Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cmu Code Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bellaire planners workshop CMU code changes, debate front-yard setbacks and height-stepbacks
Summary
Staff and consultant revisited proposed updates to the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zoning text, focusing on front-yard setbacks, the height‑setback plane, maximum site coverage and how to handle large redevelopment sites; commissioners asked for more time and will continue the workshop at the next meeting.
On Aug. 14 the Bellaire Planning and Zoning Commission held a workshop to continue review of proposed amendments to Chapter 24, Article 5, Section 24-5-36 (CMU, Corridor Mixed Use). The consultant retained for the rewrite, Gary Mitchell of Kennedy Collaborative, joined staff to explain draft changes and to surface decision points for the commission.
Mitchell summarized five options for addressing front-yard design and the so-called "canyon effect"—the perception that tall buildings close to the street create an oppressive corridor—asking commissioners whether to keep a uniform 15‑foot front setback (with a rear height‑setback plane), to tie setbacks to lot depth (a percentage), to average existing front setbacks on a block, to apply a height‑setback plane at the front of lots as well as the rear, or to require the largest redevelopments to proceed through planned development (PD). He described the CMU district as a mix of very small and very large properties and said a one‑size approach risks either over‑restricting smaller properties or failing to address canyoning on larger projects.
Commissioners and staff discussed consistency with changes already adopted for the Urban Village Downtown district, where the commission previously reduced the point at which a building must step back from 27 to 17 feet. Several commissioners favored making the CMU language consistent with the UVD change (17 feet), noting that the height‑setback plane affects many CMU properties that back to residences and that PD review is already available for larger or unique projects.
Other points in the draft text were reviewed: maximum site coverage (staff noted 75 percent was typical for commercial/places of worship in CMU, while larger planned mixed‑use projects over a half‑acre could be allowed up to 85 percent), whether impervious cover calculations should treat pervious paving differently, and how alleys should be considered when applying rear setbacks.
Staff and the consultant will return with clarified draft language and a short set of options for commissioners to review at the next workshop on Sept. 11. Commissioners said they want more specific proposed wording for alley exceptions and for the front-yard options before a public hearing is scheduled.
