Newsletter Signup
The Austin Monitor thanks its sponsors. Become one.
Most Popular Stories
- Facing overwhelmingly negative feedback, city drafts refinements to residential permit parking program
- Two Years after the Austin Police Oversight Act passed, Community Police Review Commission finally meets
- New Data Center Planned for Lockhart in 2028
- City eyes expanded district plan for downtown and beyond
- Changes on the way for Austin’s scooters
-
Discover News By District
Council rejects restaurant’s request to upzone for alcohol sales
Friday, May 14, 2010 by Kimberly Reeves
Council members clearly disagreed Thursday with the notion that a bad economy was justification for upzoning an
The owners of Los Comales, Merced and Graciela Benitez, had requested a rezoning for their restaurant from food service establishment to cocktail lounge, roughly a zoning change of CS-MU-CO-NP to CS-1-MU-NP. It would be, as agent Roger Chan noted, an acknowledgement that a bad economy had caused the existing restaurant’s liquor sales to overtake food purchases.
Chan had promised to agree to any covenant necessary to please the neighborhood, with the conditions tied to a conditional use. The property is located in the 2100 block of
That use, however, would be a departure from the current neighborhood plan, according to homeowner David Thomas, who spoke on behalf of the Blackshear- Prospect Hill Neighborhood, as well as the Organization of Central East Austin Neighborhoods, or OCEAN.
“We want to reiterate our opposition to zoning changes,” Thomas told Council at Thursday’s zoning hearing. “The neighborhood plan of 2001 was quite specific in not wanting CS-1 zoning on that corridor.”
Neighbors also considered the owner’s efforts to launch the property for non-restaurant uses, without informing the neighborhood, to be deceptive. While the owner had implied very little had changed, much would in the long term, Thomas said.
“We’re not confident the business model of the restaurant will not change with the zoning change,” Thomas said.
Council preferred a covenant that would downzone with new ownership. But as Greg Guernsey, director of Neighborhood Planning and Zoning Department told Council during questioning, the rights of zoning go with the property and not ownership. Covenants did little to change that.
Chan’s argument was that the new zoning would bring the zoning category into compliance with the property’s actual uses. In a bad economy, the sale of food had dipped less than 50 percent, making alcohol the dominant aspect of the establishment. A zoning change would simply memorialize that, Chan said.
What the zoning change would do would simply bring the establishment into compliance with changes. Council Member Randi Shade, however, made sure the point was clarified that the changes came from the business and not from any new prescribed changes to the zoning code.
Chan was forced to agree.
In his rebuttal after Thomas’ comments, Chan noted that the businesses most affected, those within 500 feet, had signed a petition in support of the zoning change. And he noted Los Comales had no complaints from neighbors in terms of how business had been conducted.
During Council discussion, Council Member Mike Martinez said he had hoped more room had existed for consensus between the two sides with the use of a private restrictive covenant. That did not appear to be so.
You're a community leader
And we’re honored you look to us for serious, in-depth news. You know a strong community needs local and dedicated watchdog reporting. We’re here for you and that won’t change. Now will you take the powerful next step and support our nonprofit news organization?