Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Bodenchuk felt tYiat if the realignment of the <br />road could be worked out, it would present no real <br />problem to the development. But he would have to <br />have his architect look at this proposal and see if <br />it would work. <br />Council felt the project was an asset to the City <br />and felt the use was very appropriate but did want <br />to see these items worked out before approving the <br />final subdivision plat. <br />Mayor Fauson moved ghat Resolution #44 be tabled <br />until the January 5, 1988 Meeting to revolve the <br />issues outlined. Mohr seconded. Unanimous. <br />RESOLUTION #45 - CARE & COMFORT SPECIAL <br />REVIEW USE As a result of the motion to table Resolution #44, <br />First Baptist Church Subdivision, Mayor Fauson moved <br />and Mohr seconded to table Resolution #45 until <br />January 5, 1988. Unanimous. <br />RESOLUTION #46 - FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - DYER ROAD ANNEXATION <br />PETITION Rautenstraus read iri its entirety Resolution #46, "A <br />Resolution setting forth findings of fact and <br />conclusions relative to the annexation of certain <br />real property located west of McCaslin Boulevard and <br />more particularly described herein." <br />Resolution #33 set December 15, 1987, as a public <br />hearing to determine whether 31-12-104 and 105 of <br />the State Statues have been met in the Dyer Road <br />Annexation Petition. Staff reviewed the annexation <br />petition and determined those requirements have been <br />met. <br />Planning Commission reviewed the annexation and <br />zoning request for Dyer Road owned by 1007 <br />Corporation and deemed it necessary to attach <br />conditions to the approval of the Dyer Road <br />annexation and zoning. (Refer to Attachment A) <br />Dennis Drumm, R B Development, stated that if <br />Council had any questions, he would be glad to <br />answer them. <br />Szymanski stated that since his concerns relate to <br />the Dyer Road annexation issue, he wanted to make a <br />few comments relative to the zoning since it is a <br />very important part of this annexation. Szymanski <br />stated that there doesn't seem to be an appropriate <br />zoning category to assign to this property and <br />Planning Commission has tried to compensate for this <br />by using existing zoning criteria and include or <br />exclude certain portions of existing codes. <br />Szymanski felt it would be more appropriate to <br />4 <br />