Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies future‑land‑use change and rezoning for 918 West Whitestone amid Lone Star neighborhood concerns
Summary
Planning commissioners voted to deny a future‑land‑use amendment and a request to rezone a Whitestone‑fronting parcel to general business, citing neighborhood traffic, drainage and access concerns along Lone Star Drive; both votes were 6–0.
The commission considered a request to amend the future‑land‑use designation for a parcel at 918 West Whitestone from local office/retail to regional office/retail and to rezone the northern portion of the parent tract to general business. Cindy Schlanger, Development Services, said the applicant sought the FLU change to support a coherent general‑business zoning across a split parcel; staff reported public concern about traffic impacts, compatibility with adjacent single‑family lots and drainage.
Applicant representative Bailey Morse said the goal was to create cohesive general‑business zoning to improve marketability and did not present a specific user or site plan. Commissioners and many neighborhood speakers urged caution. Lone Star Drive residents described the street as narrow, without curbs or sidewalks and with existing drainage problems; speakers said the street is not built to handle increased commercial traffic, that nearby storm‑drain facilities are at capacity, and that allowing regional‑scale uses could establish a precedent to pull more traffic through the residential neighborhood.
After public comment the commission voted to deny the future‑land‑use amendment (motion to reject brought by Commissioner Snead) by a roll‑call vote of 6–0. The commission then denied the rezoning request to General Business by the same margin. Several residents asked the commission to prefer a different approach — for example, preserving suburban residential along Lone Star and confining commercial/the GB edge to Whitestone — or to require a binding access restriction that prohibits primary ingress/egress on Lone Star. Commissioners noted those access limitations would generally require additional review or separate action on the southern portion of the parent tract.
No city engineer or transportation mitigation package was presented for this parcel at the hearing; staff said typical development review steps (traffic analyses, site‑plan review and engineering) would be required if the applicant later pursues a different zoning path. The commission recorded multiple neighborhood letters in opposition and forwarded its denials to City Council as recommendations.
