HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report
STAFF REPORT
Case No.: 89--100
Ap~licant: MarkCis~b~
Request: Rezone from A--P to R~2, Pa.rt Lotsll,12Blk B, College,
Heights Addition.
'Location: 413 Eisenhowe'r.
Physical' Features:
Area:
Frontage:
Depth:
. 16ac'res (6875 s. f'. )
50 feet
l37~50 fee't'
Area Zoning:
North:
East:
South:
We s t' :
A~P and "R~2
A-P
C--3
A-P
Exist ingLand' 'Use:
Subject t'ract ilS developed as a single jcami1y
res idence asarle propett ies'to the north and
east. Ptoperti.es to the south and west are
developed as office. uses.
Land Use Plan':
"'Subject tract arid sur>:rounding area are
reflected as office 'commercial.
Engineering:
Water:
S'ewe r: '
T'he'p r op er ty is' current 1 y" s erv e d'b y .....the City
of. . ColI age S tati onw i t h'a." 6--i n ch "wa t e r 1 :in e .
'Rezorfing from A~P to R--2 will not
significantly change the water demand f()r the
property. TheS--inch'line is adequate to
*~~vethe~toperty.
The property' is served by 'the City of College
stat iOIlsani tarysewer collect-ion system wi th
a 6-- inch sewer>! ine. The 'rezoning wi 11 not
significantl'ychange the sewage discharl~e
from' the property, therefore the 6-inch sewer
Iilleis a.dequate t()serve the property.
Adequ.ate
NA
Streets:
FloodPlai'n:
Notification:
1ega,lNoticfe Publication(s}:' 12~21-88 and 1--1-1-89
AdvertisedCo'nimissionHearing Date(s): 1--5-89
Adver-tised council Hea.ringDa-tes: 1--26~89
Number of ' Notices Mailed to Property OwnersWithin'200': 16
staff' Comments:-
Thectitrelltzoning of A-Pwas established in 1976 as pa'rt of
a Cityi:nitiatedrezoning. The currentresideritial uses
wer e>:inexist en c eat the t im eo f .t ha t re'zon in g act ion.
The requested zoning is riot COIlsistentwith the land \lse
planas'office c018mercfal uses are reflectedfot this area.
However, thereques.tis neither a major deviation from the
pla.hnordoesitprecl11de future compliance.
The r-equest'providesfor an adjustment in area zoning
boundaries> b.utleaveszoning' patterns and' land use
r e 18. t i onsh ips e{ssellt faIly the same.
The 'requested zoriingis <consistent'with' the currentllse of
the property 'and is >compat iblewith-area.' uses and zon ing.
Mark Cissna
Request: Rezone>from A-P to R-2,Pa.rt Lots 11, 12Blk B, College
Heights Addition.
\.
Location:
PhysIcal Features:
Area:
Frontage:
D,epth.:
16:8cres{6875 s.f.)
50 feet
137.50 feet
Zoning:
North:
East~ -
South:
West:
and R-2
Existing Land Use:
Subject tract is developed as a single family
residence as are properties to the north and
east. Properties to the south and west are
de v elop e das 'off ice"u se s ".
SubJect. tract.. .and surrounding area are
reflected as office commercial.
The.propertyiscurrently served by the City
ofC.ollegeStation .w i th '.8,6 -- i n c hwat e r 1 i n e .
Rezoning"from iA__P........to. R__2 .will not
significantly.....change the.....water demand for the
property. ". The 6-inch 1 i'ne is adequa t e to
serve .th.epro per ty.
The.<pr'opertyis<servedbythe. C i t y ofe 0 II ege
Stationsanitar~lsewercoll ect i onsys t em with
a,S-inch sewer line. The rezoning wi 11 not
significantly. change .the.se\4Jage "discharge
fromtheproperty,therefore the 6-inch sewer
line is adequate to serve the property.
A.dequate
NA
Notification:
LegalNoticePublicat ion (s)i:
Advertised C()DlmissionHearin~g ..Date(s): 1-5 -89
Adv~rtis~dCouncil.Hearingnates: .1-26-89
Numbero.fNotices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 16
Staff, ..Comments:
The Planning andZoning<Commiss ion recentl~7 requested that
staffprepareaUreport reviewing small 'area rezonings. A
copy of that report is attached..
The current zoning ofA-Pwasestablishedin1976as part of
aeity '. init iatedrezoning. TIle current res ident ialuses
were in existence at the..time of that rezoning action.
The requested zoning is not consistent with the land use
planas office commercial uses are reflected for this area.
However, the request is neither a major deviation from the~\
plan nor does it preclude future compliance.
T'he.requestprovidesfor an adjustment in area zoning
boundaries>butleaves'zoning.patterns and land use
relati onshipsessen t i al.ly the same.
The requested zoning lsconsistent.with the current use of
the property and is compatible wit'h area uses and zoning.
P&Z Action:-
On January 5, 1989 the PI anningand Zon~ngC,ommisionunanimously
reccommendedapprovalof this req~est. SeeP&Z minutes below:
AGENDA ITEM :NO.4:>>89-100: A publiche'aring on the question of
rezoning>Partsof.Lots ...11& 12 Block B,'College Heights .Addit.ion
subdivision from A-P to R-2. Applicanifisowner>,MarkCissna.
Mr., Callaway explained tile request, referring to slides while describing the subject
lot,.... area zoning and uses.... Mr. Michel c~e in during the explanation. ". Mr. .Callaway
pointed out 'that the Land Use Plan reflects the subject tract.. and the'surrounding
areaasofficeeoDUllercial;however the request, would bringth~lot iI1~o compliance
with the actual use, and would provide for an adjustment in tpeareazoning
boundaries, but would not represent amajpr deviation from the plan nor would it
preclude future compliance with the plan.'
Mrs.. Sawtelle referred toareport prepared by staff .coveringahistoryof"Spot
ZoningttintheCitY,andafterthaI1kingthestaff for preparing such a complete,
concise, report,. reminded the Commissioners they should keep that report in mind while
considering.the subject request.
Mr. Callaway, reminded the Commission that there is a current. request of similar
nature pending, which has been tabled at the request of>theapplicant-,tobe heard at
a later date.
Mr. Dresser asked Mr. Callat-1aywhythisrequest isforR-2zoning instead ofR-l
zon ing. ......Mr.CalIawayexp lained .' that after reviewing.. the request and the . area
zoning/uses, <it was determined that>R-2 zoning would be more consistent with existing
conditions of the area, but the 'use of this specific lot would be limitedto.sirigle
family residen.tialdevelopment because of> the constraints imposedcby : the width, of: : the.
tract.
Mr. MichelaskedhowmuchA-P land. would be left.....along~this.lot. '. .Mr. ..Callaway
explained . that the curren t.....zoning. ..inthe. ..areawas ....theresultofaC i ty-init iated
rezoning,theboundari esof~ \-1hi ch.fo llowed, the lot 1 inesas pI a tt edrather than the
actual configuration of the tracts which had been divided and sold by metes and
bounds descriptions prior to the d rezoning action. He then answered Mr. Michel's
question be stating there \4JOuld' appear to be a strip of about 50 to 60 feet in width
left whi ch.' is zoned .... ...t\~P.
89--100
page 2
Thepublic.hearingwasopened. Mark CiSSIla, applicant and owner of the subject tr'act
cameforwardfmdexplained....that.....he. .and his wife had... bought.....thishouse ...about one year
ago,. .' andatth~timeof .... the purchase, were not aware ..ofthezoningonthe . land . He
c()ntinuedbystating.that now.they".areexpecting...the birth.oftwins,andplanned an
addition to the house to accommodate a larger family.. .He ..saidtha~. when' they. applied
forabuildingperm~tfortheexpansionthey were'informedofthezoning on~he
tract,...andthe<impossibilityof .making......theirproposed.. expansion"without. getting. the
land .rezon~dsince ,theirhouse.....became....a....non-confonning..use...ati. the time."of . the City.-
initiated rezoIling and as such, is limited in the amount of expansion allowed to 25%
if approved by the ZBA.
w. T.Aycockcame>forward and' identified himself as owner of the office building
adjacent to this ."lot,which. fronts on University Drive. Hestatedthatalthoughhe
is very sympathetic to Mr. Cissna's dilemma and request, he sees the result being a
137.5 foot strip of land being carved out of all, A-P area for R-2zoning,andasked
for clarifieationofstaff's statement that this rezoning would have no long range
effect on the long range.plan.
Mr. Callaway explained that some improvement to the property can be made under the
currentzoningwithZBAactionallo\iingexpansion to a non-conforming use, '. but the
applicant ctUlDotmaketheproposedexpansion to. his home because it. exceeds the
ma"Cimumlimit<of 25% which could be allowed by theZBA,andthis rezoning> would not
changetheuse,oftheland, nortvould it preclude changing it back to office
conunercial zoning when the demand is there for tIle change.
Mr. Aycock stated that he would not like to standin.thewayofapersondoing
something<tQhisown.home,howeverhedoesnot, think this rezoning would be
CODsistent with theCity's plan for the area. :Mr. Callaway explained that staff has
carefully ,reviewed this request, and has not been able to identify any alternative
which would allow the applicant.tomake the im~rovement he deems necessary to
accommodate. the size of his family in the imminent future. Mr. Aycock concluded by
stating that he hesitates to take a strong stand against a need of this kind, but he
is still concerned with the long range plans for this area.
The public hearing was closed.
Mr.Colsonstatedthat',hedoes not see any difficulty in making a future zoning
change fromR-2back to A-P if the demand is there. Mrs. Sawtelle asked staff if
there are any other houses in the area being used as residences to which Mr. Callaway
replied that there are severalresidences.[intheA-P zoned area which are now non-
conforming uses as the result of the City-initiated rezoning action in 1976.
Mr. Mooreiaskedifthisexpansion could be handled with'. a Conditional. Use Permit
, rather than a"spotzoning"action, and. Mr. Callal4Jayreplied that staff. does not
consider this a "spot.. zoning"in"any respect other than the actual size of the
subject-tract,andfidditionally, that after thoroughly considering this specific
case, staff has determined that there is 110 other way to allow this resident to make
the.expansionnecessary'to accommodate his growing family. ....... Mrs. Sawtelle again
referred to the report presented by staff 1 covering "spot Zoning", and explained that
according to thatreport,this rezoning \iouldnot be ttspotzoning"because the result
would not be out. of character with the area.
Mr. Dresser made a motiontorecomnlendapproval of this request. Mr. Colson seconded
the motion which carried unanimously (7-0).
89-100 page 3
STAFF REPORT
Case No.: 89-100
Applicant: Mark Cissna
Request: Rezone from A-P to R-2, Part Lots 11, 12B1k B, College
Heights Addition.
Location: 413 Eisenhower.
Physical Features:
Area-:
Dimensions:
Frontage:
Depth:
Area Zoning:
North:
Ea.st:
South:
West:
/0'
~
0V
tj
Existing Land Use:
Land Use Plan:
Area reflected asoffice-cornmercial.
Engineering:
Wa t e r :
Sewe r :
Streets:
Flood Plain:
Notification:
Lega.l No.tice Publication (8) :
Advertised Commission H.earing Date (s) :
Advertised Council Hearing Dates:
Number o.f Notices Mailed to 'Property
Response Received:
Staff Comments:
Owners Within 200':
J!;.~
-1'" 'bVP"
rfL , D 1f~,\ff\
I\lu ~-
The current zoning of A-P was established in l~as part of
a City initiated rezoning. The rezoning was undertaken to
bring the areazoning~ compliance with a land use plan
~:~~~ii~h:go~;i~ritol~ r~~~i~~r~6tlo~~sidential uses were
The requested zoning is not consistent with the land use
Ian as office. commercial uses are reflceted for this area.
The requested zoning is consistent with the current use of
the property and is compatible with area uses and zoning.
The request provides for an adjustment in area zoning
1
J.-0~
boundaries: zoning patterns and~elationSbiPS remain
e sse ~<~, ~,~,!, ly~__"t,.h~~",_~.~<~e .
....~,.~~.., "
The request is neither a major deviation fro'mthe plan nor
does it preclude future c~~:p~~ance. i
(
\
\
\"",
~,-
'<'~.....,..,........,...,
2