►
From YouTube: 09-06-18 Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
Description
09-06-18 Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting
A
B
A
B
C
C
D
A
A
A
In
my
opinion,
when
you
were
here
with
us
treatment
plan,
resolving
Commission,
bringing
your
items
forth
and
stating
your
case
on
whatever
you
needed
to
to
bring
forth
through
this
commission,
we
may
not
always
have
agreed
with
you,
but
you
know
we
certainly
respect
you
two
decisions.
Thank
you,
sir.
C
A
Okay,
the
next
letter
that
we
have
is
a
public
hearing
and
recommendation
of
an
ordinance.
This
is
amending
the
land
use
development
code,
article
4,
section,
24.6,
zoning
district
and
boundaries
beneath
the
paddle
of
B
for
zoning
classification,
highway
commercial
district
and
to
adopt
a
new
they're
up
a
new
title
and
text
which
new
title
is
high,
intense
community
business
district
and
creating
a
separate
zoning
district
for
highway
commercial
district
classification.
Ok,
a
new
title
and
text
with
new
title
is
B
5,
highway
commercial
district,
providing
for
publication
effective
date.
A
A
C
C
F
If
I
understand
your
question
is
if
it's
currently
designated
before
and
it's
a
vacant
piece
of
property
and
they
want
to
put
a
bar
on
and
after
the
date
of
the
effective
date
of
the
b5
ordinance,
if
it
ever
goes
to
council,
my
kids
approved
then
yeah.
It
would
affect
that
making
property
if
they
want
to
put
a
bar
or
monkey
neat,
or
one
of
these
other
yes
listed,
uses
on
it.
F
So
in
that
regarding
wood,
but
if
there's
a
bar
there
already
or
something
already
in
place,
it
they're
they're,
their
grandfathers
I
mean
they're
done
as
far
as
that.
The
the
risk
is
that
if
you
do
have
a
Barnaby
4-
and
you
do
end
up
in
that
grandfathering
scenario,
if
there's
a
six-month
gap,
then
it
would
be
looking
at
trying
to
be
funny.
F
C
C
F
If
well,
if
they
wouldn't
be
grandfathered,
because
they're
they're
legally
they're
under
the
CEP
okay,
but
for
the
CU
p,
they
would
not
be
able
to
have
that
use
there.
So
it's
not
a
grandfathering
issue
in
that
regard
and
you
can't
sort
of
bootstrap.
The
argument
say
well,
I
had
to
see
you
pee
all
these
years
and
now
I
lost
my
CP,
but
I'm
not
conforming,
because
I
was
there.
It
doesn't
work
that
way.
F
If
you
use,
if
you
lose
the
Cu
P,
then
that
business
cannot
lawfully
be
there
anymore
and
we've
had
it
happen
and,
like
I
said
in
the
time
I've
been
here
and
as
far
as
I
know
in
the
history
of
our
zoning,
there's
only
one
been
one
Cu
P
that
actually
got
revoked
and
it
took
two
years
to
do
that.
It's
a
it's
a
lengthy
process
because
their
property
rights
are
implicated
and
so
forth.
G
Good
evening
out,
Orlando
teeth
with
Killam
development
and
I'm
here
to
speak
against
the
ordinance
I,
don't
have
a
long
presentation,
it's
just
to
me
and
over
burden
on
landowners
to
mr.
Davis's
point,
we
have
property
of
his
own
v4
along
the
20
that
we've
actually
changed
from
v3
to
before
chasing
the
ability
to
have
bars
with
liquor.
This
would
make
as
then
now
change
it
to
b5.
So
it's
an
undue
cost,
so
we'd
prefer
to
just
leave
before
the
way
it
is.
G
Case
scenario
would
be,
if
you
ever
before
today,
you
automatically
convert
to
b5
and
then,
from
this
point
on
start
garden,
you
with
the
b5
zoning
again
it
it
puts
a
burden
on
property
owners,
and
you
can
imagine
if
you
had
sold
the
piece
of
property
on
loop,
plenty
to
Lowe's
or
Home
Depot
with
a
B
for
zoning.
They
can
actually
operate
if
they
haven't
submitted
their
permits,
and
this
important
ins
passes.
G
They
would
have
to
then
come
back
and
change
it
to
b5,
which
you
know
they
bought
it
with
the
full
intention
of
being
able
to
develop
their
property,
so
I
would
just
discourage
making
the
change
completely,
but
if
you're
going
to
leave,
put
all
the
be
floors
into
b5
and
and
then
start
afresh
from
that
point.
Thank
you.
Thank.
H
Good
evening
my
name
is
jerry
salinas,
I'm
the
president
of
the
Lorado
Builders,
Association
and
I'm.
Here
speaking
on
behalf
of
our
organization,
this
some
zoning
amendment
and
I
wanted
to
just
go
ahead
and
cover
a
couple
points.
I'll
try
to
keep
it
brief,
but
basically
were
against
this
because
we
feel
it
is
an
undue
burden
on
the
building
and
development
sector.
H
H
If
somebody
who
went
through
all
the
proper
procedures
and
everything
to
get
their
property
is
only
4,
they
haven't
sold
the
property
yet,
but
if
once
this
ordinance
passes
all
the
uses
that
were
they
were
entitled
to
when
they
were
developing
this
property
to
get
at
that
before,
just
overnight,
all
of
those
uses
transferred
to
a
B
5
and
they
have
to
come
back
and
go
through
the
entire
zone
change
process
which
can
be.
You
know,
three
months
of
time.
H
A
few
thousand
dollars
minimum,
if,
if
you
need
to
get
an
engineer
involved-
and
so
it's
unfair
to
that
landowner,
another
example
would
be
just
to
pool
one
of
the
39
uses
would
be
like
an
auto
repair
shop
they're
on
this
list
that
they
have
to
be
in
a
B
5.
There's
an
auto
repair
shop
on
something
out.
H
All
they
have
is
a
six-month
window
if
they
close
in
seven
months
now
that
property
is
now
permanently
a
before
the
use
is
discontinued,
and
so
they
would
have
to
get
a
zone
change
to
a
b5
in
order
for
that
auto
repair
shop
to
operate
as
an
auto
repair
shop,
and
if
that
zone
change
doesn't
pass,
and
now
you
have
an
auto
repair
shop
owner
who
can't
continue
to,
he
can't
sell
his
building
for
the
use
of
an
auto
repair
shop,
which
is
going
to
greatly
at
Value.
There's
there's
another
angle
to
this.
H
That
I
think
needs
to
be
addressed,
which
is
the
comprehensive
plan.
The
city
just
went
through
a
really
lengthy
process
of
adopting
a
comprehensive
plan.
Part
of
the
comprehensive
plan
is
to
create
pockets
of
livable
areas
within
the
city.
A
bar
is
on.
This
list
is
something
that
is
now
going
to
be
in
a
b5.
If,
if
you
create
these
b5
zones
along
highway,
corridors
and
bars
can
only
operate
within
those
B
fives.
H
The
concept
of
a
neighborhood
bar
a
neighborhood
pub
kind
of
goes
out
the
window,
because
now
you're
focusing
all
of
these
uses
into
this
one
corridor,
this
narrow
corridor
and
so
again,
I
feel
in
that
respect.
It
does
go
against
the
comprehensive
plan
because
you
can't
have
the
local
car
shop.
You
can't
have
the
local
bar
that
that
goes
out
the
window.
H
The
last
thing
I
wanted
to
mention
was
just
as
far
as
the
necessity
for
the
b5,
something
that
I
went
ahead
and
did
is
I
went
through
all
the
different
uses
and
39
uses
are
going
to
be
transferred
to
only
be
5
from
the
before
so
I
was
curious
to
see
okay,
what
what
differentiates
the
b5
from
the
b4?
Why?
Why
does
the
b4
continue
to
exist
if
all
of
these
uses
are
transferring
to
the
b5
and
I
went
through
it?
There's
there's
261
different
uses.
H
If
you
combine
the
b4
in
the
b5,
and
only
7
of
them
are
only
in
a
B
that,
if
you
have,
if
I
were
to
go
into
the
planning,
as
own
departments
say,
this
is
my
use.
What
can
I
get
away
with,
and
only
a
B
for
that
would
not
force
me
to
want
to
get
a
b5
and
there's
only
7
and
they're
all
institutional
uses
I
can
put
them
up
on
the
screen.
H
It's
on
the
institutional
government
page,
its
water
supply
facility,
water,
public
water
supply
facility,
private
sewage,
pumping
station
lift
station
and
a
water
booster
station
that
isn't
a
B
for
banana
b5
and
then
there's
three
others,
which
is
institutional
concessions
only
for
fishing
and
sightseeing
retail
sales
of
fishing
bait
and
snack
bars
and
vending
machines.
So
basically,
the
the
b5
is
the
b4,
but
you're
gonna
make
all
these
people
that
have
these
uses.
You're
gonna
put
the
burden
on
them
to
go
through
the
zone
change
process
to
pay
those
fees
to
wait.
H
For
that
time,
it's
a
huge
burden
to
put
on
the
city.
It's
a
huge
burden.
Frankly,
to
put
on
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Department
cuz
they're
gonna
have
to
be
dealing
with
all
these
own
changes.
They're
gonna
have
to
be
dealing
with
an
increased
number
of
special
use
permits
and
conditional
use
permits.
I,
don't
see
the
advantage.
I,
don't
know
with
what
problem
it
solves,
but
in
my
opinion,
you
just
you're
taking
the
V
for
slapping
a
b5
on
it
and
putting
all
this
extra
workload
on
the
city
and
on
the
on
the
text.
H
Pane,
developer,
builder
and
property
owner
side
in
it
and
I
do
want
to
stress
it.
It's
not
just
builders
and
developers.
Even
though
that's
our
organization,
anybody
who
owns
a
business
and
owns
property
with
any
of
these
uses
they're
gonna,
be
affected
greatly
by
this
and
so
I.
Just
there's
an
existing
problem
that
this
zone
change
addresses
that
I'm
not
aware
of
I'm
happy
to
sit
down
with
Planning
and
Zoning
and
discuss
that
and
maybe
there's
something
that
can
be
done.
H
F
There
two
hundred
and
sixty
someone
uses
and
of
those
260
someone
uses.
We
were
just
removing
these,
so
those
other
uses
stay
there.
They're
also
available,
so
I'm
not
sure
exactly
what
he's
for
sorry.
H
It
okay,
basically,
what
I
did
was
I,
went
down
the
entire
list
of
uses
and
ice
and
I
determine
okay,
if
I'm,
if
I'm
an
investor
and
I'm
going
to
build
one
of
these,
you
know
some
one
of
these
uses.
I
need
the
land
to
be
used
for
something.
That's
in
this
book
right
and
so
I
went
and
I
was
discussing.
What
would
why
would
I
want
a
before
verses
of
b5?
H
There
has
to
be
some
things
that
differentiate
those
two
zones
that
would
make
me
determine
what
am
I,
what
zoning
am
I
going
to
go
for?
The
b5
has
everything
the
before
it's.
The
b4
can
there's
a
ton
of
overlap
between
the
b4
and
the
b5.
The
main
differences
are
the
39
uses
that
they're
extracting
out
of
the
beat
for
it's
a
now.
A
b5
is
only
is
going
to
be
the
only
zone
that
you
can
use
and
so
what's
left
in
the
b4
that
the
b5
doesn't
have,
and
that's
those
7
that
I
reference.
H
D
D
H
Are
only
before
a
b5
is
not
allowed
enough
and
then
there's
three
others,
but,
and
so
the
point
that
the
only
point
I
make
is
that
the
b5
is
the
before,
except
these
seven
were
left
behind
for
some
reason
that
that
they
were
not
thrown
into
the
b5
right.
But
everything
that
the
before
was
the
b5
is
now
except
for
these
7.
H
So
what
why?
Why
created
other
than
to
throw
this
huge
burden
at
everybody
to
have
to
now
get
the
b5,
because
the
business
is
grandfathered
in
that
is
existing,
but
you
only
have
a
six
month
window
to
find
another
person
to
go
in
there
for
that
exact,
same
use
and
if
you're
selling
your
building
and
it
can
take
easily
take
90
to
120
days
to
close
on
a
property
that
gives
you
60
days
to
find
a
buyer
in
order
to
continue
the
use
and
for
that
grandfathered
in
to
count,
and
so
why?
H
J
D
D
D
Sometimes
people
on
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission
felt
uncomfortable
about
allowing
them
to
do
that
and
then
also
the
issue
was
that
there
was
neighbors
who
would
come
and
say
well,
yeah
he's
going
to
get
it
before.
But
then
you
know
we
don't
want
warehousing
storage
in
our
neighborhood
or
in
our
area
or
whatever,
but
like
to
me.
There
seems
to
be
a
huge
difference
between
like.
F
He's
essentially
correct,
I
mean
he's
he's
correct.
The
B
4
or
the
B
forth
that
exist
now
would
be
the
B
5
I
mean
you
would
be
able
to
do
everything
in
the
B
5.
Okay,
that
you
can
do
that
before
now.
What
you're
doing
is
you're
creating
separation
because,
as
you
said,
what
happens
is
since
the
B
4
is
so
expensive.
I
mean
everything
is
in
there.
I'm
I
mean
everything
is
in
before,
and
so
when
you
have
these
zone
cases
come
in.
F
Somebody
says:
hey
I
really
want
to
do
this
thing
over
here,
which
isn't
a
bad
thing
and
it's
not
going
to
cause
any
real
problems.
But
when
you
look
at
the
before
and
everything
that's
allowed-
and
you
all
have
said
this
to
people
if
we
change
that
zone-
and
you
come
in
here-
what,
if
you
don't
do
what
you
said,
you're
going
to
do?
What,
if
you're
going
to
do
a
bar?
F
Are
you
going
to
do
this
or
that,
so
what
we
did
is
we
took
those
uses
out
there
that
generally
don't
work
well
in
neighborhoods
and
around
those
areas
and
including
bars,
because
we
have
problems
with
that.
I
mean
come
to
a
couple
of
meetings
where
there's
a
bar
issue
and
you'll
hear
about
it,
but
I
mean
a
commercial
parking
lot.
Okay,
I
mean
you
know
before
we're
moving
it
into
a
higher
intensity
zones.
It's
not
an
auto-repair,
it's
an
auto
body
shop,
the
auto
body,
repair
or
auto
paint
shop.
F
Those
are
typically
pretty
loud,
noisy
kinds
of
things,
and
so
you
you
have
them
in
a
before,
but
it
up
against
a
you
know,
a
residential
area.
It
gets
noisy,
we've
had
it
where
people
have
come
in
and
they
said
we,
you
know
we
want
to
do
this
and
we
say
no,
no,
before
it's
not
appropriate
there.
This
is
too
close
to
that.
B5
would
then
will
then
be
the
benchmark
if
you
go
for
that
kind
of
operation,
so
we've
taken
those
I
mean
portable
toilet
chemical
leasing.
F
I
mean
really
in
a
before
right
next
to
a
neighborhood
or
something
like
it
needs
to
be
out
on
the
highway
somewhere
needs
to
be
away
from
here
from
your
residential
areas
and
even
from
your
commercial
areas.
They
probably
would
agree
that
they
don't
want
those
things
there.
So
I'm
not
saying
that
this
is
a
perfect
list
and
that's
what
the
public
hearing
is
all
about,
and
that's
what
the
Commission
needs
to
deliberate
on
is
all
of
us
do
all
of
these
things.
F
So
you
want
that
kind
of
move
down,
and
so,
when
you're
making
that
decision
about
whether
to
grant
a
beef
or
and
you're
thinking
about
all
these
possible
things
that
could
go
in
there
and
you're
saying
right
next
to
a
neighborhood
god
I
wish
they
couldn't
do
these
things,
that's
why
we're
putting
them
into
b5
so
that
there's
that
option
to
get
those
before
uses
that
are
more
harmonious
if
you
will
or
less
problematic
or
either
commercial
development.
You
know
like
scripture
centers
like
that
or
even
around
residences,
to
allow
that
flexibility.
Now.
F
Is
this
list
completely
right,
probably
not
I
mean
we
gave
it
our
best
shot.
You
know
we're
bringing
it
forward
and
we
want
comment
on
it,
but
I
mean
the
intent
is
not
to
the
bird
and
you
know
the
community,
or
you
know
the
tent
is
to
protect
the
citizenry
from
some
of
these
noxious
uses.
I
was
talking
to
mr.
Murphy
and
he
brought
up
a
good
point.
He
said
hey
if
I
haven't
before
with
aloes
and
they
need
outdoor
storage.
F
Now
they're
gonna
have
to
come
and
get
a
b5.
Well,
those
and
those
guys
generally
locate
along
highways
and
they
don't
want
to
be
in
a
neighborhood
right.
So
maybe
that
there's
a
way
to
accommodate
that,
but
that's
something
that
you
have
to
flesh
out
in
the
process.
I
mean
you
know
it's
very
difficult
to
come
to
you
an
ordinance,
that's
100%
satisfactory
to
everybody.
Right
I
mean
it's
never
gonna
happen,
so
we
give
it
our
bischoff.
We
hear
the
comments
and
I
agree
with
it
and
I
told
them.
F
I
said
yeah
I
see
what
you're
saying.
So,
how
do
we
accommodate
that?
What
do
we
do?
Do
we
go
out
there
and
say:
look,
let's
take
a
look
and
put
a
put
a
provision
in
there
that
for
the
next
six
months,
if
they're,
undeveloped
and
they're
along
a
highway
there,
this
there
that
they
get
an
automatic
right
to
the
Commission,
take
a
look
at
it
and
say:
yeah.
It
goes
to
b5
no
problem,
I
mean
they.
You
know
we're
only
the
same
thing
I
mean
those
guys.
F
Don't
don't
do
the
kind
of
stuff
that
we're
concerned
about
on
a
regular
basis
where
somebody
comes
in
and
decides
they
want
to
put
a
an
excuse
me
for
saying
is
a
bar
in
a
neighborhood.
You
know
we
had
one
of
those
cases
here
recently
and
by
the
way
it
got
turned
down
by
the
council,
but
that
was
a
zone
three.
F
F
F
A
A
A
You
know
that
to
me
that
would
be
better
suited
in
an
industrial
type
situation,
but
that's
just
a
point
that
I
noticed
is
I
observed
the
they
are
new
b5
zone
and
what
what
was
put
into
it
and
notice
that
it's
open
bucks,
most
of
it,
a
good
percentage
of
it
is,
was
m1
and
they
got
moved
to
b5
shorter
Commissioner
of
the
meetings.
I'm,
sorry
I
know
you
would
ask
mr.
Salinas
a
question.
Yes,.
I
And
one
of
the
reasons
that
I
asked
because
you're
presenting
a
lot
or
a
lot
of
people
and
a
lot
of
other
members
of
the
community
and
I
personally
feel
that
that
before
should
stay
the
way
it
is
that
we
don't
have
a
need
for
it.
But
I
also
feel
that,
if
we're
to
get
a
be
fine,
it
would
be
if
he'd
become
necessary.
I
So
it
might
be
a
good
idea
to
get
to
be
five,
but
not
so
much
because
we
need
it
right
now,
but
we're
gonna
need
in
the
future.
I
feel
that
there's
gonna
be
some
changes
in
the
legislation
in
Texas.
That
is
gonna,
be
impact,
and
one
of
them
might
be
gambling.
The
other
one
may
be
the
legalization
of
marijuana,
so
those
might
be
certain
types
of
business
that
might
probably
be
ideal
for
me
before
I
mean
for
the
be
fine
right
now.
I
Mr.
Bratton
C
is
telling
us
that
we
might
have
some
businesses
are
in
the
community,
but
also
the
comprehensive
plan
call
for
that
type
of
businesses
for
we're
trying
to
do
over.
The
comprehensive
plan
was
to
do.
They
want
to
create
the
amusement
and
the
well-being
of
the
community
in
their
area.
C
and
I'm,
going
to
make
an
example,
we
might
have
some
some.
I
Along
that
would
be
a
San
Bernardo
that
might
go
out
of
business
and
you
brought
it
up
if
they
don't
say
if
they're
on
sale
or
their
own
rental
businesses,
they're
gonna
they're
gonna
lose
their
grandfather.
Is
that
fair,
of
course
see?
The
other
thing
would
be?
If
you
keep
a
bit
more,
you
might
have
someone
that
is
gonna
bring
a
franchise.
You
don't
have
anything
to
offer.
I
So
your
your
property,
it's
a
it's
gonna,
go
down
in
value
because
you
don't
have
that
particularly
fine,
so
the
ideal
thing
would
be
to
grant
and
I'm
like
if
I
to
whoever
has
some
before
I
know
that
someone
can
say
well,
we
got
some
befores
that
are
right
up
the
middle
of
town.
Well,
we
didn't
grant
them
and
it
is
correct
right
now
to
start
making
to
change,
but
not
to
hurt
the
owners
of
a
before
C
universe.
The
investors
it
hurts.
It
hurts
the
developers.
I
I
mentioned
is
that
we
need
to
make
a
foundation.
We
need
to
make
a
motion
and
make
a
recommendation
to
City
Council,
because
if
we
don't
make
a
recommendation,
then
this
particular
ordinance
is
gonna
copy
board
city
council.
It
is
gonna
cater
to,
and
that's
not
right,
because
that
the
reason
we're
here
does
this
figure
here.
So
we
can
actually
bring
the
idea
of
the
community,
including
right.
So
we
need
to
amend
that
ordinance
that
actually
reflects
the
wishes
of
the
community,
your
wishes
and
their
wishes
and
their
time
that
that
I
spent
here.
H
To
tell
you
and
I
think
that's
a
very
excellent
point.
I
think
you
make
a
ton
of
excellent
points
and
I
think
that
that
might
be
a
compromise,
because
our
our
concern
is
if,
if
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Department
Commission
City
Council
want
to
shape
the
city
a
certain
way
moving
forward,
they
have
every
right
to
do
so,
and
the
LBA
would
do
everything
we
could
to
facilitate
the
healthy
growth.
H
And
you
know
we
are
obviously
tied
hand-in-hand
with
the
growth
of
Laredo
and
our
success
is
Laredo
success
and
vice
versa,
so
we're
very
interested
in
shaping
Laredo
the
way
that
council
sees
fit
the
way
you
guys
see
fit,
but
all
of
the
and
for
lack
of
a
better
word.
All
the
battles
that
have
been
fought
in
the
past
when
before
was
the
option
for
those
thirty
nine
uses.
H
H
Sweat
and
tears
in
order
to
get
that
and
they
thought
that
they
were
getting
the
the
proper
zoning
for
their
business
use
forever
and
the
moment
this
passes,
the
rug
is
pulled
out
from
under
them
and
now
they've
have
this
six
month
timeline
in
order
to
find
a
buyer
or
find
a
renter
to
operate,
the
exact
same
use
on
their
property
or
their
zoning
disappears,
and
that's
just
we
don't
feel
that
that's
fair,
so
maybe
going
forward.
You
know
that's
something
exactly
the
way
you
said
it
going
forward.
You
know
shape
this
Loretta.
H
The
way
you
guys
see
fit,
but
all
those
battles
that
have
been
fought.
That's
that's
water.
Under
the
bridge,
everybody
did
the
process
exactly
the
way
they
were
supposed
to
do
it
to
get
the
zoning
they
needed
at
that
time
and
to
just
take
it
away
from
them.
It
seems
unfair
and
so
to
grant
a
b-52
all
be
forced,
because
that's
really
what
it
is
the
b5
is
what
the
before
is
today
right
now
is
what
the
b5
would
be:
there's
basically
no
difference.
So
you
as.
I
H
Recommend
what
you
stated
that
all
before
has
automatically
become
a
b5
and
then
going
forward.
Anyone
who
doesn't
have
zoning
would
have
to
apply
by
the
new
ordinance,
but
existing
before
is
would
be
b5
so
that
they
can
continue
to
operate
their
business
and
manage
the
property
the
way
that
they
thought
they
have.
As
of
right
now,
thank
you,
which
is
anything.
I
N
I
said
here,
listening,
I
think
about
Laredo
itself
and
at
this
time
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
need
for
a
b5.
However,
as
little
grows
and
develops,
possibly
it'd
be
fun
necessary
now
to
remove
recommend
to
remove
items
from
before.
To
put
it
b5,
you
do
put
it
in
song
on
those
property
owners
and
developers
as
I'm
thinking.
Maybe
a
possibility
is
to
keep
the
existing
uses
for
before,
but
set
limitations
to
where
you
kinda
remove
those
nuisances
that
you're
talking
about
as
far
as
it
happens
with
a
neighborhood.
N
So,
for
example,
you
have
a
bar,
you
set
a
square
footage
limit
that
a
bar
can
be
used
in
the
before
yet
you're
still
allowed
to
use
a
bar
in
e4
and
e5.
You
have
a
larger
square
footage
opportunity,
so
you
still
have
the
opportunity
to
use
a
bar
before.
In
the
same
time,
you
if
you
want
to
put
a
5,000
square
foot
facility,
you
have
to
put
yourself
in
a
b5,
but
just
me
I'm,
just
thinking
about
as
I'm.
N
H
I
would
like
to
add
the
Laredo
Builders
Association.
We
have
an
office,
we
have
a
conference
room
we'd
be
happy
to
workshop
this
out
with
whoever
is
interested
in
workshopping
it
with
us.
You
know
going
through
it
line
by
line
seeing
what
effects
this
would
have
positive
and
negative
we're
more
than
happy
to
do
that.
We
haven't
had
an
opportunity
to
do
that
to
this
point
and
we
tear
our
office
and
our
time
in
order
to
do
that
and
get
this
thing
right.
H
E
H
This
moment
I,
don't
know
like
I
said
before
I,
don't
know
exactly
what
problem
it
solves.
Maybe
there's
a
problem
that
I'm
not
aware
of
that.
We
need
to
address
and
we'd,
be
happy
to
sit
down
and
discuss
that,
but
right
now,
I
don't
have
any
confidence
that
this
would.
This
would
have
a
large
impact
on
our
community
in
a
positive
I.
H
A
K
K
K
If
we're,
if
we're
going
to
make
this
change,
I'm
gonna
say
the
same
thing
that
Jerry
and
Roli
said:
if
they're
gonna
make
this
change,
we've
already
think
fought
the
battles
to
get
the
highest
possible
zoning,
and
if
you're,
going
to
create
a
new
zone,
I
would
suggest
to
recommend
that
anybody
that's
got
the
v4
already
that
you
automatically
give
them
the
v5
I.
Don't
have
the
list
in
front
of
me
of
the
39
uses,
but
I
I
saw
two
or
three
on
there
like
Nathan
mentioned
earlier.
K
I
think
an
outdoor
nursery
was
one
of
the
things
and
if
you're
gonna
put
a
Lowe's
or
a
Home
Depot
in
a
shopping
center,
well
they're
going
to
an
outdoor
nursery
I
mean
these
are
not
noxious
use
that
I,
don't
think.
But
it's
just
those
kinds
of
things
on
a
few
things
on
that
list,
that
we
need
the
flexibility
to
be
able
to
tell
you
know
prospective
business
that
we
can.
We
can
deliver
a
piece
of
property
that
is
zoned
ready
for
your
use.
So
we
would
appreciate
your
consideration,
sure,
Commissioner,
flutist
I,.
D
D
Think
that's
right,
so
what
this
does
bring
up
moving
forward
if
we
decided
to
do
this
for
future
developers
or
land
use,
land
owners
is
the
fact
that
there
really
isn't
a
mechanism
right
now
in
place
for
us
to
be
able
to
make
intelligent
choices
such
as
the
example
that
they
gave
about
those
like.
Let's
say
you
have
someone
who
comes
in
under
the
v5
and
well,
let's
say:
let's
say
you
have
someone
who
current.
D
Let's
say
you
have
someone
who
has
it
before
and
then
we
create
the
new
B
5
that
what
has
the
outdoor
nursery
and
and
this
person
has
before
it-
and
they
can't
do
this,
but
they
want
to
have
a
Lowe's
as
opposed
to
something
that
has
like
you
know:
nauseous
odor,
not
your
soldiers
or
something
like
that.
There
has
to
be
a
mechanism
in
place,
I
think
as
a
commission
for
us
to
be
able
to
see
that
and
say.
Okay,
this
project
is
a
project,
that's
in
keeping
with
the
comp
plan.
D
This
is
a
project,
that's
in
keeping
with
the
zoning
of
the
area.
You
know
those
we
can't
just
look
at
it
like
so
blindly
or
so
you
know
incomplete,
incomplete,
it's
like
and
that's
kind
of,
one
of
the
issues
that
has
come
up
in
these
projects
before
is
that,
like
someone
comes
in
and
they
said,
we
wanna,
we
want
to
go
from
a
b-1
to
a
b3
or
whatever,
and
it's
okay.
Well,
what
is
the
project
and
so
I?
Don't
know
we
don't
what
I'm
gonna
tell
you
what
the
project
is?
D
Well,
that's
to
be
determined
later,
okay.
Well,
then,
how
are
you
able
to
assess
whether
you
can
do
the
zone
change
or
not?
Does
that
make
sense,
I
mean
you
can't
and
does
that
make
sense
like
a
Nords,
if
you
don't
have
information
about
what
it's
a
project,
how
can
you
decide
whether
it's
gonna
fit.
E
A
Think
I
don't
know,
I
think
we
hit
it
is.
It
sounds
to
me
like
where
your
head,
it
is
it
there
needs
to
be
a
lot
more
discussion
as
to
what
should
be
in
a
b5
and
I.
Think
a
lot
of
it
has
to
do
with
what
the
industry
can
also
come
in
and
give
you
input
on.
You
know
I
mean
we
have
to
look
at
things
like
you
know.
Is
this
a
business
friendly
community,
and,
and
is
this
going
to
make
it
a
you
know
harder
to
do
business
or
not?
A
Is
it
gonna
be
there's
some
things
in
here
that
there
was
a
very
good
point
made
of
the
comp
plan.
You
know
we
need
to
look
it
up.
I
think
several
different
things
that,
because
I
see
some
users
in
hearing
that
b5
that
I
personally
don't
agree
should
being
a
b5
I
think
they
should
stay
tuned
m1.
Well.
A
F
Chairman,
none
of
these
uses
were
in
m1.
These
all
have
been
pulled
from
the
beef
for
now,
if
you're
suggesting
that
they
need
to
be
taken
out
of
all
of
this
and
thrown
over
to
m1.
That's
definitely
something
that
you
know
you
could
look
at,
but
but
I
understand
what
they're
saying
and
I'm
kind
of
thinking
about
it.
I
haven't
looked
at
the
zoning
map
globally,
but
I.
Don't
think
it's
a
big
issue.
I
mean
yeah.
F
You
could
write
into
this
ordinance
that
all
current
me
fours
RB
fives
and
basically
you
would
have
beef,
no
befores
in
the
city.
Ola
ray,
oh,
but
that's
not
not
a
bad
idea,
because
anybody
who
wants
to
come
in
and
get
his
own
change
would
Whittle
through
the
test
of
whether
it
needs
to
be
a
p4
of
e5,
and
you
can
do
that
so
what
they
want
to
all
be
beef
odds
and
they're
already
be
fours.
Maybe
that
is
a
decent
compromise.
Well,.
F
Though
the
B
times
gonna
be
the
ultimate
design,
I
mean
it's
gonna
have
everything
in
it,
I
mean
it's
the
zone
of
all
uses,
but
if
you
don't
want
those
uses
in
that
new
area
that
is
coming
in
for
zoning,
you
can
say:
hey.
You
really
need
to
look
at
a
b4.
We've
got
that
segregation,
because
these
other
less
less,
with
the
exception
of
these
uses
there
in
the
b4,
so
they
don't
need
to
do
that.
It's
the
same
way.
F
We
do
it
now
and
the
other
thing
that
happens
is
you
get
to
a
before
and
you
want
one
of
these
uses.
You
still
have
the
CU
p
advantage.
I
mean
you
can
go
in
and
say:
look
it's
just
this
one
thing
and
maybe
probe
it
may
not,
but
that
would
give
them
the
relief
they're
talking
about.
It
would
also
give
you
the
separation
between
those
uses
and
futures
instead
of
worrying
about
future
uses
coming
in
for
B
finds
you're
just
going
in
the
other
direction.
We're
saying
you
got
b5
future
uses.
A
A
F
A
How
properties
that
are
baking
right
now
with
the
highest
use
of
a
before,
should
be
moved
to
the
b5
so
that
we
can
craft
an
ordinance
that
makes
sense
to
everyone
and
so
that
this
community
can,
you
know,
say:
hey.
We
got
some
sensible
order
and
new
uses
that'll
be
in
the
future,
but
at
the
same
time
we
have
pieces
of
property
that
you
know
have
the
the
most
in
the
highest
and
his
use,
which
will
continue
that
way
because
they're
making
at
this
point
and
you're
marketing
them
at
that
point.
I
I
We're
gonna
have
the
same
people
that
are
here
present
and
we're
gonna
coordinate
and
hear
the
same
thing
that
we
heard
right
now
that
they
they
would
like
to
have
the
big
horse
comedy
5v5,
it's
good,
but
b5
is
good
for
something
that
is
can
be
created,
so
I
feel
that
when
they
develop
more
area,
they're
gonna
have
to
come
in
show
that
they
need
to
be
on
a
b5.
Well,
why?
I
A
A
D
D
For
instance,
right
now,
in
the
current
before
we
have
a
house
halfway
house
for
criminals
and
borrowers
all
in
the
same
category
and
that
to
me
like
right,
there,
like
I
just
said
screams
to
me,
like
those
are
so
different
from
each
other.
How
could
this
possibly
be?
The
same
type
of
you
know,
zoning
and
what
I
think
we
need
to
do
is
I
think
we
do
need
to
have
a
workshop
and
I
do
think
that
the
industries
that
are
the
developers
and
the
construction
companies
have
to
be
involved
in
it.
D
But
I
also
think
that
we
have
to
include
in
there
matching
this
up
with
the
vision
of
the
comp
plan
right,
because
and
I
also
think
we
need
to
define
what
these
b1
b2
b3
b4
b5
s
are
going
to
be
like
give
them
a
definition
like
b1
is
going
to
be
these
types
of
businesses.
It's
gonna,
be
these
types
of
services,
and
that's
why
it's
a
b1
and
that's
why
they're
all
together
as
a
group
and
they
make
sense
and
then
b2
will
be
another
group
that
will
be
like
this
will
be
this
group.
D
D
It's
like
low
right
density,
residential
or
medium
density,
residential,
high
density,
residential
and,
like
those
other
ones
and
I,
think
that
these
B
zonings
have
to
act
with
that
with
menus,
of
course,
land
use
and
in
the
end
the
complement
so
I
think
that
we're
not
ready
to
vote
on
this
and
I
think
that
we
should
tabled
it
and
ask
for
a
workshop,
but
I
think
we
need
to
have
a
lot
more
stakeholders
than
just
the
business
community
and
development
community.
I
think
we
need
to
have
the
content
people
here.
D
C
There's
some
that
if
it
are
be
ones
or
the
only
in
be
threes,
that
should
be
moved
down
to
beaten,
to
be
allowed
in
D
ones
and
and
so
I
think
it
should
be
something
that
it's
a
broader
picture,
because
if
we
just
redid
the
comp
plan,
you
should
look
into
the
difference
between
the
all
of
that,
because
I
agree
with
mr.
Salinas
there
there
are
some
bars,
there's
a
difference
between
a
bar
and
the
nightclub.
C
You
know
like
animals,
big
cities,
you
have
a
neighborhood
bar
into
the
street,
but
important
right
over,
not
all
bars
or
bars,
they're,
essentially
nightclubs,
restaurants
or
nightclubs,
yeah.
Well,
some
of
them
turn
into
after
certain
hour.
What's
that,
then
do
three
blocks
so
I
think
it's
something
we
should.
E
E
C
Other
problem
is
that
we're
adding
in
another
layer
of
another
zoning
when
we
can't
even
enforce
the
ones
we
have.
Now
we
don't
have
the
manpower
we've
had
numerous
see,
ups
that
have
never
been
in
compliance
and
we're
here
renewing
them,
because
they're
made
feels
bad
to
say
no
to
people.
But
we
have
the
legit
people
coming
here,
asking
on
behalf
of
everybody,
but
they're,
not
the
ones
that
are
non
complying,
but
we
should
look
at
everything
like
it's
I
think
it's
more.
They
give
them
whole
ordinance.
A
I
With
the
court
days,
the
the
recommendations
we
need
to
I
think
that
we
need
to
be
careful
if
we
table
it.
That's
fine,
no
problem
with
that,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
that
that
this
draft
doesn't
get
to
City
Council,
because
that's
here
on
this
particular
graph,
we're
saying
that
that
we,
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission,
recognizes
its
own
education
authorizes.
A
I
think
at
this
point,
if
we,
if
we
table
and
I'm
going
to
ask
Layton
I
mean
if
the
Commission
nice
table
there's
to
have
further
study
on
it.
That's
where
it's
gonna
stay.
It's
not
gotta,
go
to
council,
of
course,
yeah!
That's!
What's
gonna
state,
so
I
think
if
we
we've
heard
input
from
from
the
community
and
and
I
think
we're
ready
to
to
see
what
the
Commission
wants
to
do
with
this
I
think
we've
had
some
good
ideas
as
to
what
still
needs
to
be
done.
I
J
A
D
A
J
O
A
A
E
O
D
O
O
E
P
P
P
F
Chairman
I
mean
he
I
spoke
to
him
before
the
meeting
and
all
that
very
positive
attitude.
I
think
he
probably
I
can't
I
can't
speak
for
him,
but
I
believe
that
they
think
that
it's
properly
pasted
placed
at
CDs.
But
what
I
would
recommend
to
you
is
that
you
also
do
the
same
with
this,
that
you
did
with
the
other,
maybe
bring
it
back
into
ease.
Give
him
a
chance
to
work
also
with
the
neighbourhood
Maps
cuz
he's
he's
not
had
that
opportunity.
F
I
think
this
thing
is
being
viewed
very
favorable
by
all
people
involved
and
I.
Don't
think,
there's
any
really
contentiousness
about
whether
or
not
it
should
happen
in
here,
but
he's
in
the
same
general
frame
of
mind
that
it's
a
good
thing,
but
again,
haste
can
can
create
some
pretty
unintended
consequences
and
I
think
it
probably
is
advisable
to
give
him
a
chance
to
meet
with
the
planning
staff.
F
He's
also
gonna
have
a
sense
of
some
of
those
neighborhoods
that
are
on
that
man
and
be
able
to
to
lend
guidance
with
that
as
well,
I
mean
let
him
feel
a
burden.
They
may
be
come
back
with
a
bit
more
broad
map.
I
mean
like
you,
I
didn't
find
some
ECU.
So
in
these
other
areas,
so
you'll
have
those
areas
of
commonality
for
those
neighborhoods
more
more
efficiently
designated.
F
P
A
P
Like
this
would
be
looked
at
favorably
from
our
side
of
it,
we
do
do
a
lot
of
outreach
for
the
neighborhoods
and
having
somebody
to
reach
out
to
and
and
gather
everybody
in
the
neighborhood
to
make
contact
with
them
and
get
input
would
service,
serve
our
department
and
the
city
as
a
whole
and
vice-versa
for
them
to
access
for
information
that
they
might
need.
They'd
have
a
point
of
contact
for
them
to
make
it
more
easily
readily
accessible.
P
O
So,
on
that
same
page
on
letter,
D
number
two,
it
says
that
the
city
managers
show
city
manager.
Designee
shall
make
a
ruling
on
the
appeal
within
a
reasonable
period
of
time
after
the
appeal
has
been
filed.
Do
you
want
to
put
a
number
on
that
reasonable
amount
of
time?
Or
do
you
want
to
leave
it
I?
Think.
A
O
J
A
O
C
D
E
A
A
E
A
J
P
C
C
D
G
A
Like
seven
that
we
have
is
the
request:
preliminary
consideration
of
the
stamford
height
subdivision,
plat,
the
intent
is
residential.
It's
a
nineteen
point.
Four
acre
site
is
located
north
objective.
The
rotor
needs
to
pass
of
other
Road
there's
only
for
this
107
lot.
Development
is
r1.
The
track
is
in
district
5.
The
proposed
action
is
approved,
subject
to
the
following
comments
from
planning:
engineering,
water
and
utilities,
traffic
parks
and
leisure,
and
a
notice
to
developer
from
planning.
Q
A
A
A
Q
A
A
Could
we
somehow
put
a
plat
note
in
there
I
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
residential
traffic.
I
do
have
I
think
concern
that
these
people
had
was
mostly
commercial
traffic
going
through
there
I
mean
as
you're
gonna
do
construction
of
residential
you're
gonna.
Have
you
know
cement
trucks
full
foundation
stuff?
How
could
we
make
those
trucks
come
in
through
off
of
a
severely
Frank.
Q
It's
pretty
difficult
to
control
that
only
because
you
don't
have
all
hundred
seven
lots
that
get
sold
at
the
same
time,
yeah
so
you're
not
gonna.
Have
the
development
completely
being
built
all
at
once.
Initially,
that's
something
that
could
be
controlled
and
asked.
As
for
the
builders
that
purchased
the
Lots,
but
at
some
point
in
time
the
development
is
gonna
slow
down
and
at
that
point
to
control
the
traffic
and
circulation
of
where
they're
entering
and
exiting
will
be
very
difficult.
Q
But
at
some
point
in
time,
like
I
said
that
the
lot
sales
will
slow
down-
hopefully
not
hopefully,
yeah
comes
through
pretty
quick,
but
the
thing
is
is
that
we
would
like
to
open
it
up
to
circulation.
The
client
has
no
problem
during
construction
of
the
actual
project,
the
roads,
the
waters
or
the
storm
sewer.
Q
But
after
that,
we
want
to
open
it
up
for
circulation
and
I
understand
your
point
as
far
as
not
having
the
building
trucks,
not
the
cement
trucks,
all
the
builders
going
to
and
fro
through
there,
and
that
can
be
like
I
said
initially.
That
can
be
something
that
can
probably
address,
but
I
just
don't
see
how
it
can
be
controlled
through
a
plat
note.
It
would
just
have
to
be
a
good
faith
effort,
as
they've
done.
You
know
so
far
to
this
point.
Q
E
C
L
Evening,
commissioner,
good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
Robert
Saldana
I'm,
an
attorney
representing
the
developer.
I'll,
be
brief.
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
and
highlight
some
legal
aspects
relevant
to
the
application,
and
that
we're
asking
for
the
first
case,
I
would
cite.
Is
a
local
government
code
section
two
one
two
point:
zero
zero
five,
which
states
that
the
municipal
authority
responsible
for
approving
plats
must
approve
a
plan
that
satisfies
all
the
applicable
regulations
and
I.
Believe
that
that's
the
case,
mr.
Brennan.
L
L
In
that
case,
the
court
overruled
the
county's
denial
of
a
plat,
which
meant
all
the
state
and
local
requirements,
even
though,
because
the
county
felt
that
the
number
of
driveway
cuts
on
the
public
road
were
excessive,
which
is
similar
to
the
objections
raised
in
this
case
traffic,
the
court
would
not
to
say
that
it
county
lacks
any
inherent
authority
to
reject
a
flat
based
on
public
health
and
safety
and
must
base
any
denial
on
statute
or
properly
adopted
county
regulations.
A
county
could
adopt
rules
dealing
with
access
issues,
but
not
having
done
so.
L
In
that
the
road
is
shown,
lucia
court
is
a
public
road.
In
addition,
Newmar
who
was
the
developer
of
new
vision,
it
was
a
party
to
an
access
agreement
filed
in
2015
with
Amedeo
Jacqueline
and
in
that
agreement,
Newmar
agreed
to
move
a
15-foot
easement
to
the
middle
of
the
property
as
a
50
foot
public
road,
which
became
Lucia
Court,
and
that's
a
record
in
volume,
3
7-6,
4,
page
407
of
the
Webb
County
official
those
records.
Now
my
client,
the
applicant.
L
L
You
know
this
happens
all
the
time.
You
have
a
subdivision
that
gets
platted
and
developed
it's
the
first
one
and
then
over
time
the
back
gets
developed
and
there's
gonna
be
traffic,
and
you
know
it's
just
a
part
of
the
way
it
development
goes
and
to
deny
applied
in
this
case,
based
on
the
objections
of
these
Lauder
owners,
I
think
would
set
a
bad
precedent
in
the
future.
It
might
stymie
future
development,
so
you
might
have
issues
raised
in
that
respect
as
well.
If
you
deny
this
preliminary
pledge
and.
A
A
I
know
that
you
come
back
and
you
agreed
that
redesigned
and
and
you've
done
a
lot
of
things
so
I
mean,
from
your
end,
you've
done
a
lot
of
good
faith
in
terms
of
being
a
good
corporate
citizen
and
bringing
good
coat
of
paint.
So
you
know
first
of
all,
thank
you
for
all
those
things
now,
I
guess
do
you
have
anything
further
that
you
want
to
add
or
I
just.
L
I
I
I
Look
it
back
from
work,
gonna
be
happy.
Your
kids
can
walk
around
without
any
problem.
You're
gonna
be
secure
when
you
climb
what
that
property,
if
he
bought
it,
see
what
he
owned
it
before
it
should
have
asked.
It
should
have
got
together
with
the
people
to
see
how
they
were
gonna
get.
You
are
correct.
What
you
brought
before
us,
but
also
there
should
be
on
the
development
on
the
development
engineering
area.
They
should
create
the
entrance
for
construction,
avoiding
Lucy
at
work.
Why?
J
I
Have
seen
deterioration
of
the
area
of
the
street
of
the
asphalt
as
it
is
so
once
you're
the
developer,
you
of
your
your
client
complies
and
finishes
all
the
development.
See
he's
not
gonna
go
back
and
impact
the
road,
because
that
doesn't
belong
to
him.
He
used
a
right
to
go
through
that
property
and
embrace
the
asphalt
because
he
wanted
to
make
money.
I
That
was
the
law,
see
the
law
that
you
brought
before
us
see,
but
that
doesn't
have
the
the
residence
there's
they're
still
there
with
a
bunch
of
traffic
and
all
the
the
the
asphalt
are
too
far
apart,
because
somebody
decided
that
they
didn't
have
control
of
the
construction.
We're
not
asking
you
open
the
gate
just
because
we
want
to
be
a
bad
guy.
We're
asking
to
protect
that
section
of
the
community
the
same
way
that
will
you
protect
other
sections
of
the
community,
so
what
you
brought
it
for
us
is
good.
I
What
I'm
using
is
a
margin
and
I'm
using
the
right
approach
to
help
the
community,
so
in
my
case,
I
would
probably
make
a
motion
to
which
I'm
not
doing
it,
but
I
will
try
to
make
a
motion
that
that
we
care
sure
by
the
developer
that
all
the
construction
crews
will
go
through
it
who
may
see
instead
of
going
through
through
those
here
and
then
see.
I
see
your
point.
I
see
the
point
of
the
developer,
anyone
and
the
engineer,
but
we
need
to.
We
need
to
look
at
the
point
of
the
community.
L
Q
That
question
I
think
the
excuse
me
I'm.
Sorry,
I,
think
the
question
was
answered
already
when,
when
chairman
the
other
aisle
asked
we
would
the
entrance
we're
going
to
be
using
is
along
the
other
side.
That's
we
did
loop
it.
We
came
forward
with
the
19
for
four
acres,
and
so
we
have
the
entrance
along
the
existing
lucia
corp
and
we
have
the
new
interest
that
will
be
built.
That's
where
the
construction
will
be
coming
in
and
out
of
not
through
there,
and
we
will
minimize
the
amount
of
construction
flow
traffic
that
goes
through
there.
Q
E
C
C
J
A
All
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
hi,
two
three
four
five
six
okay
motion
carries.
Thank
you.
The
next
item
is
the
preliminary
consideration
of
the
replant
a
block:
five
and
six
block
one
D
and
J
Alexander
subdivision
unit
8
into
five
and
six
eight
block,
one
D
and
J
Alexander
subdivision
unit,
eight,
the
antennas
residential
purposes,
re
plans
to
join
to
spawn
Lots
into
one
larger
Lots.
The
proposed
action
is
approved,
subject
to
the
following
comments
from
planning,
water
and
utilities,
DEP
County
and
then
those
two
developer.
C
A
A
All
right,
the
next
item
that
we
have
is
the
enumerated
consideration
of
the
replan
of
lots:
1
and
2
block
1
San
Ysidro
west
subdivision
phase
5
into
locks
1a
and
2a
block
1
San
Ysidro
Southwest
subdivision
base
5
the
antennas
commercial.
The
purpose
of
the
replant
is
to
relocate
the
back
of
the
property
line
between
rocks
1
&
2
block
1.
The
proposed
action
is
a
proof
subject
to
the
following
comments
from
planning
water
and
utilities,
and
then
those
two
developing
from
planning.
B
A
This
is
the
preliminary
reconsideration
of
the
plan
of
the
new
Trade
Center
face
to
the
antennas
Industrial
there's
a
49
24-acre
tracks,
looking
at
west
of
FN
47
to
the
north
of
crates
and
boulevard
rezoning
for
this
ten
lakh
development
is
in
one.
The
proposed
action
is
approved
sums
to
the
following
comments
from
planning
engineering,
watering
utilities
and
notice
to.
Q
A
Those
are
the
second
all
those
in
favor
aye
I
should
carry
Saturday.
We
have
is
the
request:
paddle
consideration,
replanted
lots
to
14
to
15
blockade,
Regency
Park
section
to
unit
one
subdivision,
plat
into
Lots
15,
a
Regency
Park,
section
universe
of
the
region.
We
played
the
antennas
residential
purpose
of
the
route
plan
is
to
join
two
small
walks
into
one
large
line.
A
Okay,
we're
good
look
at
five
right
now:
okay,
what
are
the
wishes
of
the
commission
of
this?
The
proposed
action
is
approved,
motion
to
approve
and
motion,
and
the
second
troubles
in
favor
aye
motion
carries.
Thank
you.
The
next
item
that
we
have
is
the
final
consideration
of
the
plateau
of
clinical
industrial
center
FM
72
phase
fm14
72
phase
2,
the
antennas
industrial.
The
proposed
action
is
approved.
F
A
M
To
have
something
to
say,
though,
all
right:
Jed
Gilpin
for
the
record
and
I
do
support
staffs
recommendation,
but
I
especially
wanted
to
come
down
here,
because
it's
Nathan's
last
meeting
and
thank
him
for
a
lot
of
good
years
of
service.
A
lot
of
people
might
not
realize
how
long
he's
been
around,
but
in
the
old
days
when
the
Commission
was
first
getting
started.
There
was
a
lot
more
controversy
in
the
Narrows.
Now
she
can
imagine
that
we
had
to
have
an
attorney
here
from
the
City
Attorney's
Office
and
Nathan
was
an
attorney.
M
He
served
for
ten
years
as
a
commissioner
and
subsequently
the
planning
department
director
and
a
good
part
of
those
years.
I
really
didn't
like
him
and
I,
especially
didn't
like
Keith
previous
thanks
to
Nathan
I,
found
a
way
to
get
along
with
them
and
learned
a
lot
from
both
of
them
over
the
years
and
I
wanted
to
come
down
here
and
thank
him
for
not.