►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Committee Workshop Meeting 091219
Description
Planning and Zoning Committee Workshop Meeting 091219
A
B
A
Nick
no
I
got
it.
I
know
that
Johnny
is
out
of
town
in
the
valley
and
then
almost
Lowell
medias
send
me
a
text
that
he
had
an
emergency
situation
come
up
about
an
hour
ago.
We
won't
be
able
to
make
it
so
excuse
me,
make
a
motion
to
excuse
a
motion
and
a
second
all
those
in
favor
aye.
Well,
she
carries
all
right.
We
have
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance
peace.
A
All
right
there
are
no
citizens
comments
at
this
time.
Is
that
correct?
That
is
correct
all
right,
so
we're
going
to
move
right
into
our
workshop
discussion
of
possible
action
regarding
the
revision
of
the
city
of
Loyola
development
code,
chapter
24,
article
4
and
5
for
the
purpose
of
creating
a
specific
use
own
and
overlay
zone,
RS
ozone
and
any
matters
incident
there
all
right.
Yes,
sir,
all.
D
D
Seven
of
the
nine
commission
members.
We
just
had
a
historic,
landmark
board
where
we
didn't
make
corn
again
so
I
want
to.
Thank
you
all
for
your
service
that
you're
here
tonight,
I'm
gonna
review
very
quickly.
What
we
did
last
time
for
the
sake
of
anybody
over
in
the
public
is
listening.
I'll
go
through
that
very
quickly,
though,
and
then
we
can
get
into
a
discussion
on
some
of
the
details
that
you
want.
D
D
Now,
the
comprehensive
plan
there
has
been
a
proposal
to
change
setbacks
in
the
entire
city,
we'll
get
to
that.
That
is
option,
one
that
is
currently
being
considered
by
the
council.
We
are
providing
them
with
your
recommendation,
an
option
number
two
and
that
would
be
to
apply
setbacks
on
a
smaller
scale.
The
Viva
Lorado
Comprehensive
Plan
does
give
direction
on
reducing
setbacks.
D
It
calls
for
reducing
setbacks
into
areas
in
our
in
business
districts
and
also
in
newer
development,
where
somebody
is
proposing
a
new
urban
style
development
where
they
want
to
move
development
closer
to
the
street.
Well,
guess
what
we
already
have
that
zone
we're
going
to
talk
about
that
today,
that's
already
in
existence,
as
I
said
last
time
we
have
a
PUD
zone,
a
Planned
Unit
development
zone
already
in
place,
or
someone
could
do
that
so
really
to
comply
with
the
comp
plan.
D
That
is
not
something
that
the
comp
plan
calls
for,
although
in
spirit
the
comp
plan
does
allow
does
ask
us
to
look
at
more
creative
sales
development,
allowing
people
to
be
more
to
utilize,
their
property
more,
but
but
not
calling
for
a
change.
Citywide
now
I
pulled
up
the
goals
and
policies
of
the
housing
chapter.
Just
so
we
can
examine
it.
Missioner
Flores
did
you
have
something
last
time
you
mentioned.
That
would
be
good
that
we
take
a
look
at
the
goal.
F
E
F
D
Goals
in
the
other
sections,
there
was
nothing
that
directly
applied,
I
think
the
most
application
that
we
get.
That
gives
us
guidance
on
why
we
would
want
to
reduce
effects
or
when
we're
considering
it
other
things.
We
should
consider
the
investing
in
legacy
neighborhoods
the
goal
to
develop
legacy
neighborhoods
program
to
ensure
that
historic
and
culturally
significant
neighborhoods
thrive,
I
think
reading
through
that
goal.
In
the
policy.
D
If
we
applied
this
reduce
setback
overlay
zone,
you
would
be
able
to
reduce
the
setbacks
in
neighborhoods
like
LS
deca,
and
it
wouldn't
be
out
of
character
with
what's
already
there
and
so
I
think
when
we're
considering
our
older
neighborhoods,
when
we're
considering
considering
neighborhoods,
that
that
already
have
a
number
of
properties
like
that,
and
that
would
be
a
good
fit.
That
would
be
a
good
example
of
an
area
of
town
or
we
could
apply
seven.
D
However,
there
are
many
parts
of
town
that
do
not
have
that
do
not
have
reduced
setbacks,
where
the
expectation
in
that
neighborhood
is
is
that
a
home,
a
building
is
set
back
a
certain
distance
and
residents
purchased
a
home
in
those
areas.
With
that
expectation,
I
may
disagree,
I
mean
it
like
that
style
of
development.
However,
the
person
who
made
their
investment,
the
neighbors
is
expecting
that
to
remain
the
same.
D
In
addition,
courts
the
the
courts
who
have
had
litigation
against
the
joys,
because
residents
have
felt
that
the
enjoys
were
too
restrictive,
have
ruled
in
favor
of
those
residents
wanting
them
to
be
less
restrictive
and
have
sided
with
them.
Saying
that
HOAs
cannot
be
so
restrictive,
especially
where
the
city
is
less
restrictive,
on
uncertain
aspects
of
development
such
as
setbacks.
So
the
statement
that
well,
this
will
only
apply
this
one.
If
you
live
in
an
HOA
neighborhood,
isn't
don't
worry
about
it
know
this
will
impact
the
majority
of
the
city.
D
We
had
over
a
dozen
meetings
this
this
week
with
builders
developers,
engineers,
architects,
with
all
those
entities
that
are
directly
involved
with
development
in
the
city,
including
the
departments
in
the
city
and
other
organizations
such
as
Housing
Authority,
who
brought
them
all
together,
and
we
had
some
really
great
discussions.
This
was
the
beginning
of
the
process
of
Rico
in
Laredo.
D
It's
not
wasn't
the
end
of
input,
but
the
beginning
of
that,
and
we're
very
much
engaged
in
that
process
now
and
starting
to
assess
our
code
and
taking
that
input
and
and
digging
down
into
it,
want
to
make
a
couple
of
important
points
that
changing
impacts.
Changing
setbacks
may
seem
like
a
simple
thing:
oh
we're
just
okay,
so
you
can
build
a
little
closer
to
property
laughs,
but
there
aren't
many
things
we
need
to
consider.
We
brought
this
up
before
some
of
the
more
important
ones
we're
considering
how
it's
going
to
impact
stormwater.
D
How
would
how
would
impact
height
limitations
if
you're
gonna
build
closer
to
the
line?
Is
it
okay
that
you
have
a
two-story
in
the
rear
that
would
be
looking
into
someone
else's
backyard?
The
parking
regulations?
How
is
it
going
to
impact
on
street
parking
in
neighborhoods,
where
that
may
already
be
an
issue,
and
if
we're
allowing
more
buildable
area,
are
we
pushing
more
cars
to
the
street
that
may
cause
a
concern
with
fire
who
has
to
access
these
streets?
D
Ok,
so
just
to
review
what
what
option
1
was
and
where
it's
at
option
1
was
changing.
The
setback
citywide
based
on
the
dimensional
standards
table
that
you
see
before
you,
and
that
was
brought
to
you
a
few
times.
It
was
tabled
a
few
times
and
we've
brought
finally
about
a
month
and
a
half
two
months
ago.
I
don't
want
the
nap
ago
and
you
provided
a
recommendation,
a
unanimous
negative
recommendation
to
Council,
and
why
did
you
do
that?
Because
there
was
no
real
public
involvement.
D
Many
of
the
citizens
outside
in
Laredo
do
not
know
that
this
is
happening
and
there
was
no
thorough
analysis
of
the
impact,
and
so
we
we
don't.
We
have
not
had
the
ability
to
analyze
every
part
of
the
city.
This
would
impact.
I
will
take
too
much
to
have
time
to
be
able
to
do
that
or
it
would
take
a
long
time
either
way.
We
have
not
been
able
to
do
that
adequate
analysis.
So
that's
why
you
provide
a
unanimous
negative
recommendation
to
council
who's.
Actually,
six
to
one
well.
D
Now,
of
course,
the
benefit
is,
and
those
that
are
were
proponents
of
this
citywide
option
said
oh
well,
but
yeah,
but
we
can
effect
change
very
quickly.
Yes,
but
often
do
you
do
not
want
to
do
that
effecting
change
quickly,
oftentimes
as
a
negative
impact
on
a
city
so
option
two,
which
is
what
I
brought
you
in
your
last
meeting
and
what
I'm
bringing
you
again
in
this
meeting
and
what
I'm
asking
for
recommendation
to
Council
tonight
would
be
a
reduced
setback
overlay
district.
D
Now,
our
current
land
development
code
already
has
the
ability
to
create
overlay
districts.
We
have
five
or
six
already
in
our
land
development
code,
one
of
which
is
a
PUD,
an
urban
development
district
which
I'll
talk
about
in
just
a
second.
So
this
would
not
be
something
new.
This
would
be
number
six
or
seven
of
our
current
overlay
districts
and
what
this
would
do
would
apply
the
same
dimensional
standards
that
were
proposed
citywide,
but
in
an
overlay
zone.
The
benefits
of
this
is
that
it
would
allow
for
notice
to
the
public.
D
D
So
what
are
the
provisions
of
the
RS
ozone?
Several
of
these?
We
talked
about
last
time,
but
I
worked
through
some
and
had
some
discussions,
and
this
is
my
proposal
now.
If
you
have
a
recommendation
to
change
some
of
these,
we
can.
But
this
is
my
this
would
be
my
recommendation
going
forward.
First
of
all,
the
setbacks
would
be
the
same.
They
be
rear.
Five
five-foot
setbacks
on
the
rear.
The
site
would
remain.
Five,
which
already
is
in
front,
would
be
ten
feet.
D
That's
ten
feet
for
residential
home,
although
carports
can
no
currents
can
go,
carpets
front
can
go
to
the
property
line.
Now,
if
you
look
at
the
standard
being
for
the
dimensional
standards
that
are
being
proposed,
there
are
a
few
zones
where
it's
slightly
different
than
that
and
on
corner
Lots
the
front
wouldn't
be
ten
feet.
It
would
be
20
feet
so,
basically
I'm
not
proposing
anything
new.
What
you
looked
over
for
the
citywide
change
is
the
same.
D
That
would
apply
the
to
be
reduced
setback,
overlay
district,
so
you've
seen
this
before
actually
you've
seen
it
three
or
four
times
now
as
a
commission,
and
so
this
is
I'm
not
suggesting
any
changes
to
what's
already
been
suggested
so,
but
for
most
properties
it
would
be
rear
five
and
front
ten,
except
on
the
corner
front
point
now
the
normal
zone
change
process
would
apply.
An
applicant
would
make
an
application.
D
We
do
often
some
people
hear
about
it
a
month
or
two
later
or
a
year
to
there
what
you
change
it
I
didn't
know,
change
and
I'm.
Okay,
that
we
don't.
When
we
change
things
that
when
we
make
big
changes,
then
the
standard
I
think
should
go
up.
We
really
do
need
to
make
sure
that
people
get
noticed
and
that
they
agree.
I
feel
that
changing
setbacks.
D
It's
an
impact
not
only
to
your
enjoyment
use
of
that
property,
but
also
the
value
of
your
property
may
be
positively,
but
I
would
I
would
guess
in
some
cases
negatively
and
so
I
think
the
standard
should
here
be
higher,
and
that
is
why
I'm
asking
I'm
proposing
that
50%
of
the
property
owners
demonstrate
their
support.
My
signature
and
their
property
address
now.
B
D
D
Why
we
don't
want
to
do
that
is
because,
when
we
make
land-use
changes
we
want
them
to
be
fair
and
it's
not
fair
when
it's
what's
called
spot
zoning,
when
we
zone
a
house
or
a
property
at
time,
we
are
much
more
likely
to
be
arbitrary
and
capricious
and
a
ruling
of
why
we're
applying
that.
So
it's
fairer
if
we
apply
it
to
larger
areas
at
a
time,
and
we
have
reasons
for
why
we're
doing
it.
D
So
my
proposal
is
that
the
new,
the
new
RSO
district,
so
if
you're
applying
an
RSO
district
I'll
reduce
that
back
overlay
district
for
the
first
time
it
would
be
a
minimum,
it
would
be
greater
than
one
hundred
residential
lots
with
existing
structures.
Now,
if
you
read
through
the
ordinance,
the
proposed
ordinance
you'll
find
that
it's
okay.
If
there
are
a
few
vacant
lots
in
there,
you
know
if
you
were
to
do
it,
a
part
of
the
inner
city.
D
Maybe
there
are
a
few
vacant
lots,
but
the
proposed
ordinance
makes
it
clear
those
couldn't
be
included
in
the
number.
You
would
count,
and
at
least
have
enough
a
hundred
greater
than
a
hundred
properties
with
existing
residential
properties
with
existing
structures.
In
other
words,
the
in
the
spirit
of
this
is
to
apply
to
existing
residential,
not
to
new
right,
not
to
unknot
for
new
development
we'll
get
to
that
in
just
a
second.
D
Now,
if
you
have
an
existing,
reduce
setback,
overlay
district-
and
you
want
to
expand
that-
then
this
as
I've
written
it,
the
proposal
would
allow
you
to
expand
it
by
home.
Anytime,
I
will
be
getting
around
the
spirit
of
this.
You
can
expand
it
by
50
at
a
time,
and
so
what
we
want,
our
districts
that
are
larger
in
size,
where
staff
can
make
an
assessment,
and
that's
the
final
requirement
of
this-
that's
not
only
with
staff,
give
their
normal
recommendation,
but
that
they
would
be
of
an
additional
recommendation
based
on
these
issues.
D
Looking
at
these
issues
and
saying
yes
for
this
neighborhood,
this
makes
sense,
because
our
assessment
is,
there
will
not
be
significant
issues
with
these
impacts
or
no
as
staff.
In
our
analysis,
we
do
not
feel
that
it
would
apply
well
to
this
into
these
neighborhoods
to
these
homes,
because
of
these
impacts
to
these
issues.
D
Now,
let
me
let
me
say
something
about
the
PUD,
the
Planned
Unit
development
overlay
district,
which
we
already
have
in
place.
Some
have
said
the
some
are
proposing
wealthy.
The
citywide
changed
to
the
setbacks
was
given
to
us
as
oh.
This
is
for
somebody
that
already
has
a
home.
Maybe
just
wants
to
expand
it.
Maybe
they
want
to
make
their
home
a
little
bigger
and
they
don't
have
to
buy
another
home
to
do
it.
So
why
don't
we
allow
them
to
build
more
on
their
property?
I'm?
D
Fine
with
that,
but
I
also
feel
that
this
is
that
the
proponents
of
the
citywide
are
also
hoping
to
use
this
for
new
development.
Now,
why
would
they
if
we
already
have
a
PUD
zone,
a
PUD
overlay
zone,
where
they
could
do
this,
because
the
PUD
zone
does
allow
for
you
to
change
the
setbacks?
In
fact,
I'll
show
you.
D
We
have
some
beauties
that
have
been
built
in
the
city
with
zero,
something,
but
when
you
do
that,
the
requirements
of
how
you
build
are
a
little
higher
because
as
staff
were
assessing
it
we're
saying,
okay
well,
parking
is
clearly
going
to
be
an
issue
if
you're
have
build
reviewing
issues,
if
you're
increasing
the
buildable
area
on
these
small
Lots.
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
you
provide
adequate
parking
and
make
the
streets
a
little
wider.
It
all
of
that
increases
the
cost
of
new
development.
D
So
I
want
to
make
very
clear
that
we
are
sympathetic
to
existing
residential
homeowners
who
are
in
favor
of
the
billable
area
and
reducing
their
setbacks.
But
we
should
not
allow
this
to
be
used
for
new
development,
the
reduced
setback,
because
that
would
be
a
workaround.
What
we
already
have:
here's
Concorde
heroes
hill
space
for
PUD.
You
can
see
that
the
setbacks
are
zero
on
the
sides
and
on
the
front
five
feet.
Well,
there's
parking
there!
So
it's
difficult
to
see
but
ten
feet
on
the
front
and
on
the
rear.
C
D
But
you
can
see
that
clearly
on
the
sides,
they've
gone,
2-0
setbacks
in
this
PUD.
They
did
this
legally.
This
is
our
Planned
Unit
development
overlay
district,
but
when
they
came
in
there
are
certain
requirements
and
I.
If
you're
curious,
we
can
talk
about
some
of
the
specifics
of
the
PUD
overlay
district,
because
there
are
a
few
requirements
that
make
development.
Well,
it's
a
trade-off.
There
are
some
things
that
maybe
they
don't
want
to
do,
but
you
know
you
get
more
lots.
D
You
get
more
buildings
and
you
get
more
home
on
the
same
amount
of
land,
so
they
make
a
little
developer.
Home
builder
would
make
a
little
more
as
well,
but
there's
some
trade-off
because
worth
we're
assessing
the
impact
of
having
more
home
on
smaller
lot.
Here's
South
Gate
subdivision
unit
to
a
and
phase
to
PUD.
D
You
can
see
here
again
reduced
setbacks,
shorter
than
five
feet
on
both
sides
and
in
some
of
these
homes
the
setback
on
the
front
and
the
rear
is
down
to
ten
feet
or
less,
as
you
can
see
some
other
homes
in
the
lower
left-hand
corner
with
the
beauty
district.
Just
just
want
to
show
you
that's.
This
is
the
opening
for
it.
It's
allowing
for
a
change
to
the
because
of
design
considerations.
D
It'll
justify
special
dimensional
standards,
among
other
things,
so
our
plan
unit
development
district
allows
for
creativity
not
just
for
setbacks,
but
also
for
other
things,
all
right
well
getting
back
to
the
next
steps
and
then
open
it
up
for
discussion
and
any
questions.
I
can
answer.
Currently
tiny
Commission
sent
a
recommendation
to
City
Council
for
the
citywide
option.
D
I
went
to
Council
and
not
for
action,
but
just
for
a
discussion
item
I
said:
okay,
any
Commission
has
given
a
negative
recommendation
for
the
citywide
option
for
setbacks,
but
before
you
make
a
decision
on
that,
I'll
bring
it
to
you,
but
I'm
also
planning
to
bring
you
another
option:
option
two,
which
is
a
reduced
setback,
overlay
district,
where
we
can
apply
this
to
smaller
parts
of
the
city.
For
those
that
want
it
and
they'll
be
noticed
and
they'll
hear
about
it.
D
Citizens
residents
will
know
property
owners
will
know,
and
the
feedback
from
them
was
yes
bring
us
back
to
options.
We
want
to
consider
too,
and
so
that's
what
I'm
doing,
but
before
I
can
do
that.
I
need
to
bring
it
before
the
Planning
Commission
for
you
to
provide
your
input
and,
ultimately
your
recommendation
to
City
Council.
D
So
with
your
recommendation
tonight,
Oh
notice
Tuesday
will
be
our
deadline
for
the
15
full
days
of
notice
to
the
public
in
the
newspaper
and
then
we'll
notice
it
and
it
will
go
to
the
October
7th
City
Council
meeting,
well
bring
them
these
two
options
again
and
after
having
given
them.
Those
two
options
they'll
be
able
to
take
a
vote
on
it
and
then,
if,
if
option
two
is
selected,
which
is
the
one
that
I
will
be
recommending,
then
that
just
allows
us
to
apply
it
to
certain
areas.
D
It
doesn't
create
it
yet
I
mean
it
creates
it
as
an
option.
It
doesn't
create
it
anywhere
in
the
city
yet
because
that
will
then
have
to
be
applied.
An
applicant
will
have
to
make
application
for
the
zone,
and
then
it
will
be
brought
back
to
you
for
recommendation
to
Council
so
say
somebody
wants
to
apply
it
to
somewhere
in
the
heights.
Well,
this
doesn't
create
it
anywhere.
D
Yet
so,
if
it
passes
and
now
it's
an
option
to
do
this
when
an
applicant
and
the
Heights
can
bring
it
to
the
city
for
a
zone
and
then
it'll
be
brought
before
you,
staff
will
be
able
to
assess.
Is
that
a
good?
Is
that
a
good
candidate?
Is
they?
Are
these
neighbor
as
they
are
these
homes?
Have
it
candidate
for
the
reduce
setback?
Overlay
district
will
provide
a
recommendation
to
Planning
Commission
you'll,
be
able
to
make
your
assessment
and
then
we'll
go.
Then
it
will
go
to
City
Council,
ultimately
to
make
their
decision.
D
F
E
D
It
should
be
required
for
the
applicant
to
demonstrate
to
the
Planning
Commission
City
Council
that
a
majority
of
property
owners
are
in
favor
of
the
establishment
of
the
district.
The
applicant
shall
demonstrate
this
majority
through
a
list
of
property
addresses
and
signatures
of
property
owners,
city
staff
or
resources
cannot
be
used
directly
or
indirectly
to
gather
the
required
signatures.
So
so
a
majority
of
property
owners.
D
G
The
way
it
would
work
is
that,
like,
let's
say,
I'm,
let's
use
this
hypothetical
I'm,
a
grandmother
and
a
grandfather
who
have
a
bunch
of
grandchildren.
Now
in
let's
say,
South,
Laredo
and
I
want
to
expand
the
prop
my
house,
we
can
now
I
want
to
accommodate
these
additional
family
members
that
I've
had
have
any
time
with
that
grandmother
and
grandfather
identify
the
hundred
homes
that
would
be
affected
where
they
have
no
it's.
How
would
they
determine
how
are
the
boundaries
of
who
needs
to
sign?
Determine
that.
G
G
That
I
hope
that
it
fails,
but
I
don't
think
that's
right.
That
doesn't
seem
like
that.
Sits
well
with
me
if
this
is
really
an
opportunity
to
allow
low
income
middle
income,
families
to
be
able
to
expand
parts
of
their
home
and
in
a
way
that
is
going
to
allow
them
to
have
a
higher
quality
of
life,
I'm
comfortable
with
that
what
I
guess
my
question
to
you
now
is:
if
that's
the
goal,
let's
say
we,
let's
say
we
state
that
as
the
goal,
that's
gonna
be
the
goal.
This
is
what
this
is
for
right.
G
Those
families
is
the
51
signature
requirement
really
as
important
as
51%.
The
signature
requirement
as
important
as
as
the
assessment
of
whether
that
property
will
affect
adjacent
properties,
because
what
I
want
to
do
is
I,
don't
want
to
create
a
I,
don't
want
to
create
a
requirement
that
is
just
a
difficult
burden
or
a
difficult
thing
to
overcome,
as
opposed
to
a
requirement
that
is
meaningful
and
it's
gonna.
G
It's
gonna,
it's
gonna
result
in
you
know
the
neighbors
not
not
having
the
problems
that
you
addressed
earlier
and
so
I,
don't
know
what
your
thoughts
are
about
that,
but
but
that
that
would
be
my
thought
is
that
whatever
the
requirement
should
be,
it
should
the
result
of
it
should
be
the
purpose
of
it,
and
the
result
should
be
that
they're
able
to
build
to
expand
the
house,
but
the
neighbors
are
not
affected
in
any
detrimental
life.
I
agree.
D
On
a
percent
and
if
you're
saying
Oh
Kirby,
are
you
trying
to
make
this
so
hard
that
it
can't
be
done?
I
would
say
no,
as
someone
who
served
as
a
neighbourhood,
chair
in
another
city
was
very
involved
in
what
happened
in
their
neighborhood
and
it
was
a
lower-income
neighborhood
where
I
lived.
This
requirement
isn't
something
you
can't
I
can't
do
it's
something
that
will
just
take
more
time
as
it
should,
because,
when
you're
making
changes
to
what
is
what
accounts
for
most
people's
biggest
investment,
then
I
think
the
standard
needs
to
behind.
D
H
C
E
H
D
And
says:
oh
I
want
to
build
here,
and
we
say
you
can't
build
there.
There
setback
requirements,
however,
we
have
a
reduced
setback
overlay
zone.
If
you
talk
to
some
of
your
neighbors
and
you
can
get
it
apply
it
to
your
neighborhood,
then
come
back
in
so
they
go
talk
to
a
few
neighbors
that
they
know
and
they
say,
hey
we're.
We
want
to
reduce
setbacks
because
we
want
to
build
a
little
more.
What
do
you
think
is
that
a
bad
idea
and
their
neighbor
says
no
I
like
that
I'd
like
to
do
that
too.
D
Okay.
Well,
the
blend
departments
told
us
that
we
need
to
gather
signatures
from
our
neighbors
to
say
that
we
can
apply
it
well.
Why
can't?
We
just
apply
it
to
a
couple
our
homes?
Well,
because
they
explained
that
it
needs
to
be
a
larger
district.
So
it's
fair
and
we
all
need
to
be
okay
with
that.
Okay.
Well,
let's
go
get
some
signatures.
Then
there
you
go
necessary.
C
D
Alternative
is
that
we
apply
a
top
down
without,
but
that
I
select,
some
neighborhoods
and
I,
say
I,
think
I
know
better
I'm
gonna
apply
it
no
I
think
we're
giving
citizens
an
option
for
them
the
birdies
in
them
yes,
but
we're
giving
them
the
option.
If
that's
something
they
want
it's
possible
and
will
direct
them
well,
I
will
advise
them
the
staff.
We
won't
help
them
gather
signatures,
but
will
advise
them
on
how
it
can
be.
C
Done:
okay,
so
that
somebody
does
this:
none
of
us
here
chose
option
one
so
that
going
on
that
rod
isn't
applicable
to
them
to
this
commission,
but
we
would
have
to
assume
that
every
home
would
build
out
to
the
maximum.
So
what
you
do
that
your
analysis?
You
would
need
to
make
the
assumption
that
every
home
is
going
to
maximize
that
footprint
and
the
burden
to
the
utilities,
and
everything
else
is
that
part
of
your
programming.
If.
D
D
Right
away,
what
could
so
I
want
to
bring
you
that
assessment
of
hey
if
we
consider
that
a
100
percent
of
the
buildable
area
is
utilized
in
this
neighborhood
here?
Are
the
potential
risks?
Now,
let's
say
it's
a
neighborhood
that
already
has
issues
with
water
retention
and
flooding,
then,
for
that
one
impact
I
would
say
this.
Neighborhood
is
not
a
good
candidate
for
increasing
buildable
area
because
we're
decreasing
the
permeable
surface
and
that's
gonna,
be
a
major
concern.
So
I
would
say
my
staff
recommendation
would
be
for
this.
Neighborhood
no
I.
C
Want
to
acknowledge
the
Commissioner
to
mr.
something
that
we
know
what
you're
trying
to
do
a
course,
and
we
appreciate
that
I
think
everybody
does
come
up
with
something
that's
workable.
That
can
be
looked
at
carefully.
So
that's
in
an
educated
decision
instead
of
a
blanket
decision,
so
I'm
there's!
No,
it's
just
a
quote:
teeth
is:
what
are
the
teeth
in
this?
It
is.
Are
there
teeth
in
this?
So
it
sounds.
It
sounds
nice,
you
know,
sounds
thoughtful
I've
applied
fairly
and
with
ethical
thought.
C
It
could
work,
but
what's
to
present,
because
we're
gonna
have
to
make
a
vote
and
so
we're
gonna
phew
that
we
just
all
stick
to
cat
to
say
no
on
everything
or
what
happens
when
this
girl's
the
council
can't
they
just
say
what
we're
going
to
prove
that,
but
we're
going
to
we're
gonna
make
changes
for
good
and
parse
it
out
now.
Yeah.
I
I
Concur
with
commissioner
pipeline
right:
they
think
you
did
an
outstanding
job
in
trying
to
come
up
with
a
lesser
of
two
evils
were
needed.
I
think
that
you
do
need
that
define
number
of
owners
better
or
more
clarification
like
one
owner
per
property,
because
you
have
several
properties
in
the
rate
of
where,
if
there's
multiple
owners-
and
you
don't
want
to
have
three
owners
on
one
property
die,
do
the
vote
of
one
owner
for
one
property.
I
I
would
also
think
that
you
would
want
this
area
that
you
cover
over
a
hundred
houses
to
be
rounded
up
to
complete
blocks,
because
many
times
what
we
have
is
will
have
zoning
and
on
one
portion
of
a
block,
and
it
doesn't
cover
the
complete
block
and
you
have
neighbors
wanting
to
piggyback.
So,
if
you're
going
to
do
it
finish,
the
complete
city
block
for
the
the
zone,
change
I'm,.
I
Has
to
have
a
minimum
the
100
can
have
rooftops
and
where
it
finishes,
the
complete
city
block,
that's
goofy,
buddy
and,
and
just
those
two
things
I
would
think.
You'd
want
to
I
personally
think
that
both
should
be
denied,
but
I
do
appreciate
you
trying
to
come
up
with
a
less
bad
idea
because
of
the
lack
of
planning,
the
lack
of
input,
because
I
do
think.
Mr.
I
Baumer
is
100
percent
correct
that
we
do
need
to
operate
under
the
assumption
that
a
hundred
percent
of
the
rooftops
will
change
and
do
our
studies
based
on
that,
because
we
have,
on
a
regular
basis,
plots
that
Marshall
Dominguez
comes
in
and
talks
about
how
one
of
your
examples-
the
concord
subdivision,
how
their
buses
can't
go
through
there
in
emergencies,
because
people
are
parked
throughout
the
streets.
They
can't
turn
around
their
their
engines
or
the
the
ambulances.
I
D
I
appreciate
that
make
one
quick
comment
of
that.
Then
other
comments,
but
the
the
reason
I
feel
comfortable
going
forward
with
this.
Definitely
over
the
single
adoption,
which
I
do
not
support
as
staff
either
is
because
we
will
we
through
Rico
Laredo.
We
are
having
an
opportunity
to
reassess
our
land
development
code.
So
if
this
goes,
it
is
put
in
place
and
we
do
find
that
there
are
issues
with
this.
We
will
over
the
next
18
months
as
we're
reviewing
the
line.
D
F
Thank
You,
commissioner
I
just
had
a
question
about
enforcement,
so
the
applicant
comes
and
follows
through
with
the
process
and
then
for
some
reason
we
denied,
or
we
just
don't,
approve
the
recommendation.
They
go
back
and
build
what
they
wanted
to
build
in
the
first
place,
or
not
go
through
the
process
and
still
build
out.
So
what
importance
we
haven't
placed
an
out
would
still
be
the
same.
Okay
enforcement.
D
F
H
Gonna,
stop
yes,
I'm
a
victory,
not
a
cycling
building
director,
typically
like
at
occurrence
in
error.
Right
now,
with
current
ordinances
and
setbacks,
we've
had
challenges
where
a
customer
wants
to
come
in
with
a
certain
concept
and
unfortunately
the
setback
doesn't
come
in
but
doesn't
allow
him
to
do
what
they
want
to
do.
We
in
our
minds,
we
just
keep
vigilant
that
a
there's,
an
intent
there
and
and
so
on
the
light
enforcement.
H
The
three
warrants
have
been
the
eyes
where
we
that's
how
we've
really
caught
some
improvements
without
a
permit
or
trying
to
do
something
that
they're
not
supposed
to
do,
but
the
ones
that
are
specifically
they
would
come
in,
and
they're
denied
or
they're
not
allowed
to
do.
We
do
monitor
them
and
sure
enough.
There's
a
couple
of
that
that
they'll
get
in
trouble
once
we
do
cite
them,
though.
What
they're
supposed
to
do
they're
in
violation,
is
to
put
up
demolition
permanent
and
demolish
whatever
they've
done
extra.
H
A
very
extreme
cases,
which
happens
a
few
times
is
that
a
local
municipal
court
will
push
and
then
their
citations.
They
say
they
don't
comply
it
does.
There
are
some
levels
that
get
more
aggressive
where
it
gets
into
an
injunction
level
that
that
level,
it's
it's
their
number
that
have
happened
to
that
instance,
but
we
do
try
our
best
to
really
have
that
up
or
comply,
and
so
that's
kind
of
in
a
nutshell
and.
H
For
Amorian,
usually
I'll
be
honest
with
you
like,
even
for
the
building
permit,
you
know
when
we
have
an
item
or
get
tonight.
We
toddlers
own
an
office,
a
it's,
a
local,
keep
an
eye
on
it
and
and,
like
I
said,
there's
a
few
instances
where
they
dually
do
it
and
that's
where
citations
come
in.
Thank
you.
G
G
Okay,
I
did
have
a
few
questions
and
comments.
If
you
look
at
section
27,
I'm,
sorry,
twenty
four
point,
seven,
five
point:
four
in
number
paragraph,
one
at
the
end
you
say:
city,
staff
and
resources
cannot
be
used
directly
or
indirectly
to
gather
the
required
signatures.
I
think
I
understand
what
you're
trying
to
do
with
that,
but
I
kind
of
feel
that.
G
I
would
ask
you
to
consider
ricans
that
or
think
about
that.
You
know
you
know
again.
I
agree,
you
know,
Fernanda
should
not
be
going
and
knocking
on
doors.
Okay,
please
sign
I,
think
that's
what
this
means
now,
but
but
I
think
that
Kirby
should
be
at
the
at
the
community.
You
know
holding
a
community
meeting.
You
know
talking
to
the
residents
and
talking
about
what
the
overlay
district
means
and
not
having
to
come
here
to
a
planning
zoning
meeting,
but
going
there
and
providing
that
information
there.
G
So
I
don't
know
if
you
can,
if
you
can,
if
you
can
find
the
middle
between
those
two
ideas.
The
second
thing
is
says
here
at
the
bottom
of
paragraph.
Twenty
four
point:
seven
five
point
three.
It
says,
however,
the
number
of
vacant
lots
shall
not
exceed
a
number
greater
than
five
percent
of
the
door
of
lots
in
the
district
again.
Another
goal
of
the
housing
section
of
the
comp
plan
is
to
encourage
infield
development.
G
D
G
Right,
however,
maybe
including
a
significant
amount
of
vacant
land
that
that
may
have
the
effect
or
the
benefit
of
development
of
the
vacant
land,
which
is
only
goals
of
the
housing
section
of
this
so
I.
Don't
that
something
to
think
about
okay
and
then
the
last
thing
is:
where
does
where
does
it
say
within
this
ordinance
that
new
development
is
being
excluded?
What
is
it
directly
saving?
That's.
D
G
G
So
I
say
to
you
what
I'm
saying
is
you
may
have
a
development,
that's
partially
developed
right,
but
it's
a
new
development
there's
still
new
development
going
on
in
the
house
in
that
neighborhood
and
they
might
say
well
technically
we
already
have
existing
development
in
this
incomplete
development
in
this
neighborhood.
That's
not
not
completely
like
a
subdivision,
for
instance,
yeah
right,
so
they
might
say
well,
technically,
we
may
fall
into
so
I
think
well.
I
think
you
would
want
to
have
a
more
express
exclusion.
Well,.
D
A
D
A
What
he's
saying
he's
saying
it's
a
new
subdivision
partially
build
out
100
lot
subdivision
and
I've
got
30
houses
on
it.
Residential
structure
is
already
on
it.
Okay
and
one
of
them
decides
to
want
to
do
that.
The
other
Lots
are
still
owned
by
the
Builder,
so
it
becomes
a
very
simple
tool
to
change
that
believe.
That's
what
you're.
G
D
B
D
G
To
be
from
you
develop
what
I'm
saying
is
look
so
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is
there's
so
many
times
that
I've
been
in
court,
where
we
say
you
know
they
just
clarified
this
more.
We
wouldn't
have
this
very
expensive
problem
right.
So
what
I'm
saying
is
we're
here
now
this
is
the
time
to
clarify
it.
I
think
you
need
to
have
a
more
concrete
statement.
My
recommendation
is
that
you
have
a
more
concrete
statement
about
what's
being
excluded,
know.
What's
type
of
development
is
physics.
D
C
Eggman
and
along
that
similar
lines,
they're
just
like
what's
to
prevent
it,
have
you
covered
it?
I
didn't
catch
it,
let's
prevent
gerrymandering
where
this
subdivision,
if
it's
a
part
of
it,
I'm
gonna,
make
this
up.
It's
the
51
homes
here
and
the
crosses
over
Chisholm
into
this
other
section.
You
different,
neighborhoods
different
styles
in
neighborhoods.
How
is
that?
How
are
those
homeowners
protected.
D
H
D
G
And
that's
a
good
point
and
also,
let
me
think
about
when
you
come
in
on
a
fish.
Imagine
also
that
the
Kirby
statement
is
no
longer
here
and
we
have
another
Planning
Director
10
years
from
now.
You
know
right
and
it's
writing
it
in
such
a
way
that
you
know
it's
clear,
there's
clarity,
20
years
for
35
years,
did
you
see
my
point?
You
see
his
point.
I'm
sorry
say
it
again.
His
point
is
that
you're
being
ethical
in
in
the
way
that
you're
trying
to
understand
it
and
laid
out
what
he's
saying
it?
G
D
C
A
You
did
a
very
good
job
if
I
may
and
trying
to
come
up
with
something
real,
quick
I
have
a
big
concern.
The
concern
is
obviously
if
we
do
an
option
to
recommendation,
the
council
can
look
at
option
two
and
say
well.
You
know
what
I
think
that
the
51%
signatures
are
very
burdensome
on.
The
citizens
were
eliminated,
never
turned
real,
quick
and,
and
then
it's
an
open.
If
you
go
back
to
option
one
really,
that's
what
you
do.
That's
my
concern,
but
that's
just
me.
That's
just
me,
I'll
Commissioner
that
we
have
force.
A
We
cannot
foresee.
What's
going
to
happen,
you
know
I
mean
council
is
the
council.
The
Commission
is
two
separate
bodies
and
I
know.
What
we
need
to
do.
I
know
that
it
is
the
duty
of
this
commission
to
make
a
recommendation
either
for
Burger
King's
and
then
the
council
will,
you
know,
do
whatever
they
feel
is
necessary
to
do
what
they
want
to
do
now.
I
do
have
a
commissioner
rule
yeah.
J
I,
just
have
one
thing
that
I
know
some
of
the
staff
did
they're
looking
into
like
the
burden
that
rule
calls
on
storm
water
utility
street
parkings,
but
a
lot
of
things
like
I'm.
My
input
was
coming
more
like
as
a
first
responder,
with
my
background
of
law
enforcement.
There's
a
lot
of
statistics
that
I
see
that
I
can
right
away.
J
J
My
worst
nightmare
is
that
we
have
to
come
to
one
of
these
houses
where
the
front
is
completely
there's
no
axis.
So
now
we
have
to
access
through
the
side
and
you're
talking
about
a
five
seat,
setback
all
the
way
around
and
there's
something
that
we
face
as
long
for
him
as
a
fatal
funnel.
Basically,
in
order
for
us
to
access
that
house,
you
put
the
entire
law
enforcement
stack
risk
at
risk,
and
that's
in
the
law
enforcement
aspect
now
a
picture.
J
There
is
a
fire
now
I'm
thinking
about
the
firemen
that
have
to
let's
say
the
front
of
the
house
is
not
able
to
be
accessed.
They
have
to
go
into
the
back
of
the
house
same
scenario
now:
they're
fighting
a
fire
with
only
five
feet
to
work
and,
let's
say
something
happens,
and
now
they're
trapped
within
five
feet.
You
know
front
back,
and,
and
now
what
do
they
do
now
that
I'm
fighting
to
jump
the
fence
to
get
away
from
the
fire?
J
Or
you
know
those
are
things
that
I
wish
would
also
be
incorporated
considered
into
that.
My
next
thing
would
be
societal
impact
and
this
might
be
way
off
the
spectrum.
But
it's
something
to
consider
because
right
away,
when
I
see
this
I
do
see
that
it's
going
to
impact
the
community,
that's
a
maybe
economically
challenged.
So
they're
gonna
want
to
do
that
other
than
purchase
a
brand
new
home
with
five
rooms
to
accommodate
their
family.
J
The
more
feasible
thing
is
going
to
be
to
it's
to
expand,
but
what
that
does
I
think
about
statistics
as
far
as
like
that
effect,
children
and
I
see
how
family
groups
or
friends
or
whatever
they're
gonna,
grow
and
they're
going
to
all
be
in
this
community
or
this
one.
Dwelling
and
statistics
shows
that,
like
when
you
factor
in
numbers
of
sexual
abuse
and
children,
ninety
percent
of
those
sexual
views-
children
knew
their
perpetrator.
So
this
and
again
I
think
it
might
go
way
off
into
another
spectrum
but
you're.
J
Creating
that
environment,
where
these
dwellings
will
now
grow
and
grow
and
grow
and
grow,
and
then
you
have
a
whole
community
of
high
occupancy
that
the
possibility
is
that
these
substances,
these
statistics,
will
grow
and
affect
our
children
and
why
it's
all
cool
here
to
developers
when
that
date
happens,
that
I
hope
doesn't
I'm
the
one
that's
gonna
be
left
or
our
first
responders
are
gonna,
be
left
to
piece
that
decision.
That
council
makes
to
approve
it.
J
We're
gonna
be
there
to
piece
the
victims
together
to
find
a
way
to
combat
it,
and
these
are
just
issues
that
they're
not
here
at
their
reality,
and
it's
not
always
just
about
what
it's
going
to
affect
our
storm
water
or
utilities,
its
societal
impact,
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
really
stand
against
it.
Because
in
my
line
of
work,
that's
a
problem.
It's
a
problem
with
a
society
that
I
sort
to
protect.
It's
a
problem
with
the
men
and
women
who
soar
know
to
protect
it.
J
You're,
making
this
decision
will
inadvertently
make
it
very
difficult
for
us
to
do
our
job
and
is
to
protect
the
public,
and
sometimes
you
have
to
protect
them
further.
All
good
I
mean
everybody
thinks
it's:
okay,
because
I
feel
that
they
think
that
only
one
house
is
going
to
do
it,
but
it's
like
the
other
commissioners
say
we
do
have
to
think
that
everybody
is
gonna.
Do
it,
because
that's
the
auction
we're
giving
them
we're,
giving
them
that
everybody
who
applies
and
gets
the
signatures
will
be
able
to
do
it.
J
What
if
all
of
Laredo
decides
to
get
a
hundred
signatures?
What
happens
then?
Then?
It
didn't
matter
that
we
went
with
option
two.
If
all
of
the
Raynald
decides
to
get
a
hundred
signatures?
Well
guess
what
we
just
we
have
option
one
and
that
that's
just
one
of
those
who
might
Italy
it
puts
here
that
if
you
can
also
maybe
portray
that
message,
the
concern
of
first
responders
because
it
could
be-
or
it
will
be,
a
life-and-death
matter.
How.
I
E
I
I
No,
no,
it
was
it
was
tabled
because
there
wasn't
enough
information
available
at
the
Commission
and
that's
been
hastily
pushed
back
over
and
over
and
over
wasn't
able
to
frustrate
the
system
of
because
it
wasn't
ready
yet
and
it
still
isn't
ready.
But
because
we've
been
told
to
vote
on
it.
We're
going
along
in
humouring
people
to
vote
on
a
bad
idea.
Yeah.
D
D
D
My
the
first
thing
that,
when
this
came
to
me,
I
staff
was
a
negative
recognition
for
the
citywide
asking
you
to
make
a
recommendation
and
what
my
plea
from
the
beginning
was.
We
are
doing
Rico
Laredo
we're
examining
our
land
and
I
look
over
the
next
18
months.
That
in-depth
process
is
a
better
way
to
look
at
where
we
can,
where
we
should
change
that
baxter,
but
a
citywide
option
needed
to
go
to
council
to
make
a
vote
and
realizing
that
that
was
a
real
possibility.
D
They
were
going
to
ask
that
I
wanted
to
give
them
a
second
option:
a
more
reasonable
option.
So,
yes,
I
understand
that
some
of
the
council
members-
some
of
the
Commission
members
here-
may
not
like
either
option,
but
just
remember
that
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
give
a
more
reasonable
option
that
will
still
allow
us
time
to
assess
the
land
development
code
over
the
next
18
months
and
then
adjust
from
there.
That's
all
I
want
to
say
all
right.
F
I
A
I
A
I
D
Can
I
comment
as
well
sure
my,
regardless
of
what
your
recommendation
tonight
was
going
to
be
staff
recommendation,
for
both
options
was
going
to
be?
No,
it
was
going
to
be
negative,
was
was
not
going
to
support
either
option.
I
was
still
a
staff
only
going
to
support
that.
We
wait
for
recode
laredo.
We
do
it
over
20
months,
so
just
so
you're
aware,
but
in
order
to
get
them
an
option
to
which
the
way
things
work
out,
it
council
they
are
likely
to
select
one
of
these
options.