►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 072023
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
Commission
meeting
of
July
2023
to
order
and
we
begin
with
roll
call
charity.
A
You
do
have,
or
thank
you
for
those
Commissioners
that
aren't
president
I
have
a
motion
to
associate
to
excuse.
Second,
on
paper,
aye
aye
against
motion
carries.
Can
we
stand
for
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance
I
pledge
allegiance
Institute
flag
of
the
United
States
of
America
and
to
the
Republic
for
which
it
stands.
C
A
A
I'm
going
to
open
up
the
public
hearing
and
moving
on
to
public
hearing
and
recommendation
of
an
ordinance
agenda,
5A
amend
the
zoning
ordinance
map,
the
student
radio
by
rezone
lot.
Three
block
one
dcaf
mind:
growth
located
at
16,
101,
FM
1472
from
B3
community
business
district
to
B4,
Highway,
commercial,
District,.
D
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
for
the
record
applicant
is
Victor.
Espinoza
is
the
owner
of
the
Kent.
The
property
description
is
lot
three
block
one
DC
AF
Minds
Road
plot
located
at
16,
101
FM
1472,
please
don't
change.
Request
is
from
a
B3
to
B4.
The
proposed
use
is
a
Truck
heavy
equipment,
recreational
vehicle
repair,
AC
mechanic
shop
letter
sent
for
four.
A
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
F
F
F
E
G
F
E
E
G
G
E
E
E
E
A
A
Any
questions
as
far
as
what
commission
about
conditioning
is
permit
reply
in
this
situation.
I
A
K
D
Suarez
owner
applicant,
the
property
descriptions
lot
two
block
one
DC
AF
Minds
role
plant
located
at
16,
105
FM
1472..
The
zone
change
request
is
from
a
V3
to
a
V4
the
proposed
used
as
a
commercial
parking
lot,
a
truck
and
heavy
equipment
letter
sent
or
45
let
inside
the
300
foot,
4-0
against
nine
outside
300
foot,
4
1
against
five
background
on
September
19
of
2022.
The
city
council
table
doesn't
change
from
a
B3
to
an
M1
location
view.
L
D
A
M
M
M
M
F
M
M
M
A
M
N
F
F
F
F
F
M
M
M
M
F
M
F
G
I
I
M
I
O
Yes,
yes,
question
for
staff
on
on
this
property
in
this
area,
could
you
tell
us
a
bit
about
why
there
is
a
property
adjacent
that
is
M1,
which
is
also
surrounding
the
residential
property.
B
B
C
B
F
Q
I
And
the
only
issue
with
staff
is
we
just
have
to
be
consistent
in
our
recommendations?
You
know,
359
I
know
there's
some
properties
there,
where
we're
recommending
m1s
next
to
residential
areas,
and
and
now
we
have
a
B3
going
to
B4
and
we're
telling
them
no
and
it's
on
the
mines
road.
If
not
mines
road,
then,
where
B4
is
allowed
off
McPherson
off
a
highway
I
mean
those
are
all
the
issues
we
have
to
take
into
consideration,
but
I
really
think
you
know
359
Mines
Road.
A
G
A
C
D
D
The
offenses
rsf
follows
offering
Auto,
auto
repair,
Auto
Body
and
Paint
Body
Shop
in
a
residential
R3
Zone
operation
of
a
vehicle
holding
and
or
input
yard
in
a
residential
Zone
operating
a
business
with
a
certificate
of
occupancy
construction
of
an
auto
body
shop,
an
auto
shop,
commercial
building
without
proper
construction
permits
and
a
construction
and
are
installing
a
prohibited
metal
fence,
location,
Ariel,
Street
wheel,
don't
change,
signage,
donate
overview
s
staff
recommendations,
staff
does
not
support
the
proposed
zone.
Change
continuation
of
recommendation
for
pulse
motion.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman
thank.
A
R
R
R
R
H
R
R
S
B
R
F
I
understand
that
was
the
residential
right
and
he
can't
jump
right
four
or
five
zones
for
me,
but
I,
don't
know
you're
the
expert.
He
should
have
a
B1
like
Mr
Barron
said
and
from
the
B1.
Maybe
he
could
do
a
conditional
use
per
permit.
B
B
An
isolated
Zone
in
the
area,
that's
all
residential,
so
you
would
be
isolating
yourself
for
that
one
lot.
So
that's
one
thing
that
we
look
at
you
know
consistency
there.
The
size
of
the
lot
is
also
the
consistency
and
then
the
use
and
the
use
doesn't
have
painting
it's
just
Bodywork,
but
that's
considered
heavy
work
like
you.
If
you
like
a
Jiffy
Lube
is
different.
They
just
change
oils
yeah.
J
That's
something
just
real
quick
is
you
need
to
look
at
the
full
Blanc
garages
these
days,
like
10
15
years,
are
completely
different.
I
know
that
we
have
at
the
our
schools
in
the
schools.
You
know
where
they
paint
cars.
They
do
everything
because
they're
the
proper
equipment
that
are
being
used
yeah.
So
it's
not
as
it
used
to
be
out
in
the
open
and
all
this
there's
now
things
that
they
have
to
abide
by
to
actually
be
able
to
do
this
yeah,
and
so
something
that
we
need
to
go.
J
Right
but
also
real,
quick-
and
this
is
a
second
person-
the
third
person
is
I,
don't
know
legally
if
before
they
before,
they
ask
for
any
kind
of
permanent.
All
this
or
buy
property
I,
don't
know
how
you
can
put
it
in
there
that
attorney
give
them
the
rights
or
whatever
selling
them
to
them.
Even
the
proper
information,
because
both
of
them
were
landed
on
to
say
it's
a
before,
but
it's
really
a
B3
at
the
end
of
the
day,
they're,
probably
they.
J
B
F
Can't
apply
for
a
conditional
use
permit
in
an
R3
he
he
needs
to
change
to.
A
B
B
But
you
also,
but
he
also
has
to
meet
the
minimum
requirements
of
what
the
before
would
be.
So
that
also
is
an
issue
because
you
again,
this
news
originally
is
a
residential
use.
So
typically
the
Lots
aren't
going
to
be
that
big,
they're,
smaller
and
so
buying
a
residential
lot
to
put
a
business.
Then
now
you
create
now
you
have
a
problem,
you
know,
and
that's
just
basically
what
happened
here.
B
You
know,
even
though
you
know
I've
seen
the
place,
I
mean
I
have
no
problem
with
the
way
the
place
is
built
and
everything
he
did
a
good
job,
but
there's
minimum
standards
to
to
this-
and
this
is
a
residential.
J
This
item
succeed,
motion
to
motion
to
support.
L
A
L
A
Moving
on
to
item
16
ordinance
map
of
the
Sea
of
Laredo
by
authorizing
the
issuance
of
a
special
use
permit
for
Mini
Storage
Warehouse
on
approximately
2.57
acre
track
from
Land
out
of
Mach
3A
block
3
celito
Lindo
commercial
plot
recorded
recorded
in
volume,
41
page
20.
What
county
clap
records
and
functioning
Northern
Northerly
Boulevard
right
away
line
located
at
313
pleasure.
D
Is
a
capital
LLC
regardless
is
the
representative?
The
property
description
is
law,
A3,
sorry,
3A
block
three
little
commercial
flat
recorded
in
volume,
page
41,
page
20,
County,
plot
records
and
Frontier
silita
Lindo
Boulevard
right
away,
Lane
located
at
313,
Salita
Lindo
Boulevard.
The
zone
change
request
is
a
special
use
permit
for
Mini
Storage,
slash
Warehouse.
The
proposed
to
use
is
Mini
Storage,
slash,
Warehouse
that
are
sent
or
2940
against
zero
patient
View
aerial
view
street
view.
D
A
L
U
U
A
C
A
Motion
carries
moving
on
to
item
six
e
and
many
of
the
zoning
ordinance
map
of
the
student
Laredo
by
rezoning
lot,
one
two
and
three
block:
eight
nineteen
personal
Division
and
a
0.028
Acres
of
track
of
land
out
of
an
alley
south
of
Lux
I3
block
819,
Eastern
Division
of
the
city,
Laredo
Texas,
as
per
volume.
Seven
page
15
with
Connie
Platt
Records,
located
at
1501
Chihuahua
street
from
Ro
residential
office
District
to
B3,
community
business,
business,
history.
D
Soto
is
African,
representative
property
description
is
slots,
one
two
and
three
block
819
Eastern
Division
and
0.028
acre
track
located
at
1501
Chihuahua
Street.
The
zone
change
request
is
from
an
RO
to
a
B3.
The
proposed
use,
Office
slash
food
truck
spaces
that
are
sent
2940
against
zero
occasion,
View
aerial
view
street
view,
don't
change
signage
zoning
overview
future
lanyos
staff.
Recommendation
staff
does
not
support
the
proposed
zone
change.
However,
staff
supports
a
V1
zone
change
propulsed
motion.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman
thank.
W
And
I
before
I
started,
I
didn't
want
to
hand
the
Commissioners
a
aerial
map
that
I
prepared
with
labeling.
What's
around
the
area
by
me,
sure
thank
you.
W
W
The
area
is
if
you'll
notice
is
surrounded
by
or
is
in
close
proximity
to
B1
and
B3
businesses.
I've
got
a
Burger
King,
that's
capricorner
to
the
office
building
within
the
same
one
block
radius.
There
is
a
a
Subway,
my
same
block,
there's
a
V3
on
the
on
a
contiguous
block
that
has
a
Liberty
Tax
loan,
a
hair
salon
and
a
snack
shop.
You've
got
the
HEB
wild
Rings,
Little,
Caesars,
Pizza
Hut,
all
within
less
than
a
block
radius
from
the
office
building.
W
The
reason
for
the
request
for
a
B3
I
think
that
a
B3
when
I
looked
at
the
city
ordinances,
it
states
that
a
beat
three
district
is
for
a
trade
area
larger
than
a
neighborhood
service
area.
This
is
Chihuahua.
This
is
a
high
traffic
area.
There's
constant
traffic
that
area,
because
it's
got
a
lot
of
big
box
like
HEB.
It's
got
the
Wells
Fargo
Pizza
Hut.
It
I
think
it
Services
more
than
just
a
neighborhood.
W
It's
a
thoroughfare
you're
going
you're
leaving
South
Laredo
or,
if
you're,
working
in
North
America
you're
taking
a
while
ago
when
you
come
back
home
or
when
you're
a
big
Indian
work
from
the
south
side
you're
going
to
take
to
Chihuahua
like
it
is
a
streets
that
are
highly
traveled,
so
I
think
that
it
falls
under
a
V3
and
the
other
reason
I
wanted
to
work.
Question
V3
is
most
of
the
I'm
occupying
half
of
the
building.
W
My
Law
Firm
occupies
the
front
portion
I'm,
trying
to
lease
out
the
second
portion
most,
if
not
all,
of
the
people
that
have
contacted
in
interest
of
leasing.
The
building
cannot
be
in
an
arrow
and
I
wanted
to
let
the
Commissioners
know
anybody
here
that
might
be
protesting.
The
zone
change
I'm
in
the
building,
I
own
it
but
I'm,
also
occupying
it.
I
have
no
interest
in
decreasing
the
value
or
bringing
in
something
undesirable
or
not
characteristic
to
the
neighborhood.
That
already
exists,
as
it
is.
W
I
just
need
some
support
from
the
Commissioners
in
recommending
B3,
designation.
J
A
What
I
do
notice
is
that,
where
your
property
is
located
is
providing
residents
and
of
course,
when
you
go
higher
in
zoning,
is
more
higher
use,
so
you
tend
to
become
a
nuisance
depending
what
it
ends
right
being
you
know,
so
I
mean
be
one
if
you
are
willing
to
be
one,
we're
willing
to
it's
up
to
the
commission
right
yeah.
W
And
so
some
of
the
B1
properties
in
front
of
the
HEB,
those
are
two
homes
and
I
believe
that
the
RO
directly
across
the
street
from
me
I
believe
those
are
at
least
the
one
right
across
from
me.
That's
the
vacant
property,
but
if
the
commissions
will
entertain
a
B1
I'll
be
willing
to
accept
the
B1
resignation.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
X
My
name
is
I
own,
the
adjacent
property
next
to
the
properties
we've
been
living
in
that
area,
since
there
was
so
since
1976,
and
the
issue
is
that
yes,
Chihuahua
is
a
very
transact
street,
but
the
problem
is
when
you
get
to
that
intersection
of
meadow
and
Seymour
and
you're
going
to
take
a
right.
It
gets
backed
up
because
a
lot
of
people
don't
know
how
to
maintain
in
their
Lane,
so
they
use
the
side
lane,
which
is
not
a
turning
lane.
X
It's
just
it's
a
lane
to
park
if
you're
injured
or
whatnot
or
your
vehicle's,
not
working.
So
they
go
right.
So
the
subway
had
a
drive-through.
It
closed
its
drive
through.
Why?
Because
it
was
causing
traffic
jams
so
changing
it
and
doing
a
food
park.
There
would
be
something
that
would
be
inconvenient
for
the
community
because
it's
going
to
hinder
the
traffic
area,
I
own,
the
property,
next
door,
I
rent
it
for
residential.
It's
a
5,
000
square
foot
home.
X
It
was
my
initial
home
where
I
was
raised
and
it's
just
something
that
it's
always
been
residential.
The
neighbors
across
the
street
are
also
residential.
It's
still
a
residential
Community.
Yes,
we
have
a
Burger
King,
we
have
a
gas
station,
but
if
you
continue
it's
fine
when
it's
mixed
use,
but
when
you're
making
it
all
business,
it
starts
hindering
the
community.
A
Me
I
know:
currently
it's
it's
owned
as
Ro.
She
is
willing
to
do
the
recommendation
of
B1,
which
is
a
the
lowest
intense
use
for
business.
What
are
some
of
the
examples
of
the
people
going
to
be
one.
B
Well,
in
her
case,
we
were
looking
at
it
and
she
had
recommended
the
suggested
she
was
going
to
put
offices
in
there.
So
offices
can
be
in
a
B1
and
that's
what
we
kind
of
told
her
is
you
don't
need
a
B3
because
B3
you're
talking
about
a
gas
station
right
and
and
heavier
store,
clothing
store,
shoe
store
retail
operation,
but
you
you
can't
do
the
heavier
things
like
bars
and
stuff
like
that
restaurant.
B
X
L
Y
Good
afternoon,
commission
appreciate
your
time
this
afternoon,
Joe
Gage
for
the
record
and
didn't
realize
it
for
a
while.
We
hadn't
spoken
before
but
you're
with
my
wife
Carmen.
We
had
the
privilege
of
actually
living
on
Chihuahua
Street
when
it
was
still
a
dirt
road.
So
a
little
different
when
you
see
the
the
immense
traffic,
that's
that's
still
there
in
the
residential.
Y
That's
still
there
behind
the
the
science
property,
there's
numerous
Apartments,
two-story
apartments
and
and
the
big
concern
here
is
definitely
the
food
trucks
which
don't
feel
it's
appropriate
or
it's
within
the
amount
of
traffic
that
comes
in
in
the
back
of
like
Mr
Roberta
mentioned,
and
the
number
of
accidents
have
been
that
occur
and
if
you
look
up
PD,
you
can
see
a
number
of
accidents
that
have
epilepsy
or
Chihuahua
as
well
as
metal
and
Chihuahua.
Y
So
again,
it
is
a
big
concern
to
us
as
the
residents
in
Chihuahua,
and
so
we
we
would
ask
in
good
faith
and
with
the
best
of
intention
to
consider
the
RO
that
it
currently
is.
Thank
you
very
much.
Y
Z
I
hi
good
evening
I've
got
a
man,
Joe's
wife,
we've
been
married
22
years
and
many
many
times
from
the
time
we
were
dating
to
to
now.
We've
run
out
of
the
house
several
times
because,
as
the
former
speaker
in
favor
mentioned
there
is,
it
is
a
very
high
traffic
intersection.
We've
run
out
at
people's
Mercy
for
for
Aid
calling
ambulances,
so
it
is
already
a
high
traffic
area.
I
know
the
young
ladies,
that
want
to
open
the
food
truck.
Z
I
didn't
know
that
until
today
I
mean
dear
friends,
but
nothing
against
them.
We
all
know
what
food
trucks
invite
and
it's
a
they're
fun.
We
all
love
to
visit
them.
We
just
don't
want
them
there.
It
is
the
climate
that
eventually
invites
live
music
and
in
many
cases.
So
that's
just
something
that
we
want
to
avoid.
We
do
understand.
There
is
a
Subway.
There
is
a
Burger
King,
but
you
know
those
smells
are
contained.
They
do
not
invite
without
music
and
and
whatnot.
But
thank
you
for
your
attention.
B
W
Not
correct,
yes,
you
may
I
just
wanted
to
talk
about
the
tuition,
so
I'm
right
on
the
corner
of
steam
and
Steve
Moore
and
Chihuahua.
There's
a
traffic
light
there.
The
entrance
to
the
building
is
on
the
Chihuahua
side
at
the
exit.
The
exit
gate
is
off
of
Seymour.
The
reason
I
put
the
food
trucks
is
because
that's
one
of
the
people
that
approached
me
I
don't
have
any
definite
plans
to
do.
W
A
Putra
like
I,
said
I'm
occupied
half
of
the
building,
so
I'm
also
interested
in
keeping
it
nice
maintain
and
beautiful.
The
reason
I
put
that
there
is
because
I
was
approached
for
that
I
don't
have
any
plans
of
having
live
music
or
BYOB,
and
if
that
happens,
it
was
going
to
be
more
like
on
the
weekend
kind
of
thing
not
a
daily,
but
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
all
right.
Thank.
I
You
thank
you
yes,
for
the
for
the
food
truck
business.
What
what
zoning
do
they
need.
K
I
I
Can
apply
for
a
conditional
condition
for
that
use.
Only
the
difficult
part
is
I'm,
sure,
you're,
a
great
owner
and
you're
going
to
take
care
of
the
property,
but
in
the
future,
when,
when
you're
no
longer
the
owner
right,
if
you
ever
not
and
someone
else
comes
in
that
is
not
responsible,
then
that
opens
it
up
to
a
lot
of
uses.
Sometimes
that
may
not
be
favorable.
G
O
Thank
you
a
question.
Yes,
so
could
we
talk
through,
for
the
sake
of
the
neighbors,
miss
out
those
Neighbors?
B
T
It's
just
a
regular
noise
ordinance
that
everybody
live
with.
Okay,.
A
B
K
O
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
comment
to
the
commission
that
we
do
have
b1's
right
next
door.
I
think
it's
hard
to
deny
a
B1
so
I'm
in
favor
of
that,
but
I
am
not
in
favor
of
the
B3
or
just
that's
in.
A
The
comment:
okay,
thank
you.
There's
no
other
comments
or
questions
I'd.
A
D
D
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
for
the
record
applicant
is
Luis
A
Gonzalez
owner
applicant.
The
property
description
is
Lots
one
and
two
block
1950
Eastern
Division,
located
at
3101
Clark
Boulevard.
There's
no
change
request.
It's
from
an
R3
to
a
V3.
A
proposed
use
is
a
commercial
Plaza
letter
sent
or
62
for
zero
against
two.
D
2013
old
028
on
March
18th
of
2013,
the
city
council
approved
the
conditional
use
permit
for
a
tutoring
center.
The
ordinance
2013
0
28
on
November
3rd
of
2014.
The
city
council
approved
the
conditional
use
permit
Amendment
to
the
side
plan
for
the
tutoring
center
location
view
aerial,
wheel
street
view,
so
don't
change.
Signage
donate
overview
s.
D
A
AB
AB
AB
AB
AB
B
Hablo,
so
if
it's
going
to
be
with
that,
what
I
was
thinking
was
a
strip
center
with
rentals,
but
it
that's
what
I
was
thinking
for
B1,
but
if
this
is
going
to
be
a
salon,
for
you
know
pinatas
and
stuff
like
that,
then
he
would
need
a
B3
okay.
So
just
for
clarification,
because
our
description
was
commercial.
Plaza.
AB
AB
AB
I
B
A
F
F
And
you
guys
are
okay,
the
staff
is
okay.
We.
B
Didn't
support
that,
but
it's
because
the
description
was
a
commercial
Plaza.
That's
what
we're
looking
at
right!
Okay!
If
he
wants
to
come,
let's
say
he
wants
to
go,
be
one.
He
wants
to
come
back
in
and
apply
for
a
conditional
use
permit.
He
could
do
that
whether
it
passes
that
says
or
you
all
to
vote
on,
okay,
but
the
conditional
use
permit,
does
allow
us
to
put
conditions.
B
So
we
could
take
care
of
whatever
it
is
lighting,
loud,
music,
but
he's
saying
that
everything's
gonna
be
inside,
so
that
might
help
the
situation
right,
but
that,
yes,
that
would
be
the
way
to
go,
but
obviously
I
don't
want
to
guarantee,
because
it.
N
A
Are
there
any
questions
or
comments?
No,
if
not
were
the.
I
Okay,
so
we
recommend
denial
of
a
B3
and
approval
of
a
B1.
Q
Z
Q
AA
Good
evening,
commission
and
planning
staff,
my
name
is
Victory
notice,
with
Savio
engineering
I'm
here
in
on
the
behalf
of
the
applicant
and
we
favor
the
zone
change.
Just
one
minor
comment
before
continuing:
if
it's
okay,
if
I
am
I,
it
could
also
be
included
with
with
this
item
itself.
Both
tracks
are
pretty
much
side
to
side,
so
they,
if
they
could
be
a
motion
together.
U
AA
Okay,
thank
you.
I
know
it's
kind
of
planning
not
provided
some
some
concerns
some
when
it
comes
to
the
slot
and
not
wanting
permission
from
the
commission.
If
I
could
present
a
couple
of
items
to
to
help
address
some
of
the
concerns,
the
the
first
exhibit
I'm
going
to
Showcase
if
I
could
have
the
projector.
AA
This
is
a
conceptual
site
plan
of
what
could
possibly
be
the
warehouse.
The
one
item
I
do
want
to
emphasize
that
this
is
a
two
acre
lot
versus
the
sigma.
AA
The
the
new
warehouses,
where
they're
more
over
the
10
and
20
acre
lots,
and
so
because
of
the
use
finding
a
lot
pretty
much
at
this
Dimension
is
is
rare
when
it
comes
to
the
City
of
Laredo,
so
an
opportunity
of
possibly
doing
a
zone
change
on
this
area
to
help
address
and
and
hopefully
become
abused,
and
so,
if
you
notice
I'm
because
of
the
area,
there's
really
space
for
for
a
two
dock
operation
and
that's
really
what
they
need
to
be
able
to
operate.
AA
Based
on
on
their
on
the
warehouse
format
that
they're
using
we
are
promoting,
they
do
have
two
existing
driveways,
where
they
they
can
have
an
egress
and
then
the
exit
on
the
south
end.
We
understand
the
concern
about
the
exodon
Casablanca.
The
main
priority
on
the
Axis
or
exit
is
through
Casablanca
road,
but
on
the
120
foot
right
away
segment,
there
was
a
concern
also
that
Casablanca
is
not
a
truck
route.
AA
You
can
have
the
projector
again.
This
is
from
from
the
city's
website
and
pretty
much.
It
helps
identify
all
the
truck
routes
and,
if
you're
able
to
see
all
the
great
Pockets
presented
on
this
map,
all
those
are
industrial
warehouses
and
if
you
notice,
they
all
lead
into
truck
routes.
One
of
the
reasons
the
site
was
considered
because
we
do
have
surrounding
M1
where
pretty
much.
AA
This
lot
could
pretty
much
be
directed
to
a
truck
route,
which
is
on
59th
itself,
and
my
my
last
comment,
but
when
it
comes
to
to
traffic
Mines
Road,
for
example,
has
a
a
Navy,
an
average
daily
traffic
on
the
Forty,
thousands
and
fifty
thousands
and
above
when
it
comes
to
the
Casablanca
Road.
It's
a
you
know
a
humble
1500
average
daily
traffic
and
on
59
it
does
increase
into
4
000
on
one
end
and
and
of
course,
120.
It's
way
higher,
but
but
pretty
much.
A
J
B
I
AC
I
The
only
concern
here,
sir,
is
you
know
there
are
some
residents
across
the
street.
There
are
two
two
apartment
complexes:
I
think
it's
Lakeside
apartments
and
there
is
a
church
right
before
you
come
in
and
M1
is
our
most
intense
use
and
recently
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
emissions
and
things
like
that.
That
I'm
not
saying
this
property
is
going
to
do
that.
But
I'm
saying
like
I
mentioned
earlier
in
the
future.
I
If
you're
no
longer
this
property
owner,
then
that
person
has
the
right
to
build
and
do
whatever
is
needed,
whether
it's
running
your
trucks,
all
night
or
or
doing
whatever
intense
uses,
an
M1
can
do
or
a
totally
different
business.
I
J
L
I
A
Has
conveyed
2.8
armitas
and
Christopher
Ramirez
recorded
volume,
601
page
720,
indeed,
records
with
Connie
Texas,
subsequently
conveyed
to
partner
Group
LLC
recorded
volume,
5167
page
441
official
public
records
of
Webb
County
Texas,
said
track
being
situated
in
portion
10,
abstract,
280,
Thomas,
Sanchez,
original
grantee,
Webb
County
Texas,
located
west
of
copper,
mine,
Road
and
North
of
FM
1472
from
AG
agricultural
District,
M1
light
manufacturing
District.
Thank.
Q
You
Mr
chairman
for
the
record.
We
have
applicant
Gabriel
Gonzalez
as
the
owner.
We
have
Premier
engineering
as
applicant
representative
property
location,
approximately
1.884
acre
track
land
located
west
of
copper,
mine,
Road
and
North
of
FM
1472.
The
zone
change
request
is
from
an
AG
to
an
M1
proposed
use
is
for
a
transferred
storage
terminal
letter
sent
10.
We
have
none
for
and
none
against
location
view.
L
A
The
motion
in
a
second
all
in
favor
aye
against
motion,
carries
moving
on
to
item
5j
I
mean
there's
only
ordinance.
Map
of
the
scenario
might
be
zoning
lot.
One
block
three
New
Vision
subdivision
phase:
two
located
at
2405
Bristol
Drive
from
R1
single
family,
residential
district
to
B1,
limited
business,
district.
Q
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
for
the
record.
We
have
the
applicant
Highline
Inc
owner
Alexa
Guzman
is
the
applicant
representative
property
location,
not
one
block.
Three
New
Vision
subdivision
phase
two
located
at
2405
gristle
Drive
zone
change.
Request
is
from
an
R1
to
V1
proposed
uses
a
Mini,
Storage
Warehouse.
We
letter
sent
82
for
against
and
none
4.
Z
AD
AD
AD
AD
AE
Oh
hello,
we're
against
this
because
Lopez
and
my
husband
Ricardo
Lopez,
we
live
there
and
our
backyard
connects
to
that
property
in
in
to
that
property.
We
live
right
there
on
Rob
Rogan,
so
you
know
the
the,
but
is
the
that
is
a
residential
area.
How
can
we
put
a
business
there?
That
would
be
really
ridiculous
to
have
a
residential
I
mean
that
a
business
in
a
residential
area?
First
of
all,
you
know
how
how
storage
units
work
they
usually
require
people
bring
in
stuff
that
they
don't
want
in
their
stuff.
AE
AE
The
increase,
of
course
got
something
on
the
road
is
not
wide
enough
for
18,
wheelers
or
or
big
traffic
that
won't
Boomers
would
require
to
to
bring
the
the
their
stuff
in
there
and
there
might
be
storage
of
hazardous
materials.
There's
too
many
houses
right
there.
We
don't
know.
What's
in
the
storages
of
course,
and
there
could
be
hazardous
materials,
some
some
people
use
the
storages
for
crack
houses
or
for
for
other
things
it
wouldn't
it
wouldn't
be
beneficial
for
us
as
residents
there.
AE
Ma'am,
yes,
it
starts
really
pretty
at
the
beginning,
but
then
you
know
later
on:
we
live
there.
We
live
there
and
that's
right
connecting
to
our
backyard.
And
yes,
you
know:
well,
he
he's
in
charge
it's
going
to
be
look
really
nice,
but
every
single
property
that
has
sold
there
has
been
residential
on
that
side
of
the
street.
The
the
commercial
building
that
he's
talking
about
is
further
up
closer
because
what's
in
the
restaurant.
F
A
Mike,
what
I
see
here
my
concern
here
is
that
Casa
Verde
is
a
two-lane
road.
It's
heavily
traveled
as
it
is
now.
It
is
currently
R1,
even
though
he
does
want
to
do
Mini
Storages.
Once
you
do
a
V1,
you
do
open
yourself
to
be
able
to
put
anything
you
want
at
any
time.
Many
sources
doesn't
go
through
what
was
staff's
process
as
far
as
supporting
the
V1.
B
We
supported
that.
Okay,
we
know
that
the
the
residents
of
the
area
didn't
didn't
like
it.
It
didn't
pass
on
city
council,
so
the
proposal
for
the
the
storage
units
was
one
of
it's
much
quieter.
You
know
it's
like
you
said.
Less
people
go
to
a
facility
like
this
and
then
part
of
our
comprehensive
times
asks
for
a
multi-use
kind
of
design.
You
know-
and
this
is
leans
towards
our
new
comprehensive
time
that
we
have
to
to
bring
in
and
mix
use
to
the
area.
B
So
that's
that's
stuff
to
look
at
now.
He
doesn't
have
a
design,
so
he'd
have
to
put
a
design
but
there's
ways
that
one
he'd
have
to
put
a
wall.
If
there's
no
wall
there,
maybe
even
a
separation
of
the
the
storage
units
from
the
back
yards
in
the
homes
where
the
car
goes
around.
Maybe
they
can
do
that
to
separate
have
some
more
separation.
So
it's
not
as
as
close
to
the
there's
different
things.
He
can
do
right,
I'm
just
saying,
but
we
were
in
support
of
them.
A
At
this
point,
what
sort
of
action
I
wish
this
Commissioners
should
take
the.
O
A
A
AF
B
So
what
Mr
chairman
this
is
parks,
Improvement
fees
and
part-time
dedication,
prisons
well
presentation,
but
this
item
was
brought
forward
by
Parks,
so
I'm
going
to
pass
the
Baton
to
our
director
of
parks,
JJ
Gomez
and
his
staff,
and
also
David
Arredondo.
Our
Amigo
will
also
be
participating
in
this
one.
Okay,.
AG
Right
and
so
just
a
little
background
for
for
context
of
where
we
are
there's
a
Parkland
dedication,
ordinance
and
within
that
ordinance,
there's
an
appeal
process
for
when
a
when
a
developer
is
assessed,
a
parked
land,
Improvement
fee
or
a
dedication,
and
so,
if
they
don't
agree
with
Parks
with
our
Parks
Department's
determination,
they
get
to
come
to
you
and
then
you
all
get
to
make
a
decision
if
it's
I
think
they
even
have
a
step
after
this.
AG
If
they
don't
agree
with
your
decision,
they
can
go
to
council,
and
so
that's
that's
kind
of
where
we
are
right.
Now.
AH
So
we're
gonna,
listen
is
gonna,
introduce
to
give
you
a
better
explanation
of
what
we're
what
we're
we're
talking
about
here,
as
far
as
for
the
for
the
Improvement
of
the
land,
so
we'll
we'll
go
ahead
and
do
the
presentation
and
then
we'll
answer
some
questions
and
we're.
Looking
at
some
comments
as
we
go
along.
Okay,
okay,
foreign.
S
Our
parks
department
has
a
budget
that
can
help
with
maintenance
can
help
with
new
items,
but
our
Park
improvements
really
help
to
improve
our
Parks
into
getting
more
budget
for
items
that
perhaps
city
council
can't
afford,
and
it's
really
are
starting
where
we
start
so
that
we
can
plan
our
projects
so
I'm
going
to
read
the
code
and
go
through
it.
So
LDC,
section
24561.
S
The
purpose
here
is
this
section
is
adopted
to
provide
recreational
areas
in
the
form
of
neighborhood
Parts
as
a
function
of
subdivision
and
site
development
in
the
City
of
Laredo.
It
is
hereby
declared
by
the
city
council
that
recreational
areas
in
the
form
of
parks
are
necessary
and
the
public
welfare,
and
that
the
only
adequate
procedure
to
provide
for
same
is
by
integrating
such
a
requirement
to
the
procedure
for
planning
and
developing
property
or
subdivisions
in
the
city
consisting
of
new
construction
on
vacant
land.
S
Therefore,
the
following
requirements
are
adopted
in
the
effect
to
the
effect.
The
purpose
is
stated
above
and
shall
apply
to
any
land
used
for
residential
purposes.
Requirements
for
Parkland
and
improvements
shall
cover
both
land
dedications
and
park.
Improvement
fees
for
Parkland
for
all
types
of
residential
development.
S
S
C
S
S
We
also
have
a
special
Fund
in
cases
that
they
can't
do
that.
So
we
have
section
2456,
5A
special
fund.
There's
hereby
establish
a
special
fund
for
the
deposit
of
walsums
paid
in
Louisville
land
or
pursuant
to
this
ordinance,
any
preceding
ordinance
or
annexation
agreement
said
fund
shall
be
known
as
a
Parkland
acquisition
and
park
Improvement
fund.
S
S
So
what
are
requirement
right
now
for
neighborhood
parks
is
one
acre
for
one
thousand
population
and
we
have
a
calculation,
it's
3.9
persons
per
household
for
single
family
and
2.82
persons
per
household
for
multi-family
and
those
are
the
minimum
requirements
for
Parkland
dedication
and
we
also
have
a
methodology
for
a
cash
payment
in
lieu
of
land,
and
we
also
calculate
the
land
as
being
valued
at
forty
five
thousand
dollars
an
acre.
S
So
we
have
our
neighborhood
park
acquisition
fee
and
this
is
also
a
a
different
fee.
Apart
from
the
park
Improvement
fee,
so
the
park
Improvement
fee
pre-dwelling
unit
is
314
and
then
on
top
of
that,
there's
for
every
one.
For
every
thousand
people
you
need
one
acre
population.
So
that's
how
we
get
the
caption
Lube.
So
it's
a
parking
permit
fee
and
then
there's
the
caption
Loop
fee
and
if
you
don't
do
cashionally,
you
provide
the
land
and
the
calculation
gives
you
about
how
much
land
you
need.
S
S
Units,
that's
roughly
one
acre
that
they
would
have
to
dedicate
and
there's
just
an
example
of
how
you
would
break
it
down
and
we've
been
collecting
multi-family
Park
Improvement
fees
from
several
of
these
apartments,
but
it
was
in
the
building
permit
process
that
we
require
the
fees
because
apartment
complexes
Sometimes
they
come
in
as
commercial
and
they
don't
have
a
use
and
then
later
they
want
to
dedicate
land.
S
So
we
give
them
that
option
that
they
can
provide
a
space
in
their
apartment
instead
of
paying
the
fee,
but
sometimes
they
want
to
pay
the
fee
and
not
the
space.
We
have
a
situation
where
someone
doesn't
want
to
do
either
so
park,
Improvement
fee
and
Parkland,
or
cash
and
Luffy
for
this
12
unit
apartment
complex
after
reviewing
117
South
Mendiola.
As
per
the
park,
dedication
ordinance,
the
developers
apartment
complex
needs
to
meet
the
requirements
of
ordinance
to
satisfy
Park
Improvement
fee
and
department,
or
cash
and
loop.
S
So
it's
12
Apartments
multiply
that
by
314
we
get
the
3768.
the
captionally,
it's
12
Apartments
times
2.82
divided
by
1000,
and
that
gives
you
the
total
acreage,
that's
required.
So
if
you
weren't
going
to
provide
the
space
you
had
to
provide
0.0.3384
Acres,
so
that's
about
how
much
they
would
have
to
provide
within
their
development
if
they
were
gonna
dedicate
that
within
their
property.
But
if
they
don't
want
to
dedicate
within
their
property,
they
have
to
pay
the
Cash
and
Loan
fee
and
that's
the
1522
dollars.
So
the
total
fee
is
3760.
S
This
is
a
popular
site
plan,
and
so
they
actually
have
three
different
areas
that
are
labeled
as
Green
Space
areas,
and
so
we
gave
him
this
option.
So
the
applicant
does
not
desire
to
pay
the
required
fee.
They
must
provide
1463
square
feet
of
recreational
area
on
site
and
include
a
combination
of
amenities
and
space
for
recreational
purposes
such
as
providing
tables
benches
chairs
swings
Fitness
stations,
fountains
barbecue
pits
shade
structures.
This
is
for
the
use
of
the
residents
that
live
in
the
apartment
complex.
S
These
are
areas
labeled
on
the
site
plan
as
green
area,
and
there
are
three
of
them
that
are
labeled
as
applicant
would
like
to
redesign
their
site
plan
to
make
these
areas
amenity
areas
when
the
FIFA
Parkland
education
will
be
covered.
As
long
as
the
3768
dollars
is
a
park
Improvement
fee
they
spend
on
the
actual
amenities.
S
S
S
It's
a
relatively
small
inexpensive
project
compared
to
the
bigger
projects
we
have,
but
in
this
project
we
would
require
the
fees
and
we've
been
able
to
collect
the
parking
permit
fees
from
other
areas,
but
in
this
District
they're
really
starved
for
Park
Improvement
fees,
because
there's
not
a
lot
of
new
development.
So
when
there
is
development
we
would
like
to
hold
on
to
those
fees
in
order
for
us
to
provide
swings
and
to
provide
these
mommy
and
me
swing
sets
so
that
we
can
add
another
amenity
to
this
beautiful
Park.
Q
A
AI
Here
as
legal
counsel
for
the
appellants,
let
me
address
just
a
few
items
that
were
addressed
by
the
the
members
of
the
representative
of
the
parts
you
wreck,
the
PowerPoint
that
they
just
showed
you
and
the
sections
of
the
of
the
ordinance
that
they
showed.
You
are
not
in
the
proper
context
case
in
point
one
of
the
one
of
the
paragraphs
that
was
shown
to
you
and
it
was
just
cherry-picked.
It
was
one
small
piece
of
that
ordinance
that
was
shown
to
you.
AI
We're
not
talking
about
a
master
plan
here
and
that's
one
of
the
law,
the
biggest
issues
that
we
have
here
and
so
I'm
going
to
pass
it
over
to
Mr
Deion
here
in
a
second
but
I
wanted
to
clarify.
First
what
this,
what
the
city
had
presented
to
you?
Is
they
cherry-picked
pieces
of
that
ordinance
and,
with
all
due
respect
to
the
city
I
think
it
was?
It
was
completely
misleading.
AI
You
have
to
look
at
the
entire
ordinance
and
when
you
look
at
the
ordinance
as
it
was
passed,
one,
the
intent
and
the
purpose
of
that
ordinance
throughout
throughout
that
entire
ordinance,
it
talks
about
master
plans
and
master
plans
and
master
plans.
It
does
not
talk
about
anything
else.
The
intent
of
it
when
it
was
passed
in
2008
was
Master
plans
moving
forward,
and
it's
from
a
clear
reading
of
it.
AI
Second
thing:
I'll
point
out
and
I'll
come
back
to
this
later
on,
but
when
statutes,
when
you
want
a
statue
to
to
to
to
be
applicable,
retroactive
which
means
I
want
whatever
is
already
in
place
to
be
affected
by
it.
You
have
to
put
that
in
the
ordinance-
and
it's
not
in
this
ordinance,
it's
just
not
there,
and
so
this
is
a
pro
perspective
ordinance.
It
doesn't
look
back
so
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
Mr,
vegyan
and
I
may
have
some
other
comments.
V
Good
afternoon,
members
of
the
commission,
my
name
is
Horacio
de
Leon
and
with
me,
is
Arturo
Garcia
and
we're
two
of
the
Partners
in
agcl
Investments,
and
so
we're
here
today
appealing
the
decision
from
the
parks
department,
the
parks
director,
as
they
apply
this
ordinance.
You
know
it's
funny
because
in
2004
you
know,
I
drafted
this
ordinance
as
a
result
of
a
master
plan
that
we
did
at
the
department.
I
was
a
Parks
director
at
the
time.
V
So
this
is
my
child,
and
now
it's
coming
back
to
bite
me
right,
but
you
know,
and
probably
a
council
member
Garcia
remembers.
You
know
we
did
this
because
there
was
a
lot
of
development
going
on.
We
were
one
of
the
fastest
growing
cities
in
the
nation
and
there
was
a
lot
of
a
subdivision
of
land,
so
the
intent
of
the
ordinance
which
we
totally
support-
it's
not.
This
is
not
a
matter
of
the
amount
of
money
that's
being
charged
as
a
matter
of
principle,
because
it's
been
misrepresented.
V
It's
been
misapplied,
some
of
the
people
that
you
saw
on
the
list
that
have
been
charged
money.
They
their
owed
money
that,
if
I
challenge
the
department
to
go
back
prior
to
2020
2020
prior,
they
probably
won't
find
a
project
where
the
the
ordinance
had
been
applied
in
the
eastern
western
division
as
Mr
Garcia
was
mentioning.
You
know,
this
is
a
a
a
property
that
is
grandfathered
in
for
being
in
the
original
plat
of
the
city
134
years
ago
was
plotted,
so
there
is
no
master
plan.
The
ordinance
talks
about
the
annexation
agreement.
V
There
is
no
annexation
agreement
now
interesting
that
we're
a
project
that
is
a
an
economic
development
project.
You
know
it's
a
12
unit
apartment
we're
trying
to
do
affordable
rental
housing
and,
as
a
result
of
the
Nez
and
everyone
empowerment,
Zone
city
council
has
waived
all
fees,
but
the
parks
department
has
not
doesn't
recognize
the
Naz
because
it's
not
listed
in
the
ordinance,
even
though
it
has
a
catch-all.
V
V
We
met
with
your
legal
staff
yesterday
and
we
left
the
table
thinking
and
understanding
that
they
agree
with
us
that
this
project
does
not
trigger
the
ordinance.
Why?
Because
the
ordinance
calls
for
either
a
replat
or
a
resume
to
be
able
to
trigger
it.
So,
even
though
we're
grandfathered
in
if
we're
coming
forward-
and
you
know
the
audience-
talks
about
subdivision
of
land,
so
we're
going
to
subdivide
land
I
agree
it
triggers
it
we're
not.
We
went
to
the
building
apartment
for
a
building.
Permit.
We
don't
need
a
reply.
V
We
don't
need
a
reason.
What
we
passed
out
tab
number:
one
is
nine
months
of
the
billing
department,
Department
asking
us
for
things
for
this
project
we've
been
waiting
nine
months.
One
of
the
things
that's
holding
us
back
is
this.
So
hopefully
tonight
you
can
allow
us
to
move
forward.
V
So
in
nine
months,
they've
never
asked
for
a
replay.
We
did
visit
with
them
day
one
and
said
we're
building
across
three
lots.
Is
there
a
replay
required?
Oh
no,
we
haven't
done
re-platz
as
long
as
you
all
own,
the
lodge
contagiously.
So
if
you
go
to
Tab
2
we're
showing
you
examples
of
cases
around
the
city,
there's
hundreds
of
cases
because
they're
not
requiring
anybody
to
reflat
as
long
as
you
own
the
lot
contiguously,
and
is
it
a
good
idea
probably
to
replant
probably
but
the
city
hasn't
required
it.
V
So
again,
our
our
you
know.
Presence
here
today,
is
to
go
ahead
and
ask
this
since
that's
basically
the
appeal
process,
this
body
to
determine
and
I
have
a
motion
there
before
you
that
allows
us
to
go
forward
without
applying
the
park.
Dedication
order.
Thank
you.
There's
also
I
mean
also
another
thing.
You
know
this
was
posted
as
a
public
hearing.
V
It's
really
not
a
public
hearing,
because
this
is
an
appeal
from
adbl
to
this
board
as
the
ordinance
calls
for,
but
because
it
is
a
public
hearing,
there's
people
here
in
the
audience
that
can
speak
about
when
this
audience.
When
this
ordinance
was
approved.
They
were
part
of
the
committee
that
worked
for
two
years
to
be
able
to
come
to
terms
with
development
industry
who
had
a
concern.
You
know
when
we
brought
this.
You
know
as
the
parks
director.
V
This
is
something
we
needed
and
we
brought
it
forward
and
they
had
issues,
they
saw
it
as
an
impact
fee
and
some
of
the
things
in
the
ordinance
that
basically
grandfather
is
in
not
only
the
eastern
western
division
but
plaques
and
master
plans
who
came
in
prior
to
this
ordinance
what
grandfather
did
and
so,
as
a
result,
we
lost
that
on
a
lot
of
acreage
and
a
lot
of
money
and-
and-
and
so
here
we
are
with
three
logs
trying
to
develop
a
12
unit
complex
and
we're
basically
mixed
up
for
for
that
long.
AF
I
know
that
it's
been
a
difficult
process.
Like
Australian
said
it's
been
a
long
process
too,
but
from
day
one
we
went
to
the
building
department.
My
name
is
Arturo
Garcia,
former
building
director
for
the
city,
so
we
were
doing
it
the
right
way
we
reached
out
to
to
the
folks.
We
asked
him
we're
doing
this.
What
do
you
need
from
us
just
to
make
sure
we
caught
everything
we
applied
for
the
Nez
project?
AF
AF
It's
the
building
across
continue
is
building
across
contiguous
lines
allowed.
Yes,
as
long
as
it's
the
same
owner
no
easements
in
between
them,
it's
been
allowed.
Has
it
been
a
common
practice
yet
has?
Has
this
been
discussed
before?
Yes?
In
fact,
there
was
some
internal
discussion
I
remember
when
I
was
building
director
that
you
know
hey.
Why
are
we
doing
it?
Well,
because
people
are
trying
to
save
money
that
replant
is
a
needless
re-plat,
because
it's
the
same
owner,
so
you
at
the
time
back
then
I,
remember
that
they
said.
AF
Why
are
we
having
people
spend
ten
twenty
thousand
dollars
to
replant?
So
I
know
that
that
was
a
big
issue
back
then,
when
when
it
was
brought
up
and
discussed,
but
can
we
build
across
lot
lines?
Yes,
we
can
does
it
need
to
be
replanted?
No,
that's
not
been
the
practice
that
the
city
has
been
following
the
past
few
years.
AF
O
A
AG
I
believe
it
was
Mr
Garcia
who
said
we
have
to
look
at
the
ordinance
and
hold
right,
and
we
do.
We
have
to
look
at
all
of
the
ordinances
in
whole,
and
so
one
thing
that
you
will
not
see
in
that
packet
in
front
of
you
is
somewhere
in
our
ordinance
or
codes.
That
say
that
you
can
build
across
lot
lines
that
you
can
build
through
the
setbacks.
There's
nothing
on
our
books.
AG
So
that's
that's
number
one
number
two
there's
also
been
talk
about.
Retroactivity
and
I
just
want
to
explain
so
there's
a
there's,
a
theory
in
the
law
called
vested
rights,
and
so,
if
I'm
looking
at
a
project,
I
know
what
rules
are
in
place.
Right
now,
so,
when
I
go
submit
my
application,
those
rules
are
the
ones
that
are
going
to
apply,
and
you
can't
you
know
if,
if
planning
doesn't
like
my
my
idea,
I've
already
submitted
my
application,
they
can't
change
the
rules
and
go
back
and
say
no.
No.
No!
AG
Now
you
can't
do
that
because
that's
not
fair
and
so
you're
talking
about
retroactivity
and
this
property
should
be
grandfathered
and
that's
true,
as
the
property
sits
right
now,
but
as
soon
as
you
want
to
redevelop
it,
you
have
to
go
by
the
rules
that
are
in
place
when
you
submit
your
application
or
you
pull
your
permit.
So
that's
what
we're
operating
under
he
did
mention
that.
AG
There's
a
there
was
like
an
Nez
agreement
and
my
understanding
was
that
he
was
arguing
that
those
be
specifically
included
in
the
Nez
agreement
and
they
were
I
think
they
declined
to
do
that.
So
I
think
those
are
my
last
that's
my
last
point
on
this
and
I'm
ready
to
field
any
questions.
You
have
to
get
a
question.
O
AG
Replay
and
honestly
I
think
that
it's
for
their
benefit
to
reflect,
because
there's
there's
this
case
law
that
if
a
building
official
you
know
issues
a
permit
incorrectly,
that
means
that
building
that
building
official
is
not
authorized
to
issue
that
permit,
so
that
permit's
not
valid.
So
if
a
developer
relies
on
that,
they
can
put
themselves
in
a
bad
situation
by
you
know:
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
construct
my
building.
It's
going
to
be
on
three
lots
and
then
three
to
five
years
down
the
line.
AG
When
there's
a
different
building
director
or
different
staff,
they
can
come
in
they
they
notice,
hey
you've.
It
seems
that
you've
built
across
all
these
lines
and
that's
not
really
allowed
so
we're
going
to
need
you
to
you,
know,
demolish
or
or
re-plat,
or
do
something
to
remedy
that
situation.
So,
in
my
opinion,
it
would
benefit
them
to
get
this
taken
care
of.
At
this
point,.
O
And
sorry,
if
they
so
if
they
didn't
replant,
because
it
wasn't
required
of
them
from
the
beginning,
which
is
I
think
on
the
city
to
have
told
them
that
up
front
at
this
point
in
the
process
where
they
are,
why
does
this
ordinance
apply
to
them
if
they
didn't
need
to
replied
they're
already
at
this
stage
and
and
they
don't
fit?
The
ordinance
in
terms
of
this
is
not
a
master
plan
right.
AG
I
agree
with
you
I
agree
that
you
know
we're
in
a
gray
area
now,
because
we
have
not
forced
them
to
replay
the
problem
becomes.
Okay,
that's
fine!
We
don't
require
the
few
right
now,
there's
nothing
to
stop
somebody
from
two
months
from
now
tomorrow,
revoking
the
permit
and
saying
you
know
what
this
is
technically
against
our
ordinances
as
they
exist
on
the
books
and
so
you'd
have
to
do.
You
want
to
restart
the
whole
process
and
go
through
the
replay
at
that
point,
or
do
you
want
to
get
it
figured
out
now.
I
J
Talk
a
lot
about
you
know,
grandfather,
didn't
I,
know
what
you're
talking
about
sitting
a
council
back
there
I
I,
do
remember
that
that
I
do
remember
that
why
we
did
it
and
I
I.
Just
personally,
don't
think
you
can
go
back
and
say:
okay,
you
know,
regardless
of
what
you
did
back
there,
you
had
to
be
flat.
They
chose
not
to
that's
a
smart
thing
to
do.
J
If
I
was
going
to
do
it
because
I
don't
have
to
change
anything
I'm
still
with
it,
I'm
still
Within
what
was
passed
back,
and
so
whenever
it
was
but
I
don't
know
today's
date.
They
still
go
by
those
rules,
because
we
haven't
changed
the
rules
we
have.
They
they
haven't
made
a.
They
haven't,
made
a
request
to
make
reason
with
anything.
So
they
still
back
in
for
this
product
is
a
long
right.
AG
I
Right
so
so
so
I
hear
that
and
as
well
as
the
currently,
the
city
is
not
stopping
this
development
if
they
were
to
pay
their
fee.
If
they
were
to
pay
the
fee
that
the
park
the
park
department
is
requesting.
At
that
point,
they
can
continue
on
and
do
the
development
right.
I
Okay,
so
that's
my
question
and
then
originally
when
this
lot
was
made
at
that
point
there
was,
you
could
say
there
was
one
fee
for
that.
One
lot
at
that
time.
If
it
were
new,
if
it
were,
if
it
were
a
lot
coming
in,
there
would
be
one
not
for
the
12
units
that
it's
being
calculated,
it
would
be
for
one
lot
or
three
lots.
I
was
gonna,
say
I,
think
that
she's
12
years
12
units
right.
So
originally
this
lot
had
paid
for
back.
Then
there
were
no
fees
right.
I
I
AG
J
AG
AG
F
Hello
I
just
wanted
to
come
across
with
my
point
of
view.
My
point
of
view
is
that
I
have
a
here
two
week,
two
years,
I.
Think
two
years
in
this
commission
and
I've
always
heard
the
grandfathered
vote
right,
and
the
issue
with
a
grandfathered
quote
is
that
it
was
30
years
ago
or
40
years
ago.
134
years
ago
you
know
and
life
grows,
life
improves
life
makes
changes
right.
F
So
if
I
understand
the
ordinance
has
their
purpose
and
and
they
have
rules
and
regulations
and
everything
that
have
to
be
applied
to
every
person
and
every
territory
in
every
construction
and
everything.
But
I
really
think
if
they're
gonna
make
an
addition,
something
new.
My
logic
states
that
they
have
to.
They
should
pay
that
fee
right
and
also
we
have
a
lot
of
issues
in
luring
all
of
these
people
that
are
in
this
room,
love,
Laredo,
stick
in
Laredo
live
in
Laredo
and
we
don't
we
want
to
go
forward.
F
F
We
have
all
these
Master
plans
and,
what's
the
other
one,
that
we
talk
about
and
everything
the
comprehensive
plan,
if
you
guys
I'm
sorry,
but
if
you
guys
work
here,
you've
been
you've
been
living
in
Laredo.
You
work
in
Laredo,
you
want
the
best
for
Laredo,
so
we
don't.
We
shouldn't
bypass
anything
and
if
we're
doing
something
new,
we
need
to
apply
the
new
rules.
We
need
to
set
by
example,
because
everybody
else
is
going
to
hear
us
and
be
for
us.
That's
mine.
J
It's
a
good
thing
but
you're
right,
but
when
it's
done
it
needs
to
be
done
on
paper
as
in
order
as
a
rule,
we
can't
just
do
the
right
thing.
If
they're
going
to
go
and
take
your
house
right
now
and
say
you
know
what
I'm
gonna
go
to
your
house.
I'm
gonna
make
you
pay
this
this,
and
this
wait
a
minute.
It's
not
in
my
contract
with
you.
We
want
to
grow.
Why
not.
A
Should
do
it?
I
just
have
one
question
for
the
applicants.
Is
there
a
reason
you
don't
want
to
do
any
sort
of
sort
of.
V
There's
no
space
to
do
much.
So
that's
why
you
know
they're
saying
that
the
fee
applies
I
want
to
go
ahead
and
and
address
Minnesota's
comments.
I
totally
agree
with
you,
but
you
mentioned
earlier
that
we
have
ordinances
and
your
current
ordinance
doesn't
say
what
you
wanted
to
do,
and
I
heard
you
say
it
and
I
totally
agree.
But
in
this
case
it
works
against
the
city
and
so
I
agree
with
the
assistance,
the
City
attorney,
that
they
need
to
change
it
so
that
it
could
be
retroactive
so
that
it
could
apply.
V
But
here
the
city
can
have
it
both
ways.
I
also
agree
with
Mr
Barron.
He
said
earlier
that
it
needs
to
be
applied
across
the
board.
I
see
it,
and
this
is
selective
enforcement
for
them
to
now
say:
oh
and
guess
what
the
park
dedication
or
doesn't
apply,
but
you're
gonna
have
to
reflect
and
we
can
bring
hundreds
and
hundreds
of
flats
where
that
wasn't
required.
In
fact,
you
don't
have
one
right
now:
yeah,
where
they
have
to
but
you're
going
to
start
with
us.
That's
selective
enforcement
and
there's
something
wrong.
O
With
that,
thank
you
yes.
Well
just
a
general
comment.
I
think
that,
because
this
is
Nez,
this
is
Inner
City
development,
which
we
desperately
need.
We
need
affordable
housing
like
this
is
a
project
that
is
going
to
benefit
the
city,
the
area,
and
it's
not
their
fault
that
they
have
now,
as
applicants
gone
through
nine
months
of
applying
planning
and
and
really
following
the
rules
and
right
now,
our
rules
don't
align
they're
causing
a
gray
area.
Z
I
So
the
plot
was
okay
until
they've
brought
this
issue
of
of
the
park
fees,
unless
there
are
other
fees
that
they're
not
in
agreement
with
either
than
than
just
parts
or
water
fees
or
whatever
other
threes
come
before
a
development
when
that
starts
so
so
the
question
is
this
right
at
one
point:
it's
still
a
development.
It's
still
a
new
development,
it's
still
new
construction.
It's
still
impacting
this
area
and
at
this
point
those
individuals
that
are
going
to
live
in
this
area
that
are
going
to
benefit
from
this
city
services.
I
I
So
I
think
it's
something
that
that
I
understand
the
the
gray
areas
you
were
talking
about
or
the
confusion,
but
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
this
is
a
new
development
in
our
area
in
our
city,
especially
in
that
area,
as
they
point
the
parks
department
pointed
out
and
and
it's
something
that
this
Planning
Commission
needs
to
be
ready
for.
If
we
can
reconsider
this
and
and
provide
waivers,
then
I'm
sure
there's
a
whole
lot
of
developers
that
are
going.
C
I
O
J
T
J
AG
Exactly
and
technically,
I
don't
know
that
they
ever
approached
Planet
as
to
whether
or
not
a
reply
would
be
required.
But
in
my
opinion,
if
you're
building
across
lot
lines
that
that's
on
the
books,
that's.
V
You
know
we
keep
hearing
that
we're
subdividing
land
that
we're
developers
we're
asking
for
building
permit
the
way
you
would
ask
for
a
a
you
know,
build
a
home
for
building
apartments.
So,
yes,
the
ordinance
was
developed
for
that
developer.
That's
coming
in
on
new
construction
on
new
development.
This
is
the
old
part
of
town.
V
This
is
the
Eastern
Western
Division
and
I'd
like
to
call
Mr
Jesus
raised,
because
he
was
part
of
the
committee
that
worked
on
this
ordinance
and
the
developers
were
very
concerned
at
the
time
and
the
council
was
wanting
to
for
the
developers
to
be
okay
because
they
saw
this
as
another
impact
fee
and
going
forward.
The
ordinance
applies,
but
everybody
who
was
before
obviously
including
the
eastern
western
division,
which
is
the
original
Plex,
now
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
about.
You
know
a
project
like
this.
V
V
Dollars
is
not
is
not
much.
You
know
why
you
know
you
know
we
talked
about
donating
the
money,
but
but
make
it
right
in
the
in
the
in
the
ordance.
It's
not
about
the
money.
It's
about
the
principle
that
you
can't
have
a
department
that
you
know
post
2020,
because
you
know
you
have
a
lack
of
experience
and
just
go
ahead
and
and
charges
everybody
and
nobody
gets
to
this
point
to
the
appeal
because
they
don't
know
they
just
rather
pay
and
go
forward.
V
But
you
know
again
the
the
city
needs
to
abide
by
the
ordinances
and
they
need
to
be
applied,
like
you
said,
Mr,
but
run
across
the
board
and
the
in
this
case.
It
doesn't
you
heard
from
your
attorney
and
there's
a
lot
of
gray
areas.
It
doesn't
apply,
and
you
know
we
just
like
to
to
move
on
and
be
able
to
to
finish
our
project.
Thank
you.
F
AC
The
record
my
name
is
Jesus
Reese
I
was
one
of
the
committee
members
when
the
when
the
ordinance
was
drafted
and
I
hadn't
talked
to
the
attorney
prior
to
this
I
hadn't
talked
to
the
city's
attorney
prior
to
this,
but
the
the
beginning
of
the
ordinance
talks
to
section
what
is
it
government
code
212.
AC
and
in
that
section
has
to
deal
deal
with
Master
plans
planning,
subdividing,
okay,
and
he
made
a
good
comment,
which
was
part
of
my
comments.
Were
the
little
sections
that
were
presented
by
staff
are
really
like
sound
bites,
as
you
hear
now
nowadays
in
the
media.
Well,
this
they
take
out
this
little
sound
bite
out
of
context.
AC
So
in
the
section
for
the
multi-family,
if
I
recall
correctly,
I
mean
it's
been
a
while,
you
know
20,
20
or
I
think
we
started
this
ordinance
back
in
2006.,
but
the
purpose
of
that
section
was
for
situations
similar
to
what's
happening
today
at
your
somebody
comes
in
that
says.
Oh,
this
must
be
one,
but
I
I
want
to
do
it
now,
multi-family
when
they
did
the
original
palette.
There
was
no
fees
for
business
because
there
was
no
Nexus,
so
this
section
was
when
somebody
changes
the
use
of
the
land
and
the
park.
AC
AC
That
section
wasn't
presented
by
staff
and
it
talks
to
what
they
mentioned
earlier
about
annexations
and
additional
dedication
shall
be
required,
but
basically
we'll.
AC
That
section
reads
as
follows:
if
a
dedication
requirement
arose
prior
to
the
passage
of
the
section
that
dedication
requirement
shall
be
controlled
by
the
City
of
Laredo
annexation
agreement
service
plan,
under
which
the
dedication
requirement
was
required
and
approved
by
the
city
council
and
through
annexation,
ordinance,
additional
dedication
shall
be
required
only
for
any
increase
in
density
and
shall
be
based
upon
the
ratio
set
forth
in
the
City
of
Laredo
annexation
agreement.
So
nowhere
in
the
ordinance
does
it
talk
to
Prior
lands.
AC
So
somebody
looks
at
it
and
they
don't
see
what
the
president's
is
out
there
and
I
I
didn't
get
a
chance
to
look
at
the
earnings,
but
there's
a
section
in
the
ordinance
where
it
talks
about
whether
there's
a
plat
required
or
not,
and
you
can
add,
to
an
existing
lot
property-
that's
adjacent
to
it
without
having
to
plot
I'm,
not
sure
if
that's
in
the
it's
in
the
subdivision
standards
or
in
the
Land
Development
code,
but
it
talks
to
when
a
plant
is
required.
So
it
talks
to
it.
AC
So
this
issue
that
he
has
to
replant
I,
don't
think
so
and
that's
it.
That's
in
the
ordinance
and
it's
covered
that
you
can
add
to
a
lot,
that's
adjacent
to
it
without
a
without
a
plan
and
there's
no
easements
in
between
the
Lots,
so
I
think
it.
It
boils
down
to
the
situation
of
an
interpretation
issue.
G
AC
We
need
to
focus
on
redeveloping
the
inner
city.
You
know
fees
upon
fees,
cost
increases
upon
cost
increases
just
because
somebody's
coming
in
you
and
I
don't
know.
Maybe
they
say:
oh
I'm,
the
person
that
you
know
collected
all
these
fees
I,
don't
know
what
the
purpose
of
it.
Maybe
it
is
a
the
purpose
that,
yes,
we
want
to
make
our
city
better,
but
we
all
have
rules
to
abide
by
and
we
shouldn't
be
changing
the
rules
without
the
proper
system
and
the
proper
system
is
to
change
the
ordinance.
C
L
I
I
had
a
question
for
staff.
This
is
a
planning
question,
so
at
some
point
or
Parks,
which
everyone
can
help
me
out
with
this
one.
When
Park,
when
people
come
in
with
their
developments,
everyone
developers
usually
have
a
good
idea
as
far
as
what
their
Parkland
dedication
fees
are
going
to
be,
what
the
ordinance
calls
for
and
what
they're
bringing
in.
I
But
it's
sometimes
difficult
for
someone
to
be
able
to
have
an
idea
of
how
many
dwelling
units,
which
I
believe
it
mentions
all
throughout
the
ordinance
someone's
going
to
be
bringing
to
the
table
right.
So
at
that
point
sometimes
come
in
developers
come
in
with
a
certain
plot,
not
necessarily
letting
us
know
if
it's
multi-family
right
how
many
units
are
going
to
be
going
into
that
plat
for
that
multifamily.
I
So,
at
that
point,
when
they
come
in
finally,
with
their
building
permit
right,
they're
going
to
be
able
to
have
the
city's
going
to
have
more
of
an
idea
now
of
what
those
dwelling
units
are
going
to
be
proposed,
and
at
that
point
that's
when
that
can
trigger
that
fee.
Because
now
you
have
a
better
idea
of
what
or
how
many
dwelling
units
are
coming
into
your
development,
and
at
that
point
you
can
ask
them.
So
even
in
the
planning
process,
it's
going
to
be
difficult,
and
if
it's
single
family,
you
can
tell
right
away.
I
These
are
the
number
of
logs
100
Lots.
This
is
what
it
is,
and
you
know
this
is
what
the
what
the
park
fee
is.
But
when
it
comes
to
multi-family,
you
may
not
be
able
to
say
anything
out
of
the
planning
process
it's
going
to
have
to
be
in
the
building
process
when
they
come
in
with
their
plans,
and
at
that
point
you
know
it's
12
units
that
are
being
built,
and
at
that
point
you
can
calculate
if
your
12
units
are
going
to
be
this
much
money.
Is
that
correct.
S
S
We
actually
do
have
apartments
that
have
come
to
us
and
have
brought
us
properties
with
the
site
plan
and
everything
showing
us
how
many
units-
and
we
give
them
the
credit
for
the
space
that
they
have
and
we
even
give
them
their
money
back.
So
we
we're
not
in
favor
of
just
taking
fees.
We
really
are
trying
to
serve
our
residents
with
Parkland
open
spaces
and
a
lot
of
times
with
these
small
apartments.
I
Not
going
to
know
what,
how
many
dwelling
units
they
are
until
they
come
in
with
their
building
plans
exactly
unless
you
come
in
with
a
plot
of
a
bunch
of
houses,
then
you
know
how
many
Lots,
then
you
know
how
much
to
collect
right.
But
if
you
come
in
a
multi-family,
the
city
is
not
going
to
know
what
that
lot's
going
to
look
like
for
that.
Multi-Family
right
should
I
know.
S
Express
this,
but
there's
been
comments
from
Arturo
that
have
said
that
they've
actually
tried
to
get
away
from
paying
the
park
Improvement
fees
by
filing
it
as
commercial
and
then
later
not
having
to
pay
it
because
it
was
filed
as
commercial
and
I
feel
like
I
have
to
express
that
the
wishes
of
some
of
the
people
that
are
sitting
behind
me
are
not
to
pay
any
fees
at
all,
and
so
this
will
be
the
only
fee
that
this
apartment,
complex
has
to
pay.
S
Is
the
park
Improvement
fee
and
this
District
really
doesn't
have
any
park.
Improvement
fees
at
all,
North
Central
Park
is
starved
for
fees
for
Park,
Improvement
fees,
and
so
people
ask
us.
Why
is
the
north
look
so
good?
It's
because
we
have
all
these
Park
Improvement
fees.
Vacant
land
is
the
only
thing
we
have
to
collect
fees
in
this
area.
Z
S
S
I
I
understand
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
understand
the
process
for
the
for
the
for
the
city
to
determine
what
those
dwelling
units
which
I
keep
on
reading
here,
Independence
Day,
the
number
of
dwelling
units
and
numbers.
How
many
do
I
mean?
Listen
I
saw
how
the
calculations
come
up
to
the
fees
that
you
brought
up.
Yeah.
C
S
AJ
Yes
further,
my
name
is
Annabella
Ramirez
I'm
a
consultant
and
built
an
inspector
I've,
still
a
code
enforcer
and
I'm,
a
retired
plan
reviewer
for
the
City
of
Laredo
and
as
far
as
Mr
Arredondo
was
saying
that
that
the
ordinance
says
that
you
have
to
replay
or
you
recommend,
replied,
never
have
I
seen
it
and
I've
read
the
ordinance
have
I
seen
it
unless
I've
misread
it.
I
don't
know,
but
I've
never
seen
that
you
have
to
replant.
AJ
AJ
AG
A
AG
AI
AF
Mr
chairman,
if
I
can
just
comment
on
one
thing,
my
name
was
thrown
out
there
earlier
by
the
parks.
Planner
I
admire
the
young
lady's
passion
I
mean
we
need
more
people
acted
in
the
community
like
that
working
for
the
city
being
passionate
about
their
job,
and
you
know
serving
the
community.
There's.
No
doubt
I
used
to
be
the
community
development
director,
so
I
was
in
charge
of
a
lot
of
housing
issues,
so
primary
housing,
affordable
housing
is
a
major
issue
and
Redevelopment
of
the
inner
city,
the
old
Barrios.
The
old
neighborhoods
is
critical.
AF
This
is
an
empty
lot.
That's
been
empty
for
40
plus
years.
There
used
to
be
structures
there,
so
before
I
mean
that's
another
little
trigger
that
Parts
staff
has
told
us
well.
If
there
was
a
Structure,
then
it's
exempt.
So
where
are
all
these
little
rules
being
picked
out
of
the
the
major
thing
with
this
thing
is
not
we're
not
fighting
that
there's
not
a
need
for
for
money.
The
parks
are
needed.
We're
not
arguing
that
all
that
we're
arguing
is
that
this
ordinance
does
not
apply
to
this
project.
That's
all
that
we're
arguing!
J
Yes,
we're
gonna
move
forward,
just
one
real
two
seconds
that
you
know
what
we
do
have
enough
outstanding,
Park
Department,
because
I
know
as
early
there.
Well,
there
I
think
they're
up
to
date,
I
think
they
don't
know
what
happened
20
years
ago,
30
years
ago,
I
understand
it
and
our
attorney
is
the
same
way.
I
think
we
have
a
good
staff
I.
Think
that
the
what
we've
talked
about
before
we
need
to
get
everything
up
to
date.
So
there's
this
gray
area
disappears.
That's
all
it
is
yeah.
F
O
Given
where
the
applicant
is
at
this
point
in
time,
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
to
recommend
the
appeal
for
the
park.
Dedication
fee
for
117,
South,
mendiona
Avenue
is
that
motion
right.
AG
I
guess
it
would
be
I,
guess
it
to
sustain.
The
appeal
would
be
to
zero
out
the
fees,
no
fees
to.
U
F
J
A
Moving
on
to
item
five
bye,
bye.
AG
This
this
next
one
is
me
as
well.
It's
a
little
bit
lighter.
A
AG
So
L
is
we
received
a
director
from
city
council
to
to
increase
the
distance
requirement
for
for
the
sale
of
e-cigarettes
I
believe
currently
it's
it's
300
feet
and
we
were
we're
trying
to
move
that
to
800
feet.
Just
to
you
know
prevent
any
of
those.
You
know
miners
from
getting
a
hold
of
these
products.
AG
AG
A
AG
Goes
hand
in
hand
with
it.
It's
a
it's
to
add
a
definition
for
e-cigarette
and
related
products
to
the
to
the
Land
Development
code,
so
that
tobacco
shops
Encompass
those
as
well.
That
I
mean
I
I
our
positions
that
they're
covered
now,
but
we're
trying
to
make
it
clear
just
so
that
there's
no
gray
area.
A
I
The
only
thing
I
do
ask
as
far
as
I
think
a
lot
of
it
is
just
confusion
in
the
park
space
ordinance,
meaning
if
there
are
some
things
that
we
add
some
language
that
we
add.
It
would
be
clear
that
the
fees,
whether
it's
in
the
planning
process
or
in
the
building
permit
process
we
can.
The
city
is
allowed
to
collect
those
fees,
especially
when
they
don't
have
an
idea
of
when
those
dwelling
units
either-
and
that
was
my
point.
So,
let's
get
that
to
us
as
soon
as
possible.
AG
AK
Q
A
I
J
H
A
AG
C
A
Item
7c
preliminary
consideration:
the
plot
of
lot
two
block,
two
Alexander
commercial
phase:
15
the
intent
is
commercial.
Let's
see.
AL
Yes,
it's
determined
for
the
record
applicant
is
dnj
Alexander
Investments
investment,
Engineers,
Premier
engineering
surfing
proposed
uses
commercial
and
the
Zoning
for
this
will
not
developmental
P3
location
view
aerial
view.
P
P
K
I
L
P
I
C
A
AL
C
AM
My
name
is
presenting
Mr
Omar
and
we
concur
with
the
comments,
except
for
two
and
five
and
the
reason
being
to
ask
for
a
corner
clip
and
five
ask
to
to
be
open
to
to
adjust
the
right
of
way,
and
this
particular
item
was
given
a
went
to
the
board
of
adjustments
to
require
a
zero
setback.
This
is
a
very
old
building
that
goes
all
the
way
to
the
property
line,
so
it
was
granted
it
was,
it
was
approved
so
really
there's
no
space
to.
AM
We
will
be
calling
you
know
if
we
put
a
currently
if
you
will
be
asking
them
to
to
cut
their
the
existing
building.
So,
like,
like
I,
said,
we
concur
with
the
comments
except
for
those
two.
If
you
could
just
remove
those,
if
you
would
consider
that,
how
does
that.
A
AM
AM
F
Planning
comment:
number
two
and
number
five.
Yes,.
A
Against
motion
carries
moving
on
to
reconsideration
of
the
following
preliminary
class
and
preliminary
fats
item
eight,
a
preliminary
reconsideration
of
the
replay
of
all
lot
five
block,
two
Pinto
via
subdivision
phase,
one
and
tract
of
nine
from
base
ID
to
PG
Alpha
LLC
PG,
Omega,
LLC,
PG,
PG
Indigo
and
501
Imperial
Partners
LP
into
lot
5A
block
two
Pinto
via
subdivision,
Phase,
One,
detention's
commercial.
The
purpose
of
those
reconsideration
is
to
add.
AL
AK
C
L
A
H
F
F
O
AL
Right,
nine,
eight,
yes
I'm!
Sorry,
it's
okay,
applicant
is
GDB
holiday.
AL
Engineers
online
engineering
proposal
is
used
as
residential
and
the
zoning
plus
83
law
development
is
r1b,
location,
view
area,
View
street
view,
I
propose
plot
and
the
proposed
motion.
C
I
K
K
I
Now
the
only
question
now
is
they're
according
to
the
fact
they're
removing
the
southern
portion
of
the
like
it
has
X's
I'm,
just
asking
wondering
why
no
does
that
mean
it's
only
going
to
be
or
you're
adding
that
no.
AK
No
we're
the
the
crossed
up.
Part
is
the
area
that's
already
existing.
We
just
took
in
we're
just
kind
of
Crossing
it
out
so
that
it
doesn't
get
confused.
Okay,.
I
B
A
Against
motion
carries
moving
on
to
consideration
of
the
following
final
platforms
and
final
repets.
Can
I
hear
a
motion
to
hear
items
10
8
through
10
F?
If
there's
no
objection
by
staff
or
motion.
H
T
Sir,
for
the
record,
the
items
approved
is
final:
consideration
of
the
plot
of
Los
Angeles
subdivision
phase,
two
approved
vital
consideration
of
the
plot
of
skg
Columbia
Industrial
Park
South,
approved
final
consideration
of
the
replied
of
lot
2A
lot,
3A
lot,
four
block
one
and
lot
three
block
two
altavisa
subdivision
plot
into
Escondido:
Twin
Homes
subdivision,
approved
final
consideration
of
the
replied
of
lot
three
block:
three
North
Laredo
Industrial
Park
face
four
into
Lots
three:
eight
and
three
B
North
Laredo
Industrial
Park
phase,
four
approved
final
consideration
of
the
plot
of
Northern
Laredo
Industrial
Park
phase;
six
approved
final
consideration
of
lot.
A
Thank
you
we're
moving
on
to
consideration
model
subdivision
compliance.
Are
we
allowed
to
hear
also
these
Albury
and
winter
and
approve
for
action,
or
we
have
300
individually.