Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves plan‑development change to allow veterinary clinic with indoor kennels at 103 W. FM 544
Summary
The City Council unanimously approved an ordinance creating a new plan‑development district at the Walgreens site (103 W. FM 544) to add a veterinary clinic with indoor kennels as an allowed use; planning staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval.
The Murphy City Council on April 15 unanimously approved an ordinance to create a new plan‑development district for property described as Lot 2R, Block A, Walgreens FM 544 Addition (103 West FM 544) to add a veterinary clinic with indoor kennels as a permitted use.
Reagan (planning staff) told council the site, at the northwest corner of FM 544 and Murphy Road, is already planned for retail and that the applicant seeks to add one use: a veterinary clinic with indoor kennels to allow a CityVet franchise to occupy the lease space between Panera Bread and Freebirds. Reagan said the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval 7–0 at its March 25 meeting.
“The general request is simply creating a new plan development to add one additional use, and that is veterinary clinic with indoor kennels to allow for a city vet for the site,” Reagan said during the public hearing presentation.
Public hearing and vote
City staff opened a public hearing and no members of the public spoke during the hearing. After brief discussion and no objections, a council member moved to approve the ordinance; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
What is known and what is not
Staff said the proposed use differs from a “pet shop supplies” use listed in the current development standards; veterinary clinic is a separately defined use in the city ordinance. Planning staff noted medical-office uses are allowed with a special‑use permit and that the applicant had previously prepared building plans before the use classification was clarified.
No conditions, special‑use permit or additional restrictions were reported in the council action; the record shows the ordinance was approved as presented. The applicants and CityVet representatives were present to answer questions, according to staff.
