Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables rezoning request for 15.46 acres along Lone Star Parkway after residents raise traffic and buffer concerns
Summary
Residents urged the council not to allow industrial uses near long-established homes; developer presented a plan with duplexes, small retail and storage; the council voted to table the rezoning to Oct. 22 for more work on access and buffering.
The Montgomery City Council on Sept. 24 held a public hearing and then voted to table a rezoning request for 15.46 acres along Lone Star Parkway west of Liberty Street after residents pressed the developer and the council for more information about traffic, buffers and access.
Carolyn Hatchett, who said she lives at 514 Lawson Street, told council members she and neighbors had always understood the surrounding property to be residential and opposed industrial uses near their homes. "We don't want industrial in there because industry means they bring in a lot of the stuff that we don't want," Hatchett said, asking the developer to place commercial uses along Lone Star Parkway and keep residences adjacent to the neighborhood.
Dennis Hatchen, also of 514 Lawson Street, raised similar points about traffic and the proximity to the Lone Star Community Center. "If it was up to us, we would not have any industrial in there at all," he told the council.
Greg Phipps, a civil engineering representative for the project filed by SPT Montgomery LLC, said the developer's land plan shows the multifamily portion as duplex-style buildings ("multifamily is not your 3-story apartments," he said) and a narrow commercial frontage with small retail buildings and a self-storage area behind them. Phipps said the plan includes a 25-foot vegetative buffer between commercial and residential areas and that the developer prefers not to use Simonton or Lawson for construction access; instead, access and internal road design are intended to limit cut-through traffic.
Council members and staff discussed technical points including the difference between zoning and site plans, enforcement of landscape reserves, and whether approving a zoning change without a final plat or civil drawings was appropriate. City staff noted that industrial zoning requires enclosed buildings and environmental compliance and that a landscape reserve could be imposed and enforced through an HOA or code enforcement.
After the public discussion, a council member moved to table the ordinance that would change the city's official zoning map for the property (to 7.77 acres of B Commercial and 7.69 acres of R2 multifamily); the motion to table the item until the council's Oct. 22 meeting carried on a voice vote. The council did not make a final decision on the rezoning at the Sept. 24 meeting.
The item will return to council on Oct. 22, allowing staff, the developer and neighbors additional time to address access, buffering and layout concerns.
