►
From YouTube: P n Z Committee Meeting 081519
Description
P n Z Committee Meeting 081519
A
C
A
A
A
E
A
F
G
G
A
Yes,
in
a
second
all
those
in
favor,
aye
aye,
those
opposed
motion
carries.
Thank
you.
Next
item
we
have
is
public
hearing
amending
the
zoning
ordinance
of
the
City
of
Laredo
by
authorizing
the
issuance
of
a
special
news
department
for
oil
and
gas
extraction
and
production.
This
is
a
plug-in
and
abend
wonderful.
Well,
approximately
point,
eight
three
to
four
acres:
there
were
15
notices
sent
out,
one
is
in
favor
and
no
opposition
or
in
the
updates,
no
updates
and
the
staff
recommends
approval
or
support
of
this
special
use
permit.
This
is
a
public
hearing.
H
Good
afternoon,
chairman
commissioners,
my
name
is
all
old:
full
compete
on
the
lawyer
represent
Columbus
Energy
the
applicant
and
would
very
much
appreciate
you
approving
this
permit
application,
as
we
like
to
plug
in
abandon
this
well,
which
is
on
the
residential
tract
across
the
street,
from
LCC
south
and
there's
developmental
around.
So
we
plug
as
well
and
remove
the
equipment
that's
on
there
and
let
the
surface
owner
develop
this
property
accordingly.
H
A
Descend
here
in
both
at
the
same
time,
second
motion
in
a
second
to
hear
both
items
6b
and
60
simultaneous
except
pertain
to
the
same
special
use
permit
for
plugging
and
amending
11.
We
have
a
motion,
the
second
oldest
in
favor
and
I,
know
she
carries
all
right.
Let
me
just
read
for
the
record
the
next
item
also
so
that
we
can
just
take
them
both
simultaneously.
A
All
right,
this
is
public
hearing
amending
the
zoning
ordinance
of
the
city
of
authorizing
the
issuance
of
the
special
use
permit
for
the
gas
extraction
and
production,
which
is
blooded
abandonment
of
a
well,
and
this
is
on
a
track
for
72
to
the
T
census
tract
located
south
of
don't
come
in
little
Boulevard
and,
of
course,
the
50
notices
were
sent
that
also,
and
the
stamp
recommends
and
supports
this
special
use
permit.
This
is
a
public
hearing.
Mr.
confettis
hearing,
speaking
in
favor
of
both
items
for
the
special
use
permit.
D
A
A
Motion
do
we
have
a
second
and
a
second
address
in
favor
aye?
Those
against
motion
carries.
Thank
you
next
item
that
we
have
is
item
60,
a
public
hearing
amending
the
zoning
ordinance
of
the
city
lawyer
by
rezoning
a
lot
to
lock
1433
Eastern
Division,
located
at
24
13
Santa
Clara
Street
from
an
r32
ab3.
A
E
F
I
F
Against
him
on
this,
yeah
I
think
what
the
Commission
desire,
if
they
could
establish
additions
that
mitigated
the
the
externalities
that
would
occur
from
him
having
a
mechanic
there
at
the
residence,
then
the
commission
was
okay
and
we
didn't
get
the
bet
opportunity
to
speak
with
the
African
on
that.
So
we'll
try
again
for
30
days.
That's
that
again,
three
more
days
we'd
like
to
give
that
up
again,
another
opportunity,
three
I.
D
Just
have
a
question
mr.
chairman
versus
diamond,
but
I
mean
to
the
mat
if
the
person
isn't
here
to
support
to
ask
that
we
support
the
item
and
we
made
it
very
clear
in
this
in
Commissioner
yeah,
it's
good
perfectly
good
Spanish.
What
the
COP
was
about
and
I'm
the
same
shouldn't.
We
just
postpone
it
indefinitely.
D
D
F
A
I
J
E
F
G
A
Motion
in
the
second,
all
those
in
favor,
aye
I-
think
those
against
motion
carries.
Thank
you
excited.
We
have
is
a
public
hearing
amending
the
zoning
ordinance
of
the
city
Laredo
by
rezoning
lost
seven
block
to
99
Eastern
Division
located
at
23,
18
must
say:
I
haven't
you
from
r2
to
r3
that
proposed
use
is
residential
from
mobile
home.
A
K
K
A
D
L
L
L
M
N
J
E
A
O
Producer
Lisa
well,
the
neighbor
of
this
Lockport
is
planning
to
move
the
change.
That's
only
son
in
the
area,
but
the
reason
we
oppose
is
because,
with
immediate
effect,
if
we
don't
want
a
mobile
home
in
the
area,
you
know
that
several
years
ago
there
was
an
interior
goodness
to
move
mobile
commerce
out
of
the
ceiling.
That's
that's
why
there
was
a
yeah,
a
facility
over
there
and
59
right.
That's
where
you
have
the
mobile
comes
Kurt.
O
E
P
F
Don't
know
that
they
don't
got
it.
My
assessment
would
be
that
it
would
be
complaint,
driven
that
if
a
neighbor
noticed
that
this
was
a
rental
rental
and
they
submitted
a
complaint,
then
it
would
then
we
would
become
aware
of
it.
I'm,
not
aware
that
as
a
city
were
patrolling
mobile
homes
trying
to
find
that
curse,
owner-occupied
so
most
likely
we
complained
driven
and
dead.
O
A
A
Was
an
or
three
zone
you
could
replace
those,
but
you
could
not
if
you
connect
them
within
six
months
with
without
moving
one
in
and
then
putting
the
other
one
out,
and
there
was
strictly
owner
occupied,
also
okay,
but
that
was
15
years
ago.
It
was
about
I'm,
not
confirming
mobile
home
parts
that
existed
in
the
city.
They
were,
you
know
given
time
to
I,
guess,
correct
and
then
disease,
that's
what
that
was
15
years
ago.
Yes,
sorry,
but
it
wasn't
an
or
three
change.
So
there's
only
no
anything
like
that.
Okay,
okay!
Thank
you!
I
A
A
Sure
we
have
emotions,
we
have
a
second
second
in
a
second
I'm.
Sorry,
I
didn't
get
the
motion,
sir.
The
motion
is
to
deny
this
area
in
a
second
support
staff,
all
right
any
other
discussion.
No,
no
all
right,
I'll
call
for
this
all
those
in
favor.
All
those
against
motion
carries.
Thank
you
next
item
that
we
have
is
item
7a.
This
is
a
review
and
reconsideration
report
on
this
subdivision
master
plan.
The
attendance
industrial,
the
purpose
is
revision
is
to
reconfigure
phases.
A
C
Good
evening,
mr.
commissioner,
mr.
chairman,
it
was
the
Commission
Edward
Garza,
with
train
engineering
here
on
behalf
of
Port
grande
development.
Also
in
the
audience
we
have
the
representative,
the
development
community
of
the
port
grounded
development.
If
you
have
any
questions,
but
we
do
support
and
staff
comments
on
this
metric
kind
of
vision.
Okay,.
C
D
C
Actually,
in
the
initial
stages
of
poor
Grande,
the
the
developer
was
able
to
add
an
additional
access
point
off
carriers
and
they
first
started
this
project.
At
the
same
time,
we're
able
to
acquire
some
property
to
meet
future
of
North
North
arterial
to
the
north,
adjacent
to
the
city,
Laredo
a
sewer
plan.
Since
then,
we've
been
able
to
do
phase
one,
and
our
long-range
plan
is
to
continue
to
work
with
tech
stock
tech
stocks.
Currently
developing
some
Lightning
plans
of
I-35
we've
had
several
meetings
with
textile
over
the
last
few
months.
C
They're
currently
reviewing
multiple
ideas
to
improve
Uniroyal
and
carriers,
but
one
of
the
new
ideas
that
we've
been
sitting
down
with
them
is
they're.
Looking
at
developing
a
bypass
Highway
around
you
detect,
and
these
bypass
is
what
they're
currently
studying
through
their
consultants,
to
try
to
provide
another
alternative
to
go.
East
instead
of
West
tore
935.
So
this
is
something
that
that
the
poor,
Grande
Development
Group,
is
actually
working
with
text
on
in
listening
to
what
their
plans
are
and
see
how
we
can
be
a
partner
with
TxDOT
and
other
land
owners
in
that
area.
C
As
this
idea
develops,
so
that's
something
that
we
were
involved
in
and
we're
keeping
our
traffic
engineer
on
new
traffic
engineer
a
precedent
that
was
him
earlier
today
to
give
them
some
background
on
that
not
too
the
fact
is
he's
a
former
textile
engineer.
Who's
also
involved
in
some
of
those
discussions
already.
So
that's
what's
going
on
at
this
moment
all
right.
Thank
you.
Mr.
Garza.
A
C
The
outer
loop
that
we
know
of
is
further
to
the
east
of
the
foreground.
A
property
that's
not
is
currently
studied
in
their
environmental
work,
but
this
could
be
something
that
might
morph
into
maybe
a
combination
of
the
two
okay,
but
the
intent
is
to
is
to
bypass
that
area,
to
promote
traffic
movement
to
the
east
and
then
ultimately,
connect
to
the
routing
of
interchange,
okay,
yeah.
A
A
Motion
and
a
second
all
those
in
favor
aye
goes
against.
Motion
carries
thank
you
next
item.
They
made
a
preliminary
consideration
of
the
replant
of
lot
to
block
one
work
under
subdivision
phase,
one
and
thirteen
point
five
for
acres
out
of
the
majestic
Laredo
logistical,
Center
and
I'll
see
interlock
to
a
block.
One
poor
get
on
the
subdivision
face
one
and
ten
is
industrial.
The
proposed
action
is
approved.
A
C
Good
evening
at
work
out
sorry
engineering,
we
do
we
do
agree
with
staff
comments.
I
just
want
to
point
out
to
the
Commission
that
the
that
the
development
of
this
project
already
we've
already
done
numerous
studies,
environmental
drainage,
etc
and
I've
already
gone
through
FEMA
in
this
area
and
already
have
a
plumber
that
we
need
to
proceed
so
even
with
the
providing
the
baseball,
for
example.
As
a
planning
comment,
we
already
have
developed
all
that
work
through
FEMA,
so
we
have
no
problem
with
that
comment.
Okay,.
D
A
E
A
Good
motion
in
a
second
all,
those
in
favor
aye
against
motion
carries
all
right.
Thank
you.
Let
me
read
item
13,
then
item
13
is
a
public
hearing
and
recommendation
of
an
ordinance
amending
the
zoning
ordinance
of
the
City
Reta
by
authorizing
a
special
use
permit
for
townhouses
a
lot
one
block
for
hilltop
subdivision
face
to
located
at
401
Michigan.
A
F
Apologize,
the
this
we
should
and
my
fault,
we
should
have
adjusted
that
to
be
the
staff,
isn't
support.
Part
of
the
problem
here
is
that
our
definitions,
a
lot
of
our
land
development
code,
needs
reworked
and
we're
actually
in
that
process.
Right
now-
and
this
is
a
prime
example
of
that
this
hinges
on
the
definitions
that
we
have
in
our
code,
for
what
is
a
townhome
and
and
what
rules
apply
to
a
townhome
and
what
rules
apply
to
a
duplex
which
technically
can
be
included
in
town.
F
This
might
get
confusing
if
we
go
into
it,
but
we
this
should
have
been
something
that
staff
supported
based
on
the
the
ambiguity
of
our
code.
That
needs
to
be
reworked
and
we
are
in
that
process.
So
originally,
our
thought
was
that
they
would
not
be
able
to
apply
for
a
special
use
permit
because
they
didn't
fall
into
the
definition
of
a
townhome,
because
these
blog
requirements,
because
they
look
like
duplexes,
but
there
was
room
for
interpretation
and
so
we're
allowing
these
to
be
as
townhomes.
N
A
C
R
I
do
and
we
made
that
okay,
oh,
we
made
the
SE
p,
yes,
Wayne
Nance,
mr.
chairman,
yes,
that's
engineering
I'm,
coming
to
you
to
agree
with
staff
comments
that
cut
for
three
on
the
SUV.
As
you
might
recall,
the
last
time
we
were
here,
we
had
the
preliminary
plat
in
front
of
you
and
we
requested
a
table.
It
is
always
better
to
take
care
of
the
SU
P
comments.
First
then,
hopefully,
the
the
planning
comments.
R
You
know
kind
of
fall
into
order,
and
that's
why
we're
here
we
did
review
all
of
these
comments
and
we
do
we
agree
with
all
of
them,
except
as
regarding
the
SU
px
left
with
three
five
and
eleven,
and
if
you
don't
mind,
I'll
address
a
goal
in
reverse
order
and
to
talk
about
first
of
all
number
eleven.
What
they're
saying
here
is
no
townhouses
shall
have
direct
access
to
Michigan,
more
Hill
tuck.
That
will.
R
If
you
go
to
the
su
P-
and
we
have
here
what
they're
saying
is
no
direct
access
to
Michigan
or
he'll
talk
yeah,
that
that
means
for
seven
lots
are
just
gone
from
this
I
believe
that
this
is
in
the
spirit
this
just
to
give
you
a
little
history
on
this.
This
was
here
in
2017
two
years
ago,
I
think
mr.
chairman,
you
might
have
been
here
on
this
one.
R
We've
proceeded
with
the
one
across
the
street
right,
but
this
one
here
the
original
concept
had
all
of
these
Lots
backing
out
to
Michigan
with
driveways,
and
even
though
the
rest
of
Michigan
is
full
of
trailers
that
people
back
out
I
think
that
the
the
Planning
Commission,
you
know
decided
you
know
what
we've
had
enough
of.
That
is
it's
it's
a
it's
a
fast
street.
We
don't
want
any
more
direct
access
to
Michigan.
So
at
that
time
we
we
tabled
this
thing.
R
We
took
it
back
and
we
we
shuffled
it
figured
it
out
also
worked
on
the
other
side
of
the
street
to
see
how
this
project
would
go.
Well,
this
project
turned
out
very
well
very
nice,
townhomes
I.
Think
everybody
in
the
area
likes
it
and
even
any
he's
been
up
there,
you
could
see
what
they're
built
like
we
went
back
to
the
drawing
board.
R
That's
it
and
you
can
do
a
direct
access
facing
traffic,
so
you're
not
backing
into
it
right
and
and
the
that's
one
of
the
main
benefits
that
we
have
have
yet-
and
the
point
is,
is
that
there
is
one
tract
here:
you're
gonna
have
a
curb
cut,
no
matter
what
that's
gonna
be
an
apartment
somewhere.
No
one's
gonna,
just
abandon
100
by
100
lot,
somewhere
and
I.
Think
that
we're
accommodating
this
the
best
we
can
making
sure
it's
a
one
way
out.
R
You
know
in
a
facing
way
these
all
come
to
this
side
so
back
to
the
comments,
and
then,
when
you
look
at
this
I
understand
they,
they
don't
want
anything.
Go
on
into
hilltop.
I
see
this
when
you
wouldn't
you
look
at
the
and
you
look
at
the
bigger
picture
of
this,
even
though
this
is
facing
hilltop.
This
is
a
four-way
stop
right
here.
These
people
that
are
backing
out
this
is
almost
I'm.
Gonna
use
the
word
our
little
loop
here.
You
know
as
soon
as
we
finish
it.
R
It
is
tucked
away,
it
is
behind
Michigan.
The
people
that
are
backing
out
here
are
protected
behind
a
four-way
stop
and
there
are
only
two
other
people
that
are
using
this
cul-de-sac,
and
so
we
we
believe
that
we're
not
creating
that
a
traffic
safety
issue.
So
by
saying
no
direct
access
to
hilltop
and
no
direct
at
Michigan.
We
don't
agree
with
that.
I
think
that
we're
providing
a
product
here
that
is
safe
enough
to
eliminate
comment
number
eleven.
R
Thank
you
this
then
it
would
take
us
to
comment
number
three.
It
says
two
parking
places
are
required
for
town
home,
just
get
one
which
is
required
to
be
enclosed.
These
three
products
right
here
we
are
giving
to
where
our
giving
to
her
town
home
there's
a
total
of
six
here,
but
these
ones
are
not
enclosed,
as
opposed
to
these
townhomes.
We
just
could
not
make
an
enclosure
work
with
this
space.
R
If
I
gave
them
a
garage,
they
would
be
that
long
and
then
they
would
have
to
go
back
out
into
Michigan,
so
I'm
trying
to
salvage
something
here.
These
are
garage
'less
units,
so
the
parking
spaces
have
to
be
there
I'm
still
meeting
the
parking
code,
I'm,
giving
them
to
per
lot
plus
a
one
to
four
ratio
on
the
visitors.
R
R
There
are
only
three
Lots
that
impinge
on
that.
We
have
all
twenty
foot
front
setbacks
everywhere
and,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
these
are
twenty
five
s
along
in
here.
There
is
only
this
townhome
here
where
it
has
a
14
foot,
building
setback.
But
it's
it's
less
concerning
to
me.
This
20
foot
reservation
is
for
the
next
door,
neighbor
lion
Decker's,
so
we're
not.
Even
this
is
just
the
20
foot
easement,
it's
still
our
property,
but
it's
just
a
reservation
and
it's
it's
the
backup
place.
R
They
have
a
gate
and
that's
it
so
there's
really
a
lot
more
rear
setback
than
than
you
know,
foot
building
setback
on
these
two
units,
only
we
just
couldn't
make
it
work
in
my
opinion-
is
more
important
to
have
a
20
foot,
front
yard,
setback
than
a
20
foot,
rear
yard
setback
and
so
I
gave
the
rear
yard
setback.
Less
me,
less
credibility
in
the
front
yard
I
mean
I
can
push
that
forward.
If
you
want
to
and
then
give
you
the
20
yard
rear,
but
it's
a
back
yard.
R
O
On
on
the
tool,
also,
you
have
17
you:
can
you
can
get
the
built-in
set
back
to
comply
with
the
tween?
The
town
homes
can
be
redesigned,
so
you
can
build
the
town
home
that
is
in
compliance
with
a
20
feet,
communion
you're,
looking
at
at
your
product
to
to
be
exactly
the
way
112.
Well
that
particular
item
I
mean
you
can
still
comply
with
a
20
foot
setback
but
yeah
by
by
redesigning
the
townhouses.
That
would.
O
R
O
Well,
so
I
have
a
question
on
the
from
the
parking,
so
in
Michigan,
what's
your
your
setback
from
the
parking
area?
Exactly
those
part
concern
are
not
going
to
be
dedicated
once
thought
to
Michigan.
Those
are
going
to
be
pretty
much
us
use
on
the
first
come
first
use
basis.
I
lived
you
this
a
make,
the
yeah
the
numbers
for
each
of
that.
Yes,
they.
R
O
A
I
F
If
I
could
just
share
my
reasoning
on
on
this,
and
maybe
some
of
the
reasoning
on
when
we
when
we
start
getting
into
the
definitions
of
some
of
our
land
use
requirements,
that's
somewhere,
we
have
to
draw
a
line
and
let's
use
the
example
of
the
20
foot
setback
when
somebody
gets
close,
you
might
think.
Well,
it's
just
you
know
it's
just
three
feet.
Those
rules
that
are
that
are
drawn
out
and
those
distinctions
that
are
drawn
out
give
us
some
distinction
between
neighborhoods
in
between
uses,
and
we
follow
those
as
a
rule.
F
Now
we
have
a
special
use
permit
in
place
for
townhomes
and
probably
should
have
that
in
place
for
duplexes
we're
defining
these
as
count
homes.
Given
that
we
have
the
ability
to
do
so,
I
think
there's
room
for
interpretation.
Why
would
we
allow
he
could
as
of
right,
build
townhomes
to
the
right
specifications?
He
could
do
it,
he
could
lay
out
of
configuration,
but
mister
Nance's
and
his
company
has
decided
not
to
why,
because
they
want.
F
They're
motivated
by
profitability,
of
course,
like
they
should
it's,
how
land
a
lot
of
land
development
occurs
and
as
the
city,
one
of
the
things
we
have
to
look
is
what
is
the
city
getting
out
of
this?
What
is
the
interest
of
the
city
if
we're
gonna
compromise
the
rules
that
we
have,
because
we
have
rules
laid
out
for
townhomes
if
we're
willing
to
compromise
that
with
special
use
permit?
What
is
the
city
get,
and
my
perspective
on
this?
Is
that
he's
aiming
at
a
certain
price
point?
He
wants
to
build
an
affordable
unit.
F
These
are
gonna,
be
for
sell
to
owners
correct
these
aren't
rental
products,
guys
girl,
and
so
this
provides
affordable
housing
product
for
somebody
that
maybe
is
lower-income.
One
wants
to
purchase
something
that's
good
and
so
we're
willing
to
compromise
on
on
some
of
the
conditions
here.
But
all
of
these
I
stand
by
these
are
staff
reviewed
these
and
on
number
11,
no
timeout
townhouse
units
shop,
direct
access
to
Michigan
I
have
a
new
hilltop
Road.
Yes,
there
are
other.
There
are
other
units
on
that
street
that
have
access,
and
it's
not
good.
It's
not.
F
It's
not
good
to
have
a
lot
of
protects,
an
access.
It
creates
greater
risk
because
there's
already
a
situation
there
do
we
make
it
worse.
No
I,
don't
think
we
should
I
think
we
should
minimize.
We
recognize
the
problem
and
we
should
stop
and
that
that
that
recommendation
comes
from
staff
whose
job
it
is
to
look
at
traffic
and
and
consider
those
on
number
five
is
well.
F
D
R
Clear
item
number
three:
although
I
didn't
see
this
in
the
parking
area,
I
I
did
see
the
reference
to
two
parking
per
unit.
This
particular
item
item
three
says
one
of
which
needs
to
be
enclosed.
Okay,
and
what
I'm
pointing
out
is
that
threes,
three,
you
and
all
the
rest
have
one
enclosed
and
then
one
in
the
driveway,
so
they're
getting
their
two
one
is
enclosed
and
one
in
the
driveway.
These
three
units
right
here
and
these
three
units
only
they're
gonna,
have
two
parking
lots
outside
one
of
them
is
not
as
enclosed.
R
R
R
R
One
of
the
parking
lot
needs
to
be
in
a
garage
or
carport,
and
one
needs
to
be
within
the
driveway
and
within
the
right-of-way
outside
of
the
street,
and
all
of
these
units
have
a
garage.
These
ones
do
not.
If
these
had
a
garage,
okay,
they
would
be
as
long
as
these
and
they
face
the
street
and
we'd
be
back
in
that
situation,
where
we
don't
have
room
for
a
parking
lot
and
we're
backing
into
Michigan
and
I'm.
Repeating
back
to
the
Michigan
argument,
though,
we
had
a
situation
where
these
are
all
down.
R
Michigan
I
cannot
think
of
a
better
configuration.
That's
going
to
have
less
impact
on
Michigan
than
this
layout
here,
because
after
that,
you
could
go
back
to
mobile
homes
along
here
with
an
r3,
its
r3
right
now,
which
is
like
you
could
just
you
can
do
a
lot
of
stuff
from
in
r3
and
without
coming
here.
We
can
take
this
out
of
there
and
then
end
up
with
a
lot
of
mobile
homes
there
and
then
you're
gonna,
get
the
backing
out
to
the
street
I.
R
D
M
Think
I
think
the
rules
are
important
to
follow
to
protect
the
interest
of
the
communities
right,
but
when
there's
an
intelligent
reason
for
varying
from
the
rules,
I
think
we
need
to
as
a
commission
be
conscious
of
that
and
inflexible.
So
to
me,
I
think
that
would
you've
proposed
seems
to
be
well
thought
out.
I
think
you
have
compelling
points.
I
can
understand
the
city's
position
to
want
to
follow
the
rules
strictly
and
trying
to
find
a
compromise.
M
Is
this
su
P,
but
I
also
think
that,
if
we're
able
to
provide
a
product
to
the
community,
that
is
a
good
quality
product
at
an
affordable
price
and
there
isn't
a
compel
of
risk.
That
is
a
compelling
reason
to
to
to
stick
to
the
rules,
so
so
so,
strictly.
I
think
that
this
is
an
example
of
one
of
those
situations
where
I
think
the
interest
of
the
developer
in
being
able
to
create
a
product
outweighs
strict
adherence
to
the
rules.
M
Now
I
don't
know
we
still
that
way:
I'm
normally
the
opposite
and
I'm,
normally
strict
adherence
to
the
rules,
because
I
really
believe
in
the
stakeholder
of
the
community
being
more
important
than
a
developer,
but
but
in
this
case,
I
think
this
is
an
intelligent
explanation
of
why
we
should
vary
from
the
rules
and
I
think
that
we
should
support
it.
That's
my
that's
my
view.
Thank.
A
O
Comment:
travel
to
Sherman
by
looking
at
the
plat.
Those
three
are
that
space.
Where
that
the
three
are
the
three
are
compounds
that
would
make
a
real
nice
green
areas
for
the
for
that
community
that
it's
gonna
move
there
matter
of
fact,
I
feel
that
that
turns
into
green
area,
which
we
don't
have
any
green
areas
for
dinner
or
the
community
that
is
gonna,
move
there
to
enjoy
themselves.
O
Maybe
it's
not
a
bad
idea
to
to
delete
those
three
thousands
and
turn
it
into
green
areas,
for
people
can
actually
go
it
now
and
have
a
TV
or
a
beer
or
wine
or
or
just
for
that
area.
What
do
you
think?
Mr.
engineer,
I.
R
On
behalf
of
the
develop
brunch
I
can
I
can
hear
the
little
bird
saying.
No,
you
know
I
would
just
volunteer
this
I
won't
take
the
Commission's
comments
you
have
across
the
street
in
this
developed
area
right
here.
There
is
a
green
area
right
here,
alright
and
we
are
proposing
a
landscape
area
down
here.
That
will
be
undeveloped,
so
it's
not
without
without
a
landscape
area.
At
all
I
understand
the
developer
gave
me
this
layout.
There
was
original
concepts
when
we
talked
about
where
that
was
left
out.
R
I
have
a
feeling,
that's
left
out,
it's
gonna
end
up
being
an
apartment,
complex
of
some
sort
and,
in
my
opinion,
the
apartment
complex
would
create
more
problems
than
this
particularly
honest,
but
I
did
not.
Yes,
trust
me
makes
my
life
easier
and
so
that
that
that
topic
was
discussed
and
and
the
answer
to
me
and
I'm
giving
it
to
you
was,
you
know
they
have
intentions
of
using
that
100
by
100
area
or
something.
Thank
you.
Yes,
sir.
All
right.
Thank.
A
A
Oh
we're
gonna
have
to
take
action
on
okay,
I'm.
Just
one
I
think
you.
I
J
A
C
C
R
You
don't
mind
just
just
for
the
sake
of
for
the
sake
of
being
thorough
on
this
particular
one.
We
would
have
to
strike
item
number
5
item
1
addresses
it.
It
says
especially
use
permit,
will
be
why're.
You
just
move
forward
with
that,
but
item
5
limits
the
lot
size.
We
just
took
care
of
that
with
the
SP
by
removing
that
SP.
It
allows
that
slight
time
to
be
followed
item
5
Missy,
who
is
inherently
stricken,
but
it
might
be
more
thorough
to
have
this.
Whatever
staff
recommends.
Okay,
I.
M
A
A
A
A
I
think
that's
something
we
need
to
discuss
just
briefly
here
with
the
Commission.
Sometimes
there's
members,
when
you
make
a
motion
that
take
three
or
four
of
them
in
a
row
that
have
conflicts,
I,
think
they're,
pretty
easy
for
us
to
who
I
would
rather
just
take
them
one
at
a
time.
So
if
anybody
does
have
a
conflict
easier.
N
J
A
A
F
Thank
you,
Commission
I'm
gonna
be
presenting
this
item
tonight.
You
know
I
have
me
the
staff
from
the
building
department
to
share
their
thoughts
on.
Why
I'm
aware
that
you've
heard
this
before
it's
come
up,
we
would
ask
that
you
submit
a
recommendation
either
positive
or
negative
tonight
to
City
Council,
so
they
can
move
on
this
I'm.
I
F
Share
what
the
proposal
is
and
right
away
share
our
staff
recommendations
and
I
want
to
have
a
little
conversation
about
setbacks
and
then
talk
about
the
impacts
of
changing
setbacks
and
then
review
the
comprehensive
plan
that
should
guide
us
in
all
of
our
land
use
decisions
and
then
talk
about
Rico
Pareto.
The
process
were
undergoing
to
change
our
land
development,
so
item
agenda,
item,
11,
8
regard
the
revision
of
the
C
Laredos
land
development
code,
chapter
24,
article
4,
&,
5,
the
purpose
of
amending
dimensional
standards,
the
setback
requirements
and
any
other
matter
incident
there.
F
Interior
Lots
are
on
both
on
the
side,
setbacks
and
then
larger
setbacks
in
the
front
rear
and
then
those
that
aren't
interior
lots
that
have
a
corner
on
that
corner.
They're
10
feet.
So
this
this
change
would
be
moving
all
setbacks
to
5
feet
and
where
the
big
impact
would
be
in
the
front
and
rear
of
homes.
That
now
have
larger
setbacks
and
they
would
go
to
to
find
staff
does
not
support
these
proposed
changes.
That's
not
to
say
we
don't
support
setbacks
and
changing
the
setbacks
and
we'll
get
to
that.
F
We
don't
support
it
because
the
changes
is
recommended
as
proposed
are
supported
by
the
comprehensive
plan.
The
analysis
of
this
impact
has
not
been
completed,
visit
the
extent
of
what
were
what
we're
asking
and
that
there
are
many
other
elements
of
land
development
code.
We
need
to
change
before
we
change
setbacks
across
the
entire
city
before
we
would
consider
that
so
talking
about
setbacks,
what
they
are.
It's
a
distance
typically
taken
from
the
property
line
that
restricts
where
structures
can
be
located,
generally
they're
put
in
place
for
privacy
for
safety
and
environmental
or
green
space.
F
So
you
know
typically
in
suburban
areas,
that's
a
product
somebody's
buying,
with
an
expectation
that
it
will
be
maintained.
That
way
now
larger
setbacks
have
become
the
the
default
in
a
lot
of
our
areas,
and-
and
sometimes
we
maybe
some
of
our
the
way
that
our
rules
are
written.
We
just
assume
that
residential
areas
should
have
a
setback
and
that
assumption
maybe
isn't
correct
so
as
staff
we're
open
to
changing
these
setbacks,
but
there
are
impacts
before
I
get
into
that,
because
we're
gonna
have
a
little
discussion.
F
I
just
want
to
say
this
is
where
I
live.
I
live
in
LS
teka.
You
know,
you
know
rental
right
now,
but
I'm
you
can
see.
The
setbacks
here
are
very
minimal.
There's
zero
on
the
rear
and
that's
to
the
south
and
on
the
left,
or
to
the
to
the
west,
they're,
also
zero
at
one
point
and
and
then
within
a
couple
feet.
F
So
when
I
say
that
I
don't
want
this
I,
don't
want
you
to
think
that
well,
I've
heard
that
somebody
thought
maybe
I'm
against
setbacks.
Well,
I'm
for
big
setbacks
that
I
think
the
vision
of
Lorado
that
we
need
large
setbacks.
That's
not
true!
My
actual
personal
preference
is
to
live
in
a
neighborhood
where
there
are
zero
setbacks
and
the
density
is,
is
greater
and
we're.
You
know
we
don't
have
as
much
where
there's
more
buildable
area.
That's
my
preference!
F
That's
my
housing
choice
right
now,
but
I
understand
that
there
are
a
lot
of
implications
when
we
make
citywide
changes
and
I
I
want
to
see
the
buildable
area
increase.
I
want
to
see
people
have
more
freedom
and
options
with
their
property,
but
I
want
to
do
it
in
a
way
that
we're
resilient,
that
these
changes
are
resilient,
that
another
council
or
a
lawsuit
doesn't
change
these
quickly
that
we've
thought
it
through
and
we've
given
good
consideration.
F
I
F
The
setbacks
we
have
to
look
at
all
of
these
different
elements.
There's
there's
two
pages
of
elements
and
we'll
go
over
that,
and
if
you
have
any
questions,
we
can
talk
about
it,
but
there
are
density
requirements
and
occupancy
limitations
to
to
our
residential
areas.
If
we're
allowing
billable
area
to
increase.
Do
we
also
look
at
that?
We,
you
can
build
if
you
can
basically
double
the
buildable
space
of
your
home,
because
you
have
minimal
setbacks.
Should
we
allow
for
duplexes,
then
on
these
sides
we're
just
huge
massive
single-family
homes.
F
There
are
stormwater
requirements
that
that
we
have
in
place
and
considerations
that
should
be
made.
When
you
increase
the
buildable
area,
you
increase
the
impervious
surface
area.
That
means
that
runoff
moves
much
quickly.
It
doesn't
get
soaking
up
into
the
ground
and
there
are
already
areas
of
our
city
where
we
have
challenges
with
with
stormwater
wrong.
Yes,
sir,
so.
S
J
Seen
so,
a
lot
of
these
properties
would
have
the
20-foot
setbacks
in
the
back,
mostly
apartments,
and
that
would
be
true.
They
would
not
concrete
the
whole
area
so
what
they
typically
do
around
here.
Maybe
it's
different
from
other
cities
is
that
they
concrete
the
back
also,
so
that
the
same
thing,
whether
you
leave
the
20
foot
setback
or
you
do
the
ten
or
a
five.
What
people
usually
do
is
when
you
do
the
the
parking
they'll
concrete,
the
back,
the
20
foot
setback
I
mean
there's
tons
of
examples
like
that.
So
it's
not
productive.
N
T
But
the
one
thing
it
doesn't
do
is
that
it'll
take
a
hundred
percent,
I'm
exaggerating,
but
the
hundred
percent
you
know
fully
concreted
residential
and
so
be
the
concern
that
we
have
maybe
on
the
stormwater
might
not
be
this
large
large
impact,
but
it
will
increase
the
runoff
and
the
only
worrisome
it's
more
in
the
long
term.
Ten
years,
twenty
years
from
now,
it's
not
going
to
be
too
much
our
problem
that
when
those
properties
increase-
and
we
get
a
large
vicinity
of
subdivisions
to
do
that,
that's
when
we're
gonna
start
seeing
the
impact.
T
We
won't
see
that
our
ourselves,
but
in
the
future,
when
it
comes
for
the
city
for
maintenance
or
upgrades
or
such
that's,
when
we're
going
to
see
those
changes,
some
and
like
I
said
the
the
impact
one
week
won't
be
immediate,
but
that
that's
kind
of
the
factors
are
paid
when
it's
the
linear
designs,
a
subdivision.
So.
A
Basically,
what
you're
saying
is
that
an
assumption
here
that
if
the
setbacks
were
to
be
reduced,
when
the
subdivision
was
calculated,
it
was
calculated
on
a
certain
setback
of
impervious
cover
will
absorb
some
of
the
rain,
as
we
change
that
the
calculations
that
were
done
for
stormwater
runoff
could
potentially
change
now,
and
the
system
will
be
over
burned
more
less.
Yes,.
F
But
this
is
not
an
argument
against
setbacks,
or
this
is
a
that.
What
one
we're
presenting
here
is
to
say
when
this
section
is
to
say:
we
need
to
consider
that
four
areas
of
the
city
that
may
already
have
real
issues
with
stormwater
run
to
just
across
the
board
for
the
city
say
well,
let's
just
remove
this
effect
from
the
whole
city.
Right
now
to
five
feet
then,
doesn't
allow
us
the
time
that
we
will
be
taking
with
Rico
the
right
only
good
to
that
okay
to
really
assess
that.
F
F
A
N
F
That
case,
we
want
to
talk
about
each
one
of
these
shortly
briefly,
go
over
to
here
to
show
the
other
there's.
There's
enforcement-
okay!
Well,
we'll
be
quick,
so
also
utility
requirements.
Five-Foot
may
not
be
enough
for
the
for
the
the
easements
that
would
be
needed
in
certain
parts
of
the
city.
Now
generally,
utility
easements
are
five
feet
and
five
feet
on
the
other
side,
which
give
it
a
10
P
you,
a
10
foot,
hope
you
II
when
you
combine
them
both,
but
that's
not
the
case
across
the
city
parking
regulations.
F
Forests
do
we
have
parking
requirements
for
our
single-family
homes?
Yes,
our
single-family.
Yes,
when
you
increase
the
amount
of
of
home,
you
also
increase
the
occupancy
generally
speaking,
and
doing
that
you
also
have
a
greater
demand
for
vehicles
which
people
use
also,
if
you're
increasing
buildable
area
you're
taking
up
space
that
otherwise
would
be
used
for
parking.
That's
not
already
required
on
the
lot,
meaning
that
we're
going
to
essentially
be
pushing
more
cars
to
the
street.
No
think
long
term.
With
this,
don't
just
think
you
know
tomorrow.
F
We
want
to
consider
that
as
the
fact
that
we're
looking
at
in
certain
neighborhoods
that
have
problems
already
with
off
street
parking,
do
we
want
to
increase
that
problem?
Would
that
be
fair
to
those
who
bought
with
a
certain
understanding
zoning
regulations
in
general?
There
are,
there
are
many
elements
of
there
are.
Our
setbacks
vary
for
different
zones,
and
there
are
reasons
they
vary.
Q
F
Look
at
all
those
and
which
ones
make
sense
to
to
bury
that
setback,
maybe
some
less
than
maybe
others
a
little
more
with
visibility.
Triangle
requirements.
So
you
know
cars
that
pull
out
and
and
access
the
road
we
like
to
have
a
visibility
triangle,
and
how
are
we
dealing
with
that?
If
we
just
remove
that
requirement,
allow
people
to
build
to
five
feet,
there
might
be
issues
there.
F
Now
the
question
is:
if,
if
you
have
an
older
lot
that
predated
and
is
already
built
to
five
or
less-
and
you
have
somebody
that
now
can
built
to
five-
are
they
required
also
to
follow
the
fire
requirements
of
having
greater
fire
protection
because
of
the
increased
risk
of
having
two
buildings
closer
together?
That's
also
something
we
want
to
assess
before
we
across
the
board,
especially
in
our
older
parts
of
town,
where
some
things
are
either
legal
or
or
non
legal.
Come.
Q
F
Been
they've
been
built
to
the
property
line
and
somebody
else
is
going
to
build
closer
that
within
10
feet.
We're
gonna
want
to
assess
that,
as
so
all,
that
is
to
say
not
that
we
are
against
changing
this
impacts,
but
that
we
would
want
to
look
at
that
now.
The
comp
plan,
if
you
read
through
it,
which
I
have
done
multiple
times
and
for
this
also
reviewed,
specifically
as
it
relates
to
setbacks.
There
is
nothing
in
the
compound
that
says:
let's
minimize
setbacks
for
the
entire
city,
there's
no
direction.
It
gives
us
on
that.
F
What
it
calls
for
is
some
changes
to
setbacks
in
a
couple
specific
areas
in
in
business
districts
and
also
in
new
developments
that
follow
new
Urbanus
principles,
but
it
doesn't
give
us
direction
to
remove
it
across
the
board.
Now
that
doesn't
mean
we
can't
it
means
if
we
should,
we
should
really
think
through
it,
which
means
we're
amending
our
comp
plan
where
we're
doing
that
study.
We're
doing
that
analysis.
Now
the
comp
plan
does
call
and
I
point
that
out,
because
some
proponents
of
this
change
have
said.
Oh,
it's
part
of
our
complaint.
F
No,
it's
not
part
of
a
company,
but
in
the
spirit
of
increasing
density
and
having
more
sustainable
development,
you
could
argue
that
well,
yeah
decrease.
Some
setbacks
would
be
a
good
thing
and
a
staff
we
agree.
We
just
want
to
do
the
analysis
and
make
sure
we've
done
the
preparation
to
give
the
Commission
and
then
the
City
Council,
who
all
to
me
make
the
decision.
We
want
to
equip
them
with
the
most
information
that
they
can
have
to
make
that
analysis
and
luckily
we're
actually
going
through
that
process
right
now,
with
recode
rate.
F
F
Would
you
have
mentioned
it
before?
Okay,
good?
Well,
let
me
just
briefly
say:
viva
Laredo
our
comprehensive
plan.
One
of
the
one
of
the
major
goals
that
it
asked
us
to
do
next
was
to
redo
our
land
development
code.
As
you
saw
today,
some
of
the
rules
we
have
in
there
or
may
be
somewhat
arbitrary
my20,
and
can
we
vary
it
by
fifteen
and
wind
Q?
There's
not
a
lot
of
direction
in
there
and
some
of
the
lines
are
pretty
arbitrary
and
some
of
the
definitions
don't
make
sense
and
there's
overlapping
and
contradictory
requirements.
F
So
there
are
a
lot
of
reasons
we
want
to
look
at
it
and
adjust
it
and
then
beyond
just
correcting
it,
making
it
simpler
and
fairer
for
citizens
who
want
to
develop
or
developers
who
want
to.
We
also
want
to
encourage
more
sustainable,
more
equitable
and
a
better
laid
out
City.
To
do
that,
we
have
to
change
our
land
development
code.
Now
you
can't
do
that
overnight.
There
is
a
lot
that
you
have
to
look
at
to
study
out,
and
so
it's
going
to
be
a
three
month
process.
F
I
want
to
show
you
what
we've
already
done
so
far,
because
we
haven't
been
delaying
the
setback
issue.
We've
been
working
on
the
Ricoh
Laredo
project
to
get
it
started
so
that
we
can
very
much
look
at
setbacks
across
the
city
and
where
it
may
sense
to
lower
them
to
five
or
even
less
so.
We
adopted
the
vivo
rate
open
in
2017.
F
Shortly
after
that,
we
published
an
RFQ
to
find
consultants
that
can
help
us
redo
our
land
development
code.
We've
got
bids
in
and
we
selected
a
team
that
we
feel
like
is
really
gonna,
be
able
to
help
us,
but
we're
gonna
lead
the
project
planning
building
those
consultants,
because
we
did
it
through
an
RFQ.
It's
a
request
for
qualifications.
F
Instead
of
a
request
for
a
proposal
or
project.
We
first
just
said:
who's
got
qualifications
that
we
can
work
with,
and
we
identified
a
team
that
we
wanted
to
work
with.
Then
we
had
to
negotiate
with
them
and
that
negotiation
went
back
and
forth
and
and
we
negotiated
a
contract
that
we
felt
was
good
for
us
and
and
then
we
just
had
the
kickoff
meeting
did
any
of
y'all.
Were
you
able
to
attend?
Yes,
I
heard
there
was
some
really
good
barbecue
there
yeah.
I
F
J
F
F
Consider
that
we
considered
that
perhaps,
instead
of
trying
to
redo
the
whole
land
development
code
at
once,
maybe
we
should
just
take
it
in
sections
now.
The
challenge
to
doing
that
is
the
land
of
element.
Codes
are
related.
You
can't
change
parking
requirements
without
looking
at
everything
else.
You
can't
change
setbacks
without
looking
at
yeah,
without
looking
at
all
these.
F
J
F
Develop
the
code
all
at
once,
because
you
can't
develop
one
piece
without
the
other,
so
we
don't
develop
it,
but
how
we
implement
it.
That
would
be
a
decision.
I
think
ultimately
well
we're
one
input
from
Planning
Commission
and
we're
gonna
want
input
from
City
Council
because
to
make
such
abrupt
changes
overnight
can
really
disrupt
the
system,
and
so
maybe
we
what
we've
been
considering
is.
F
Maybe
we
have
a
two-track
system
for
a
year
or
two
years
where
we
have
the
old
way
that
you
have
to
apply
it
through
all
the
we
can't
pick
and
choose,
but
you
either
go
the
old
track
with
the
existing
code
or
you
go
the
new
track,
and
that
would
that
would
be
so.
You
know
all
the
industry
that
we
have
here.
They
don't
have
to
relearn
it
overnight
and
it
halts
development
for
six
months.
While
they
understand
all
the
new,
it's
still
give
them
the
existing
track.
F
G
Commissioner
things,
one
of
the
things
I
brought
up
a
walk
back
to
your
predecessor,
was
when
mr.
vADM
and
I
started
in
2015
or
42.
We
both
came
in
with
the
idea
that
we
knew
the
comp
plan
was
gonna,
be
redone.
The
future
land-use
problems
gonna
be
done,
and
the
code
is
going
to
be
rewritten
and
changing
this
and
bringing
the
idea
of
changing
everything
overnight
from
20
to
5
or
whatever
the
numbers
are.
Is
it
it
takes
a
lot
longer
than
that?
G
F
Way
to
Millie,
let
me
just
make
a
distinction:
we're
talking
about
tearing
things,
there's
a
proposal
that
the
TRB
board
has
recommended
and
it's
gone
through,
how
it's
at
Planning
Commission
we're
taking
up
the
council
and
that
recommendation
is
without
any
analysis.
Let's
change
our
our
setbacks
to
five
feet
in
all
the
residential
areas.
So
that's
what's
being
proposed
now,
I'm
talking
about
Rio
Laredo
in
case.
G
And
it
will
I'm
talking
about
tying
everything
in,
but
also
allowing
okay
number
one.
The
the
five
foot
step,
that's
I,
think
should
be
tabled
period
indefinitely
until
we
get
full
studies
like
the
city
wide,
the
city
white
part,
but
allow
for
an
implementation,
because
a
whole
point
of
the
whole
point
of
the
comp
plan
was
not
it's
exactly
what
you
said,
but
in
certain
areas
and
allow
for
future
development
to
have
like
a
mixed-use.
Not
have
these
just
as
I
don't
agree
with
the
five
put.
F
Thank
you
for
explaining
that
I
understand
where
you're
coming
from
and
yes
we're
in
agreement
as
staff,
where
we
can,
we
would
like
to
increase
the
buildable
area,
allow
people
to
have
more
options,
but
maybe
there
some
neighborhoods,
where
that
expectation,
where
there's
an
expectation,
a
situation
that
would
not
allow
for
it
and
we're
asking
for
that
time
to
create
an
analysis
to
bring
it
to
you
and
then
ultimately,
we're
not
the
decision
makers
on
this
change.
It
will
be
commissioned
your
sense
of
recommendation
and
then
Council
that
make
a
decision
know.
G
F
S
If
I
may
I'm
sorry
roll
little
sunroom
from
the
building
development
services
and
in
charge
of
the
TRB
and
I
sat
through
all
these
meetings,
that
was
discussed
it
there
already
is
it's
called
the
PUD,
so
the
Latin
development
code
already
has
so
it's
for
planning
the
development
where
you're
gonna
have
setbacks
a
certain
way.
I,
don't
know
if
you're
here
behind
the
Academy
going
towards
a
new
high
school,
they
develop
something
to
that,
there's
lots
and
they
develop
that
and
they're
Reno
going
in.
S
So
one
of
the
things
I
we
brought
up
a
staff,
is
you
know,
do
we
want
to
limit
these
proposed
changes
of
setbacks
to
new
development
where
it's
more
planned
and
the
idea
was
more
towards
allowing
current
lives
as
well?
So
again,
the
staff
didn't
support
that,
but
it
there
is
something
in
the
mechanism
on
the
current
land
development
code
that
allows
that
and
to
bring
up.
Another
point
is
also
the
current
code
does
allow
to
build
more,
but
they
can
go
up
and
necessarily
need
to
go
out
towards.
S
So
that's
that's
another
thing
I
wanted
to
point
out
because
it
does
and
as
far
as
the
utility
impacts
well,
as
you
guys
may
know,
certain
areas
already,
the
sewer
impact
I
want
to
say
that,
because
that's
one
of
the
areas
that
I
always
checked
on
on
you
plans
all
the
time
was
that
the
impact
on
the
current
infrastructure
that
exists
you're,
just
it's
already
overwhelmed
in
certain
areas
and
if
you're
allowing
more,
it
could
put
even
more
burden
on
that.
So
it's
some
more
cumulative
thing,
as
mr.
S
L
L
L
Just
by
forcing
this
issue
down
and
I
having
the
proper
work
done
to
where
the
right,
the
right
thing
is
done
and
that's
my
concern
is
that
they're
forcing
this
issue
where
they
want
us
to
make
a
decision,
so
I
can
go
to
councilman
from
Council
for
it
to
go
to
a
vote
and
don't
know
how
it's
gonna
go,
but
it
could
go
into
the
way
where
it
doesn't
benefit
the
city.
Okay,.
F
F
They
want
because
we
haven't
been
able
to
change
the
other
parts,
land
development
code
that
would
allow
them
to
build
to
five
feet
right.
So
really
to
me
this
is
about.
If
we
want
to
really
decrease
setback
to
increase
Belleville
area,
we
need
to
do
it
the
right
way,
because
I'm
supportive
of
that
idea,
I
just
want
us
to
Isaac.
M
You
know
the
the
law
is
sometimes
lacking:
ypur
airily
it
is,
and
and
there's
a
lot
of
discretion
and
and
I.
Think
that's
something
like
planning
and
building
like
should
have
discretion
up
to
a
certain
point.
You
know
with
some
standards.
Obviously
so
I
agree
with
that.
I
think
there
has
to
be
a
process,
a
method,
and
there
may
already
be.
M
It
sounds
like
there's
something
already
in
place
where,
when
there's
a
good
project,
but
we
know
it's
not
completely
in
compliance
with
like
the
code,
but
we
know
that
it
meets
the
goals
of
the
comp
plan.
We
should
support
it.
That's
point
one
point:
two
I'm
just
concerned
that
this
item
came
to
the
TR
being
without
being
fully
thought
through.
Then
it
was
addressed
by
the
trv.
H
M
It
was
terribly
thought
through
and
it
was
brought
to
us
and
we
I
mean
thank
God.
We
were
here
to
say:
well,
wait
a
minute
like
what's
the
like,
what
is
what
is
the
point
of
this?
You
know
what
is
the
reason
to
do?
It
I
mean,
and
they
we
had
with
three
shots
at
this
and
every
single
time
it
was
like.
We
were
more
confused
and
and
I'm
not
commenting
on
the
city
staff,
because
they
they
were
very
aware
of
our
concerns,
and
they
also
were
concerned
with
some
of
this
points.
M
So
I'm
not
talking
at
all
about
the
city
staff,
okay,
I'm,
talking
about
the
board.
My
only
concern
is
that
you
know
if
we
can't
if
it
got
to
us
with
a
lack
of
analysis.
What
what
comfort
do
we
have
that
if
we
move
forward
there'll,
be
the
proper
analysis
moving
forward
and
so
I'm
concerned
about
that?
D
A
To
I
guess,
add
to
this
angle,
didn't
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
Kirby
was
this
the
City
Council
mandate
at
the
LES
City
Council
unity
to
come
back
to
the
Planning
Commission?
It
was
so
they
are
just
carrying
out
orders
from
the
City
Council
to
bring
it
back
to
us
for
a
recommendation.
That's
all
they're
doing
at
this
point.
F
Yes,
and
if
I
can
add,
I
would
hope
that
that
the
way
that
we've
been
proceeding
so
far
that
were
maybe
instilling
I
have
great
confidence
with
the
staff
we
have,
but
we're
changing
direction
slightly.
I
know
we
have
confidence
in
the
way,
we're
doing
that,
some
of
the
trainings
we've
done
and
and
and
the
following
the
comp
plan.
The
new
comp
plan
that
we
have
where
is
this
was
a
it
started
as
a
something,
and
it
still
is
a
recommendation
that
started
with
the
TRB
without
analysis.
F
The
recode
laredo
is
something
that
the
planning
department
in
the
building
department
are
leading
as
staff,
and
we
have
consultants
on
board
expert
consultants
to
help
us
well
we're
taking
ownership
of
it.
We're
leading
a
snap
we're
asking
for
18
months
to
really
review
this
to
look
at
best
practices
from
across
the
country.
We
have
legal
experts
to
help
us
with
review
of
that
code
to
make
sure
it's
resilient.
So
is
it
gonna
be
perfect?
No,
but
we
can
definitely
get
a
way
improved
product
over
what
we
have
our
existing
line
of
element
code.
F
F
M
F
F
S
J
G
G
F
A
Normally,
if
I
remember
correctly,
the
ordinance
says
it's
going
to
be
submitted
to
us
first,
but
I
realize
the
transition
here.
Okay,
but
I
think
it
is
important
for
this
body
here
to
at
least
take
a
look
at
that
CIP
that
has
been
proposed
in
the
budget.
I
know
that
part
of
our
job
also
is
to
look
at
it
and
make
recommendations,
sometimes
on
because
of
what
we've
seen
here
on
potential
items
that
maybe
have
been
missed
and
they're
not.