HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportSTAFF REPORT
Item: Public Hearingand Consideration of rezoning 2,77 acres at 1900 F.M. 158, located on the
west side of F.M, 158 between University Drive and HarveyRoad from R-1 Single Family to C-2
Commercial Industrial, {98-119)
Applicant: Joyce Bell, property. owner
Item Summary; Thee subject property was annexed-into the City 18 years. ago, and was rezoned to
R 1 a few months ater to accommodate the .addition of a gaxage to the existing home. That same
case also rezoned the adjacent .tract to the north to C-2. Although the request was not in
compliance. with the comprehensive plan, the rezoning was approved to accommodate an addition
to the welding shop that had been ;annexed into 'the city limits. The welding.. shop is still in
existence to date .and that tract remains under. the same ownership.
The applicant is now requesting a rezoning: of the subject property due to her desire to sell it in
conjunction -with the existing C-2 tract to the north. The .zoning district is considered a
commercial-industrial di trio, whose broad range of permitted uses:. includes retail, restaurants,
theaters, nightclubs, auto` dealerships, as well as more industrial uses such as lumber yards and
machine shops. This rezoning would increase the existing. commercial-industrial potential for the
area.
The City's land use plan-shows the area as rural density residential. The`land use.plan for the City
ofBryan does not reflect a future land use for the area to the east across :158; however, that area is
being proposed for .annexation into .Bryan's city limits in the near-future. Preliminary discussions
with the City Planner in Bryan would indicate.. that. for the. time being, .Bryan's land use plan will
most likely-mirror £ollege Station's and reflect the east side of 158.. from Highway 30 to Highway
60 as rural residential. If there is to be any change. in the land .use plan within this area, the
planning departments ofboth cities will likely .work together to coordinate efforts. At this time,
however, ere area too many high growth areas in both cities that demand more. immediate
attention.
The request is not in compliance. with the City's Land Use Plan, which shows rural residential use
between the former Texas Instrument property and Highways 30, 158,: and 60, .The request is
likewise im :conflict with the City's .adopted Development Policies, which call for commercial uses
to be located at or near intersections of two major roadways, and which.. would discourage
commercial along .major.. roadways in more of a "strip" style. If granted, .the request would
represent more of a piecemeal. approach to development, rather than the comprehensive. approach
embodied in the City's Development Policies. .Staff is also reluctant to .recommend that any
property be rezoned to C 2 because. it is an antiquated zoning .district that may be retired once more
refined commercial and industrial zoning districts are created.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends denial.
Related Advisory Board Recommendations: N/A
Item Background: Sept. 25, 1980 - Drd. no. 1240 annexed all of the area between Highway 158,
Highway 30, the city limits at the time, and Highway 60 iYto the City of College. Station. This
annexation included the subject tract. At that time, a single family home existed on the property.
o:\goup\deve_sec~stfxptV 8-119.doc
Tan. 22, 1981 -Ord. no. 1262 .rezoned the adjacent 1.:19 acre tract to C-2 and the same ordinance
rezoned the subject: 2.25 acre tract. to R 1. The. purpose of the. rezoning was to allow .continuation
and expansion of the adjacent existing :welding business and'to allow the addition of a garage to the
home.
Nov. 10, 1988 -the City Council denied a rezoning request. for M-2 Heavq Industrial zoning. The
denial was pursuant to a negative recommendation from staff and the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The basis of the recommendation was the Land Use Plan, which shows low density
rural residential.
The subject property came into. the- City's ETJ in 1979, at which time subdivision regulations
became applicable. Thee subjectpropertg was included with the adjacent 1:19. acre C-2 tract.. The
entire. tract, currently zoned C-2'and R 1, was exempf from meeting Subdivision Regulations. For
a short period of time in 1986, the C-2 portion was sold to a differenf owner,. that division was
subject to the City's Subdivision. Regulations. However, the property ownership ofthe C-2 piece
soon; reverted to the Bells. The aarger 3.95 acres is still considered exempt- from meeting
Subdivision-Regulations, however, any future ubdivisions of the 3.95 acres will be subject to the
regulations.
Commission Action Qptions; The Commission acts as a recommending body on the question of
rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City .Council. The: Commission options are to
recommend approval of rezoning as submitted, recommend approval. with physical conditions that
will mitigate negative impacts,. recommend a Tess intense zoning classification, recommend denial,
table indefinitely, or defer action to a specified date.
Supporting Materials:
1. Location Map
2. 'Application.
3 . Infrastructure and Notification Information
o:\gcoupWeve_ser~stfi pt~98-1i 9.doc
INFRASTRUCTURE AND•FACILITIES
Water- See-memo
Sewer: See memo
Streets: 158 currently provides sole access to the site.
Off--site Easements: Would be necessary for all. infrastructure extensions that could not
be constructed on site.
Sidewalks: N/A
Drainage: Would be handled at the time of site development or redevelopment.
Flood Plain; No floodplain is shown on the FEMA FIRM maps.
Oversize.. request:. Will likely be requested if the property becomes redeveloped due to
the fact that both water. and sewer will have to be sized such that future development. can
tie. into these linen.
Parkland Dedication: Required under. current zoning but not under the .requested
rezoning
Impact Fees: None required in this area
NOTIFICATION:
Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 11-T8-98 and 12-30-98
Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s); 12-3-98
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 1-14-99
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200' c 3
Response Received: None as of date of staff report
o:\group\deve_ser\ctfi~pt~98-119.doc