Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission opens deeper review of Corridor Mixed Use zoning; parking and floodplain cited as major constraints
Summary
At a July 10 workshop the commission received a broad orientation on the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) district from consultant Gary Mitchell (Camden Keys Collaborative). Staff and consultants flagged small, irregular parcels, off-street parking demands, and flood-plain/substantial-improvement rules as the principal barriers to redevelopment, and said a
The City of Bellaire Planning and Zoning Commission on July 10 held an extended workshop on the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) district (Chapter 24, Article 5, Section 24-536) to orient members to physical conditions along Bissonnet and Bellaire and to discuss potential ordinance amendments.
Gary Mitchell of Camden Keys Collaborative led the presentation and showed aerials, lot dimensions and HCAD parcel clips across the corridor, pointing out that CMU contains both large shopping-center properties and very small, triangular parcels created by Bissonnet's diagonal alignment. Mitchell said the district's mix of lot sizes and the proximity of commercial parcels to rear residential lots mean any change to height/setback, parking, or coverage standards will have varied impacts across the district.
Mitchell highlighted several regulatory issues likely to come up in drafting amendments: - Rear/backlot height-setback plane: CMU currently uses a 27-foot threshold at which the setback plane begins where commercial property abuts residential. Commissioners discussed whether to match the UVD change to a 17-foot threshold for the setback plane; staff said that is a policy choice the commission could consider. - Parking: Mitchell and staff pointed to widely varying on-the-ground parking. Using local examples, staff noted the Southwest Animal Clinic and adjacent restaurant cluster: the clinic building (about 3,250 sq ft per HCAD) would require approximately 16 spaces under the city table (5 spaces per 1,000 sq ft) but currently shows about 10; a nearby restaurant showed roughly 13 spaces where the standard would calculate about 24 just for the restaurant use. Contemporary Dental's two-story building had roughly the number of spaces required for a medical/dental office (staff counted about 18), illustrating how some businesses meet existing standards while others rely on shared parking or informal arrangements. - Floodplain and substantial-improvement rules: staff reminded the commission that buildings undergoing renovation that exceed the local "substantial improvement" threshold (50% of appraised value under local rules) may trigger elevation, compensatory mitigation or underground detention requirements that substantially raise redevelopment costs.
Commissioners and consultants discussed how these constraints interact. Several commissioners observed that parking standards set too high make redevelopment on small parcels infeasible and push surface parking to the street. Others noted that lowering parking requirements without guardrails risks spillover parking into adjacent neighborhoods. The group reviewed examples of redeveloped properties (a town-center-style redevelopment with a rear garage and more building mass, and several smaller in-fill examples) and considered tools such as differentiating standards for very small parcels versus larger sites, planned-development incentives to encourage land assembly, and the possibility of shared-parking allowances.
Mr. Witt (city council liaison) agreed to ask City Council whether it wants the commission to treat CMU as a limited tweak to align with the comprehensive plan or as a deeper rewrite. Commissioners also asked staff and consultants to prepare the draft amendment language in the packet for the next meeting: the draft will initially carry over many of the UVD adjustments for CMU and call out options for parking, coverage and multifamily review methods.
Decisions and direction The meeting was a workshop (discussion only); no zoning changes or ordinance votes were taken. Commissioners asked staff to: - Prepare a packet with draft CMU amendments that carry the UVD-style changes (including the option to consider reducing the height-setback threshold), and with parking alternatives and sample calculations to show effects on representative parcels; - Query City Council about whether the commission should pursue a more in-depth rewrite of the CMU district or proceed only with changes called for by the comprehensive plan; and - Bring additional material on shared-parking models and lot-size-specific standards for the next workshop.
Ending Commissioners were advised that CMU is complex because it contains a wide range of parcel sizes, legacy development patterns, floodplain constraints and active businesses; staff recommended continuing workshops and drafting language for the next meeting. No formal action was taken at the July 10 workshop.
