►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 060222
Description
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 060222
A
A
A
A
A
D
B
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
for
the
record
we
have
eric
chavis
and
marlin
salazar
as
the
owner
applicant,
our
property
location
lot.
One
block
13
those
presidents
unit,
two
located
at
1816
avenida,
los
presidos
presidentes
zone
changes
from
an
r1
to
an
r2
proposed
used
as
a
duplex.
Better
sense
is
25
inside
the
200
feet
notice.
We
have
one
against
outside
200k
notice.
We
have
one
against
location
view.
A
G
G
C
C
H
G
To
the
city
of
loreto
planning,
this
is
a
letter
expressing
opposition
to
the
changes
in
zoning.
I
am
in
the
process
of
making
additions
and
renovations
to
my
residents,
which
include
building
a
pool.
I
have
received
a
copy
of
the
proposed
zoning
changes
through
mail.
After
reading
these
materials,
I
became
very
concerned
about
my
renovations
and
additions.
I
do
not
want
my
family's
privacy
and
safety
to
be
of
concern.
G
I
went
ahead
and
spoke
to
several
of
my
neighbors
while
they
appeared
to
be
concerned
about
the
impact
of
these
changes,
and
I
am
more
concerned
about
the
effect
of
the
multi-family
duplex
having
visible
access
to
my
backyard,
where
my
family
will
be
enjoying
and
spending
time.
In
addition,
my
opposition,
this,
in
addition
to
my
opposition.
This
will
create
a
safety
matter
for
my
family
and
our
neighbors,
due
to
not
knowing
who
will
be
residing
in
this
duplex
as
there
will
be
no
stable
family
reciting
and
multiple
families
entering
the
residence.
G
In
addition
to
my
opposition,
rezoning
would
not
be
consistent
with
the
current
uses
and
the
surrounding
area
of
our
location.
I
am
aware
that
there
is
an
r1,
a
zoning
to
the
north
of
our
residence,
and
there
is
r2
zoning
to
the
west
of
our
residence,
which
are
not
consistent
with
our
area.
Therefore,
I
have
decided
to
present
myself
on
behalf
of
my
neighbors
asking
the
city
of
loredo
planning
board
to
withdraw
the
rezoning
r2
proposal
of
1816
of
any
of
those
presidents.
I
B
A
B
So
the
what
we
looked
at
was
the
size
of
a
lot
to
begin
with.
Does
it
meet
the
criteria
for
that?
And
yes,
it
does
it's
also
at
los
precientes
and
pine
on
the
corner,
which
we
felt
was
a
good
mix
for
this
area.
Our
comprehensive
plan
is,
is
looking
to
to
kind
of
enhance
the
area
with
businesses
with
change
of
of
residential
and
not
just
maintain
just
r1
we're
trying
to
to
incorporate
our
new
comprehensive
plan
into
this.
B
A
F
This
is
what
we
proposed
to
the
building
department,
which
has
for
the
square
footage
of
the
lot
and
it
permitted
to
a
residential
duplex.
It
would
be
a
two
two
build
two
buildings
together,
it'll
be
a
three
a
three
two
and
a
three
two
and
it'll
it'll
have
its
independent
parking
and
it
would
have
an
entrance
to
those
presidents
and
the
entrance
through
pine
street,
with
our
gardening
area
and.
F
I
I
All
right
there's
a
question
here
from
commissioner:
would
this
duplex
be
for
sale
or
for
rent?
Okay,
when
you
purchased
the
lot
the
lot
you
purchased
your
you
knew
when
you
purchased
it
it
was.
It
was
an
r1
zone.
Correct,
yes,
sir
okay,
my
struggle
here
is
that
it's
an
it's
an
r1
which
was
intended
to
be
for
single
families
if,
if
it
was
gonna
be
for,
if
you
were
to
be
selling
it
for
purchase,
then
you'd
have
more
stability.
The
fact
that
it's
rental
there's
a
lot
of
turnover.
D
F
F
M
F
K
D
G
They
might
be
they're,
so
we
can
see
elevations
of
different
angles
of
the
house.
So
if
I
stand
in
my
backyard,
I
can
see
they're
they're
blocked.
So
as
soon
as
we
build
something,
I
can
see
everything
because
if
I
took
my
backpaper
I
cannot
see
his
face
but
to
her
cutting
corner.
I
can
see
her
face
daddy,
so
it's
just
different
elevations
around
that
stone.
Where
I
can.
I
can.
C
O
F
J
E
A
L
A
E
Engineering
applicant
representative
to
our
property
location,
approximately
2.3,
acres,
located
east
of
cuatro,
vientos,
road
and
west
of
airport
drive
zone
change,
requests.
We
have
front,
we
have
it
from
an
r1a
to
b4
proposed
use
commercial.
The
applicant
did
not
specify
the
specific
proposed
use
letter
sent
26,
none
for
none
against
location.
L
A
N
N
C
A
A
M
A
M
P
Good
evening,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
commission,
jeff
puig
kci
technologies
representing
the
applicant.
We
concur
with
all
the
comments.
However,
we're
still
working
wanted
to
to
note
that
the
family
had
already
donated
a
significant
amount
of
parkland
directly
adjacent
to
their
track
that
they
are
currently
developing,
and
that
would
be
the
consideration
for
that.
Donation
would
be
in
lieu
of
park
fees
and
park.
Dedication
requirement
because
it
was
done
prior
to
the
development.
P
Was
going
to
happen,
they
have
the
the
agreement
with
the
dedication,
so
we're
looking
into
the
specific
language
of
that
agreement.
To.
I
just
wanted
to
to
note
that
we're
looking
into
that
they
have
already
donated
a
significant
amount
of
land
and
that
we
will
be
presenting
that
to
the
parks
department
board.
A
I
A
K
L
A
Let
me
ask,
let
me
tell
you
why
I'm
asking
the
question
you're
asking
the
question
because
of
the
comment
of
engineering
on
the
improved
street:
there's
no
improved
street
going
into
the
subdivision.
That's
why
I
was
asking
the
question
because
if
I
remember
correctly
estrella
road
most
of
that
is
in
the
county.
A
A
I
Q
And
it's
since
it
is
within
the
county,
so
we
will
visit
with
the
county
and
make
sure
that
the
road
is
built
to
county
standards,
but
that's
not
contained
in
the
plot
that
that
that
is
through.
Our
road
is
not
at
the
plate,
we're
just
connecting
to
it.
No,
I
realize
that
so
we
will,
we
will
have
to
pave
it,
and
then
we
will
move
forward
with
with
a
one-stop
shop
for
everything
else
yeah
outside
yeah
with
what's
in
within
the
city,
but
it's
a
coordination.
A
C
Q
A
A
Q
A
L
So,
mr
chairman,
in
the
comments
from
planning,
we
did
call
out
specifically
the
volume
page
for
the
dedication
instrument
of
the
60
feet.
So
it
is,
it
is
in
the
back
of
the
staff
comments
we
do
have
that
there
now
in
the
part
of
tanquesitos
the
the
streets
leading
up
to
it
are
50
foot
wide,
but
the
huawei
hitting
nevada
mistaken
is
at
70.
yeah.
So.
L
L
A
A
Q
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Q
H
H
A
A
K
A
I
mean
the
planning
department
identified
an
issue
like
I
think
their
comment
was
the
right-of-way
with
the
street
design
comply
with
the
future
therapy
plans,
and
I
guess
their
comment
was
intended
to
make
sure
that
the
location
of
this
thing
was
out
of
the
right
way.
Is
that
correct
properly
set
back
right?
You
have
any
problems.
Apologies
for
that
right!
Oh
yes,.
I
C
A
R
A
A
I
A
K
N
D
A
N
A
K
A
Know
make
a
reasonably
intelligent
decision
to
make
this
thing
go
forward,
and
and
that's
why
I
asked
you
how
long
you've
had
this
too,
I
mean,
and
I'm
also
going
to
ask
the
staff
that
we
should
be.
You
guys
see
this
come
on.
I
mean
you
shouldn't,
have
put
this
on
the
agenda
until
this
thing
got
squared
away,
because
it
is
I
mean
I
I
knew
where
it
was,
but
I
saw
this
and
I'm
going
understood.
A
So
I'm
just
putting
everybody
on
notice
that
the
next
time
I'm
probably
going
to
table
the
item,
if
it's
not
presented
correctly
double
check
that
I'm
just
putting
everybody
on
notice
right
now.
I
think
this.
This
commission
here
needs
the
best
information
available
to
them,
so
that
you
know
we
can
make
the
best
decision.
That's
correct!
Agree!
Thank
you
all
right.
What
are
the
wishes
of
the
commission?
So
we
have
a
motion
by
commissioner.
H
A
K
N
D
C
N
N
R
A
K
O
C
C
That
for
belmont
instance,
with
the
back
end
of
the
lots
facing
man
road,
nobody
takes
care
of
that
frontage,
so
it
all
falls
to
the
city.
So
it
requires
more
maintenance
and
so
you're
accepting
responsibility
for
lots
but
you're,
adding
burden
to
the
maintenance
of
the
city.
You
see
and
you
pay
that
forever.
A
A
C
But
whose
responsibility
is
it
to
make
the
piece
of
the
property
where
you
put
the
fence
to
the
roadway
who's
going
to
maintain
that
cool?
Is
there
a
section
where,
like
when
you
do
drainage
ditches,
the
developer
has
to
maintain
the
drainage
ditches
for
a
certain
amount
of
time,
or
does
it
immediately
fall
to
the
city
to
maintain
it?
If
I'm
not.