Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fulshear residents, applicant clash over proposal to allow car sales at FM 1093 site; council signals resistance
Summary
A resident opposed a proposed text amendment that could allow car sales at a car-wash site on FM 1093, and the prospective operator asked council to consider a high-end used-car dealership. Council members expressed reluctance and noted the use is expressly prohibited in the city's coordinated development ordinance.
At the April 15 meeting several residents and one applicant spoke during citizens comments and the business discussion about a proposed change to the coordinated development ordinance that could allow vehicle sales at a site on FM 1093.
Resident Bonnie Tyler Buell asked the council to oppose changing Section 28-2-20(a) (prohibited uses) to permit car sales at the site. She said car sales would not produce local sales tax revenue at that location and could block higher-value redevelopment. "Removing a prohibited use to permit a business that does not contribute sales tax revenue seems counterproductive," Buell said, adding that mixed-use or medical/office uses would better support the city's strategic plan.
Later in the meeting Clayton Lewis, who identified himself as a potential buyer/operator, asked council to consider a very small, "clean, upscale" pre-owned and classic-car dealership combined with a revitalized car-wash property. "I want it to look very elegant," Lewis said, offering example images to the council and saying the combined businesses would provide additional local economic activity.
Several council members responded that the coordinated development ordinance currently and intentionally prohibits car sales in the downtown and that broad changes could create precedent. Councilmember Johnson said the prohibition was adopted deliberately and that she was "disappointed" to see the item on the agenda. Other council members said that any change would have to follow formal zoning and public-notice processes and warned that removing the prohibition risks opening similar uses elsewhere.
Staff and council noted alternatives to the requested text amendment, including processing a special-use or conditional permit with specific, tightly drawn conditions rather than striking the use from the prohibited list citywide. Council did not approve any change to the ordinance on April 15 and asked staff to consider community outreach before bringing any amendment forward.
Ending: No action was taken. Councilmembers advised the prospective operator to seek resident feedback and reminded that any ordinance change would require formal hearings, public notice and ordinance drafting.
