Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Cases topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council unanimously approves three zoning changes after consolidated public hearing
Summary
After a consolidated public hearing, City Council approved three separate zone changes — cases 774C, 3116‑M and 3533 — moving parcels to neighborhood commercial or similar districts; no members of the public spoke and Planning and Zoning had recommended approval for each case.
The Lubbock City Council unanimously approved three zoning cases (7.2–7.4) during its regular meeting on Sept. 23 after a consolidated public hearing and staff presentations.
Greg Hernandez, planning and zoning manager, presented summaries of the three applications and staff findings. Case 774C (Iglesias de Odios Vivo) requested a change from light industrial to neighborhood commercial for property west of Martin Luther King Boulevard and south of 50th Street; staff noted the future land use map designates the area for industrial uses but recommended approval because the requested district is compatible with adjacent residential and existing land use.
Case 3116‑M (SK Architect Group LLC for J.S.J.W. Holding LLC) sought a change from heavy commercial to neighborhood commercial for land south of 130th Street (future Loop 88) and west of Indiana Avenue; staff said the request conforms to the future commercial designation and is appropriate given nearby zoning and the future loop.
Case 3533 (Mountain Top Engineering LLC for Nimashban and Bihaves Patel) requested changing the property at North Milwaukee Avenue and 104th Street from low-density single-family (SF‑2) to neighborhood commercial. Staff told council that while the future land use plan designates the site for low-density residential, the site’s location on Milwaukee Avenue and proximity to existing commercial uses supported the requested rezoning.
Hernandez told the council the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of each case by 7–0 votes. The council opened a consolidated public hearing; no one spoke in favor or opposition. Council then approved the three items in a single motion. The meeting record shows the motions passed unanimously.
No specific development plans were identified during the hearing for the Patel rezoning, which staff said appeared to be a pre‑rezoning step by the applicant. Planning staff said mailed notice had been sent for each case (30, 15 and 9 notices respectively) and that the only returned comment for case 3533 was from the applicant’s property in favor of the request.
The council’s votes conclude the council-level action for these rezoning requests; any future development will be subject to applicable site-plan review and permit processes.
