Council approves rezoning of former residence to M-2 industrial for Fidelity Manufacturing

2985040 · April 14, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council voted to rezone a property from institutional to M-2 (medium industrial) to align land use with surrounding industrial zoning; Fidelity Manufacturing purchased the property in 2024 and a demolition permit is in place for the existing single-family residence.

City staff presented ZON25-0004, a rezoning application requesting a change from institutional to M-2 (medium industrial) for a parcel annexed into the city in 1975. Staff said the property historically carried an R-1 zoning classification and later received a medium industrial future land-use designation under the city’s comprehensive plan; a 2011 rezoning to institutional corrected a nonconforming use at that time. Fidelity Manufacturing purchased the property in 2024; staff reported a permit is in place to demolish the existing single-family residence.

Planning staff said the M-2 zoning classification is consistent with the property’s existing employment-center future land use, the comprehensive plan, the city code of ordinances and surrounding uses. Staff recommended approval.

Pete Worrall, representing the applicant, told the board the company has no issues with neighbors, including the adjacent church, and said the intended use is storage for buildings manufactured on-site before shipment. Worrall provided his street address for the record.

With no public comments, a board member moved to approve ZON25-0004. A roll call recorded affirmative votes from Mister McDonald, Mister London, Miss Poudreaux, Mister Martin, Mister Carlock and Mister Lopez; the motion carried. The approval changes the zoning classification to M-2; staff noted the adopted land-use designation and zoning consistency in their recommendation.

The transcript did not include a detailed site plan, specific operational hours, or a timeline for redevelopment beyond the demolition permit noted by staff.