HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
.,.,-1
'existing development, and putting industry SO close to existing development would
certainly affect the area and hO\4itcontinues to develop. Mr. Stewart said that the
worst-case scenario should, be assumed \4hen considering a zoning district.
Mrs. Sawtelle then made amotion to recommend denial of this request. Mr. Stewart
seconded the .motion" which ,carried.bY:8.voteof 3-2 (Moore and "Colson against) ·
AGENDA .ITEMN,O .5: 88-202: .~fu))lich~ari,~g .toconsider, a,re~
subdivision p.latofLotsI9t~:r:ro1,llJh26andpartofJ,.ot 27 of ,the
Richards subdi"illion.tob~i co~~ined"i th Plirt. of ,a 6.34 .~.cre
tractowneclb}">.l\G~rland Watson,., Trus~ee'''J:1i~h i,sadJacent to
aDd>tothe north of those lots, .tocreatethe'Ro.lle.anPla-ce
subdivision.
Mr. Callaway identif'i.edanddescr~be4~hesubject tra~ts, " explaining that this: ~lat
fulfills one of the conditions o.fr~~;c:l~ingesta.blis~ed by the Council at the. ti.e of
consideration. , He referred to the Pt:'esubmission Conference report included i~, ~he
.. packets and,advised"the .Colllllissio)n t.l1at,staffrt!'c~~ds approval of this .platr..~ith
presubmissionconfe.r~~~e,con(;\itiors., ,~ewentonto>~lain ,that, the public b~~~ing
for. this it~meetsState lElW.C~J;>'~~~fi!relJarding re.plattingof, any .land:whi9~il is
or has been zoned for low densitYir~s,~~ential development within the last5,yea~s,
and explained the notificat~9npr;0(:~urel!Jwhich hlivetakenplace. .
The public hearing was opened. Noo~:espoke. The public 'hearing was
Mr. Stewart made a IlOti.ontoappro\,~.~,his plat with ~Jr'esubm~s~ioncon~fi!r~~~e:
recommendations. Mrs.SawtellesetZond~dthe motion ",hichc8.rriedunaniDlo;USI~ '(q-O).
AGINDAITIMNO.. 6: 88...'70~:. ..,~:pv.blici hea~~i,g,on!theque~!i#'#~~
granting a CqllditiC)nalU.,~.. Pfl~~~~ . f,or .,..paF~i~Jltlge.tlndf"~l1~e..,
storage buildingtothflnC)rt~i.C)~ the, e~1.st~Il!. Ch1J.F;Ch ~a~i~ltr! at
1007 'Krenek Tap Road. ApplicaDtis Beautiful Silvi'o.F Lutheran!!
Church.
! .: " ",_._, ,:. _I: : , . _ ;' , L
Mrs. Kef! explaineclthil!JreClu.t,re~~rrfi!d <1;0~b.7sit,;plan in~luafi!d int~~ pa~k~ts as
meeting!allP.R.(~.rec()Dlllf!nda~ionl!J!~)!~d, point~ol1t ~~at because thisparticu~ar site
plan , is for asinglfi!f8llily,. rfi!s~d~~~it ise~empt ,f~~. fire lane.. reqll~r-~ent~ .:1 She
finalized her , report, by stat;'llg :; thli~i itb.~ '.1:- .<R. ~. re~~nded approval. tf.~.~b. .... cer~a~n
revisionswhichhav,ebeen met. ' 'I , ' : I
The pUblic hearing was opened. Noolle spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Sawtelle made 8,lIotiontoapproye, this Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Moore
seconded the motion which carried uri~iIlously(5-0).
AGENDAITIM Ng.7: 88-701: Aipublichearing OD the question of
granting aCollditioDal UsePel1J1itfora gravel overflow parkiDg
lot located i..ecriately north!~-r the existing building and
per.aDeDt~arkiDg lot at the~~der.gate UDitedMethodistChurch
site at 6501 East Bypass. Applicant is Aldersgate United
Methodist Church. I
Mrs. Keeexplained the request and identified the portion of the 5'aere tract which
is occupied by the gravel parking lot.. She pointed out that the P.R.C. revi~ed the
project in March, and could not. recommend approval because'several ordinance'
requirements werenot.met. Those requirements were islands, curbing and marking of
P&.Z Minutes
4-.7-88
Page 5