The Sugar Land Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-1 on March 27 to recommend City Council approval of a staff‑initiated Planned Development (PD) general development plan for Imperial Highway 6, Tract H — a roughly 30‑acre portion of the Highway 6 District — subject to several modifications and requirements. The plan would add compact residential uses (live‑work, townhomes and urban homes) to land that is currently shown for regional commercial/services on the city’s future land use map.

The plan was introduced by city planning staff member Ruth Lohmer, who described the item as a staff‑initiated amendment to permit compact residential uses in a portion of the Imperial PD where final development plans do not yet exist. Lohmer said the change aligns with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan’s Goal 3 and the City Council’s 2025–2027 strategic objective to create a forward‑looking housing strategy to support redevelopment and add more homes to Sugar Land.

A nut graf: The commission’s recommendation does not approve a final site layout; it authorizes a GDP that allows future final development plans to propose residential character now limited to townhomes, urban homes and live‑work units (duplexes and multiplexes were removed after community outreach). The commission required edits intended to protect existing residents’ expectations and to ensure some nonresidential activity remains on the tract.

Discussion and public comment: Two residents spoke at the public hearing and one written comment was read into the record. Resident Travis Richter, who lives on Scepter Run directly across the lake from the tract, said he “echo[ed] some of the concerns” expressed in written feedback and urged the commission to preserve opportunities for shops, restaurants and walkability rather than allowing the area to become “entirely residential.” Resident Kathy Cortez Richter said she opposed converting the tract to residential and worried about the impact on Imperial Redevelopment District taxes and on neighborhood character. A written submission from Rupert Patel asked for specific guidelines (height limits, setbacks, HOA and tax sharing) and was entered into the record.

Commission deliberations focused on definitions, permitted uses, tree and streetscape standards, and how to ensure a mixed‑use outcome rather than a fully residential subdivision. Commissioners and staff discussed that the GDP is an enabling step — it sets allowable uses but does not grant final development rights. A final development plan showing layouts and lotting would return to the commission and council for approval, where the specifics (locations of commercial, pedestrian connections, setbacks and interface with the lake) would be reviewed.

Conditions and edits adopted by the commission: The recommendation to council includes the GDP as revised with the following modifications (read into the record and included in the motion): final development plans must include a mix of residential and commercial uses (the commission directed a requirement that at least 25% of developable acreage be dedicated to commercial uses as a minimum), correction of a directional error on the legal description (the tract is east of State Highway 6, not west), removal of a 25‑foot lot provision for lots facing Ulrich Street (strike item F2.2), and several edits to the permitted‑uses table: prohibit outside storage for lumber/building‑materials retailers; correct a numbering error in the apparel/accessory note; add beauty shops (SIC 7231) to services with the appropriate note; and include portrait/photographic studios among uses allowed in live‑work units. Staff additionally agreed to add language clarifying that final development plans must demonstrate how the required mix supports a neighborhood activity center vision.

Formal action: A motion to recommend approval with the listed modifications was seconded and carried 5–1. The commission’s motion and the accompanying list of edits will be forwarded to City Council; staff indicated the Council public hearing and first consideration of the ordinance was scheduled for April 15.

Why it matters: The change would open one of the last largely undeveloped tracts in the Imperial area to compact housing types that city leaders say are needed to increase population and diversify housing options in Sugar Land. Residents expressed concerns that the tract — visible from the nearby airport and intended in earlier marketing to support retail and “town center” amenities — should not lose opportunities for walkable commercial destinations.

What comes next: If City Council adopts the GDP amendment, developers would still need to submit final development plans showing precise layouts, building types, setbacks and public‑realm improvements. Staff and commissioners noted that final plans will be the vehicle to ensure the intent (pedestrian emphasis, commercial frontage, tree protection and interface with the lake) is met. Lohmer told the commission staff will incorporate the agreed edits before the April 15 council hearing.

Votes at a glance: The commission moved, seconded (motion second by Commissioner Dawood) and adopted the recommendation to City Council by a 5–1 vote. The motion text as recorded in the meeting included the specific changes summarized above; the meeting record does not list individual roll‑call votes by commissioner.

Ending: Commissioners thanked staff and the public for participation; staff noted outreach steps completed to date (200‑foot notices, newspaper notice, a mailed flyer, a sign on the property, a March 6 community meeting with 15 attendees, and Nextdoor postings). The item will be on the City Council agenda for public hearing and first consideration on April 15.