Site Plan Handbook indicate that multi-family is best placed adjacent to single family development when there is a land use which can allow people to come together, such as a park as a direct buffer. This is similar to the proposal for the Historic District 1 in the Imperial PD Development, and the anticipated townhomes and patio homes between the existing single family neighborhoods and the multi-family in the Ballpark District. The concepts of Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) from the American Planning Association's Smart Growth Principles and Smart Codes call for more integration of multi-family development as a part of the overall neighborhoods, including near single-family, rather than dispersal. Shared open space is also appropriate.

Does the City have any plans to use Eminent Domain in Mayfield Park?
The City has no plans and does not intend to use Eminent Domain within Mayfield Park, nor is the City working with Johnson Development to do so.

What is the maximum height allowed for multi-family buildings within the Historic District?
All multi-family within the Historic District must be either in the northern area further described in the site layout drawing, or in or as an extension to the Historic Char House. If located at the northern area, adjacent to the new parkland dedication for the City of Sugar Land's Mayfield Park facilities, the height is capped at 4 stories (for reference, a four story building with 14' floors would not exceed 60 feet). If located within the Char House, the roof of the Char House is 133', with a peak of about 153’ due to the top of the penthouse and smoke-stacks. Overall, any multi-family other than the Char House could not be higher than the 4 stories as described. This includes the multi-family in the ballpark district as well.

Concerning the density issue for the historic district, some people are saying that the 2007 plan agreement allowed 10 multi-family units per acre and the proposed plan allows for twice that density in the historic district. Is this true?

No, this is not true. The 2007 plan does indicate an overall density of 10 Dwelling Units (DU) per acre. The units are calculated based on the gross acreage for the 45.9 acres contained within the areas now known as Historic Refinery District 1 and 2. At 10 DU per acre for the 45.9 acres, this results in a total not to exceed amount of 459 units.

The density per acre does not strictly mean that on each acre there will be 10 unit apartment complexes. For example, the Char House is located on less than 1/2 acre, and if 10 DU per acre was not a gross count, it would mean that only 5 DU would be allowed in the building.

The proposed 2012 General Plan amendment, and related Planned Development (PD) rezoning has a cap of 325 units for the Historic Refinery area. These units are only allowed within the Historic Refinery District 1. District 1 has approximately 34.7 acres contained within. At the cap of 325 this would equate to an approximate Dwelling Unit density of less than 10 units per gross acreage.

This is consistent with the methodology of the 2007 General Plan.