Planning commission recommends Lexington Commons planned development next to MD Anderson site

The Sugar Land Planning & Zoning Commission on March 13 recommended that city council approve a final development plan to rezone 8.041 acres in the Telfair area to the Lexington Commons planned development, a mixed-use office and retail project adjacent to the MD Anderson site. The commission voted 8-0 to forward the plan with staff support.

The proposed Lexington Commons final development plan calls for three Class A office buildings, two structured parking garages, and limited surface parking on an 8.041-acre tract between U.S. Highway 59 and Lexington Boulevard along Long Ditch H. The applicant presented two site layouts (Exhibits B2 and B2T): the primary layout includes two connections to Lexington Boulevard; the alternate plan adds a direct curb cut to the eastbound US 59 frontage road, an access the applicant has since received TxDOT approval to pursue.

Staff said the development would be built in two phases. Phase 1 includes two two-story office buildings adjacent to the bayou (Ditch H) and a parking garage between them; Phase 2 would add the larger office building and a second parking garage at the center of the site. Building height limits in the FDP are 35 feet for the two buildings fronting the bayou, 55 feet for Parking Garage 1, and up to 90 feet for Building 3 and Parking Garage 2 in phase 2. The plan includes pedestrian circulation, shade trees along the perimeter and internal walkways, and conceptual garage elevations showing brick finishes on the elevations visible from residences and Lexington Boulevard.

The staff presentation said the FDP is consistent with the Telfair general land plan and the City of Sugar Land land use plan, which identifies the area as the University Boulevard Regional Activity Center and envisions an office- and entertainment-centered, walkable district with supporting retail. Staff reported that required public-notification steps were completed, the applicant held a community meeting on Feb. 17 and staff received one written public-comment form; staff said it was not aware of formal opposition and recommended approval to city council.

Developer Don Janssen of Plan Community Developers described Lexington Commons as a walkable, Class A medical-office campus with retail and dining intended to complement the neighboring MD Anderson campus. Janssen said the project is intended to serve MD Anderson staff, visitors and vendors who cannot locate inside the hospital campus.

Two residents who signed up to speak voiced support. Colby Curtis, who identified himself as a commercial real-estate broker and resident, said the product type is stable and “I feel that the proposed use of the Lexington Common PD is a perfect complement to what is planned by MD Anderson for the tract next door.” Mark Levinson, who said he rents a pharmacy in the area, told commissioners the project “looks very impressive” and would add jobs and value to the neighborhood.

Traffic, access and design drew several commissioner questions. Jason Bond, the city’s traffic engineering manager, said the traffic-impact analysis evaluated two access scenarios. “Without the driveway, the only access would have been from Lexington Boulevard,” Bond said, and that scenario would have concentrated left-turning traffic on Lexington and created a need for a double-left turn lane at certain intersections. With the frontage-road driveway, the TIA recommended adding a deceleration lane on the frontage road so turning vehicles do not slow through traffic lanes. Bond said staff reviewed both site layouts and cleared engineering comments.

Commissioners asked about garage heights, lighting and visibility from nearby homes. Staff replied that the parking garage adjacent to Ditch H would be screened with brick on elevations visible from the residential side and that lighting must comply with the city’s standard code so fixtures direct light downward and not into adjacent properties. Staff also noted the bayou, existing berm and an eight-foot fence between the development and rear lots provide additional separation.

After discussion the commission moved and seconded a recommendation of approval; the motion passed 8-0. Staff will forward the commission’s recommendation and the final development plan to city council for consideration.

The project remains subject to final council action, building-permit review and any conditions council may add. The applicant will be required to meet the city’s design standards and any infrastructure improvements identified in the traffic-impact analysis prior to construction.