►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting 070121
Description
Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting 070121
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
E
A
C
We
have
a
very
strong
staff,
a
very
focused
staff
and
we're
going
to
maintain
that,
and
one
of
the
areas
like
you
said,
is,
is
bringing
in
our
engineers
bringing
in
the
developers
and
open
up
communication
and
our
office
is
open
for
business
and
and
and
we're
just
going
to
start
with
that
and
get
that
ball
rolling,
because
that
seems
to
be
one
of
the
areas
of
great
concern
and
we're
going
to
focus
on
that.
First
perfect.
A
D
A
F
A
H
H
Hernandez
the
owner
and
her
representative
is
miguel.
Aguilares
property
location
is
lot
one
and
lot
three
block
367
in
the
western
division
located
at
1802
santa
ursula
avenue.
The
zone
change
request
is
going
from
a
b3
community
business
district
to
a
b4
highway
commercial
district
proposed
use
commercial
game,
room,
machinita
letters
sent
out
were
23
and
we
did
not
receive
any
four
organs.
H
This
is
a
zoning
map
showing
v3
all
around
this
is
the
future
land
use
shows.
Neighborhood,
mixed
use
and
adjacent
to
medium
density
staff
does
not
support
the
proposed
zone.
Change
two
reasons:
the
property
exists
primarily
along
the
freeway,
but
has
residential
parcels
within
200
feet.
The
business
hours
of
operations
will
extend
beyond
the
current
businesses
in
the
surrounding
area
negatively
impacting
the
residential
districts
in
the
area
proposed
motion.
H
A
G
I
J
J
J
D
D
B
H
I
I
B
C
A
J
It
doesn't
really
matter
that
it
doesn't
really
mean
that
they
will
do
it
because
those
machinitas
they
still
have
to
comply
with
the
with
the
building
department
and
the
distance
between
the
the
residential
area
so
get
giving
them
a
b4
will
not
guarantee
that
they
will
be
able
to
to
rent
it
for
machinita.
So
my
motion
is
to
give
them
the
v4
because
of
the
location
and
and
if
there's
any
any
conditions
attached
to
it,
that
the
conditions
go
with
deal
with
my
motion.
We
have.
A
D
C
C
J
J
M
A
H
Yes,
the
applicant
is
roberto
and
lydia
garza.
The
owners
and
gilberto
gonzalez
is
a
representative
property
location
is
lot
10
block
288
in
the
eastern
division,
located
at
2205,
logan
avenue
zone
change,
request
is
b1,
limited
business
district
proposed
use,
expand
the
parking
area
for
the
reconstructed
meat
market
letter
sent
out
or
29
0,
4
and
0
against
were
received.
It's
a
general
location
like
clark
and
logan
the
aerial
view.
H
H
Staff
supports
the
application
for
the
following
reasons:
the
property
of
butts
b1
zoning
to
the
north,
although
non-conformance
with
the
comprehensive
plan
designation
for
this
area,
has
a
medium
density
residential.
It
supports
the
neighborhood
mixed
use
by
allowing
the
meat
market
business
to
expand
and
serve
the
neighborhood.
The
proposed
zone
is
generally
generally
compatible
with
the
surrounding
uses
and
zones.
N
A
A
Anybody
who
wishes
to
speak
against
the
zone,
change
against
the
zone,
change
all
right.
What
are
the
wishes
of
the
commission?
Appropriate
function
motion
to
approve
second,
second
by
mr
lawalina,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
signify
by
saying
aye
aye.
Those
against
motion
carries
next
item
amending
the
zoning
ordinance
city
of
norada
by
resorting
lot
5
block
823
eastern
division
located
at
1420
north
meadow
avenue
from
r1
to
b1.
H
The
applicant
is
maria
del
carmen
rathmael,
the
owner
and
daniel
gonzalez
is
a
representative
property
description
lot.
5
block
823
of
the
eastern
division
located
at
1420
north
meadow
avenue
zone
change,
request
from
a
b-1
limited
business
district.
The
owner
wants
to
extend
the
commercial
area
with
the
abutting
property
of
the
south.
H
H
This
is
a
zoning
map
showing
the
rest
of
the
block
as
b1
and
the
one
parcel
remaining
as
r1
future
land
use,
and
then
staff
supports
the
application
for
the
following
reasons:
the
property
of,
but
to
be
one
zoning
to
the
south
and
the
west.
Although
non-conformance
with
a
comp
plan
designation
for
this
area
as
a
low
density
residential,
it
supports
the
neighborhood
mixed
use
by
allowing
the
limited
commercial
zoning
to
expand
and
serve
the
neighborhood.
The
proposed
zone
is
generally
compatible
with
the
surrounding
uses
and
zones.
A
B
A
A
A
A
We
have
a
motion
to
approve
his
own
change.
Second,
from
abby
lugo,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
signify
by
saying
aye
aye.
Those
are
gains.
The
motion
carries
next
item.
Is
the
minion
is
only
mapped
accelerated
by
rezoning,
approximately
73.01
acres
out
of
a
tractor
land
conveyed
by
deed
to
martinez,
paving
company
located
north
of
highway
359
1.57
miles
east
of
luke
20
from
ag
to
r1a.
B
A
H
The
applicant
is
jorge
and
cesar
martinez
and
martinez,
paving
company
our
owners
and
gilberto
gonzalez
is
a
representative
property's
location,
73.01
acres
out
of
the
tractor
land
conveyed
to
deed
to
martinez,
paving
company
located
north
of
highway
359
1.57
miles
east
of
loop
20.
zone
change.
Request
is
r1a
single
family,
reduced
area
district
proposed
use,
residential
single
family
letters
sent
were
fourteen
zero,
four
and
zero
against
general
location
along
east
359
to
the
aerial
view,
with
the
property
recently
annexed
into
the
city,
the
street
view.
H
Staff
supports
the
application
for
the
following
reasons:
the
property
is
expanding,
the
city
limits
to
incorporate
unplanted
and
undeveloped
land
into
a
residential
district,
although
not
in
conformance
with
the
comprehensive
plan's
designation
for
this
area
as
agricultural
district,
the
zone
change
increases
the
affordability,
housing
available,
availability
east
of
loop
20..
The
proposed
zone
is
generally
compatible
with
the
surrounding
uses
and
zones
motion
to
recommend.
C
So,
mr
chair,
you
know
you
could
see
that
out
on
359
there's,
there's
a
push
to
do
more
residential
out
in
that
area.
For
the
longest
time
this
was
industrial
type
uses
we're
starting
to
see
a
change
and
more
development
going
out.
This
way,
which
is
which
is
you
know
the
the
positive
trend
that
we'd
like
to
see.
P
J
P
There's
already
an
approved
master
plan,
so
we're
right
now
working
on
the
they're
going
to
be
two
main
access.
One
120
foot
right
away,
that
is
part
of
that
master
plan
and
there's
going
to
be
a
60
foot
right
away,
that
connect
to
359
and
and
that's
how
we're
gonna
that
those
are
gonna
be
the
two
main
axes.
A
B
P
We're
just
going
to
start
the
process
we've
been
talking
to
them
and
the
tie
was
prepared
with
them
and
right
now,
we're
going
for
the
connection
to
the
to
the
to
the
main
street,
usually
texas,
likes
to
see,
what's
going
to
be
on
the
commercial
properties
before
granting
any
access.
So
we
will
do
that
at
the
moment
that
where
we
know
what's
going
to
be
there,
but
as
far
as
the
residential,
yes,
we
should
we're
going
to
submit
actually
tomorrow
for
the.
E
J
J
Now,
where
I
was
going,
is,
do
you
own
that
entrance
or
you're
still
negotiating
to
get
that
track
of
land
as
an
entrance
to
that
property?
Because,
mr
navarro,
how
can
we
go
on
an
r1?
If
we
don't?
We
don't
even
know
where
they're
going
to
be
coming
in
from
so
with
that,
do
you
have
that
documentation
already.
R
If
I
may
I'd
like
to
respond
to
that,
I
want
to
say
it
was
about
two
pnc
meetings
ago.
We
had
presented
the
gator
point,
master
plan
that
was
brought
in
by
the
consultant,
and
it
was
discussed
during
png,
and
there
were
some
issues
where
they
needed
to
coordinate
with
text
out.
They
were
having
some,
you
know,
just
the
alignment,
and
there
was
also
some
concern
on
the
next
item
with
regards
to
the
before
that.
R
J
A
A
A
R
Q
J
A
N
A
Against
motion
carriers
now
the
next
item
is
amending
the
zoning
ordinance
of
the
city
lawyer
by
rezoning
approximately
73.01
acres
out
of
a
tractor
land
conveyed
by
martinez,
paving
located
north
of
highway
359
1.5
miles
east
of
loop
20
from
r1
2
b4,
highway
commercial
shouldn't
that
have
been
described
differently.
It
was.
C
A
P
A
R
Yes,
mr
chairman,
for
the
record,
the
applicant
is
fm:
1472
investments,
kurt
cross
president
engineer
of
record
gilbert
engineering
company,
approximately
772
acres,
located
west
of
f
1472
and
northwood
people
road,
the
zoning
for
the
66
law
development
is
m1
and
the
proposed
use
is
light.
Industrial
general
location,
aerial
view
street
view.
R
A
R
Well,
I
mean
the
there
will
be
significant
traffic
generated
through
this,
and
one
of
the
comments
from
txdot-
and
I
don't
know
we
can
be
on
the
screen-
is
that
textile
is
requiring
take
traffic
impact
analysis
yeah
for
this
development,
which
is
very
important.
So
one
of
the
things
is
that,
yes,
while
you
we
are
looking
at
their
master
plan,
there
might
need
to
be
a
little
bit
of
a
hold
on
the
phasing
for
the
faces
to
come
online
to
ensure
that
they
comply
with
the
ti
as
it
comes
forward.
J
B
H
T
L
I
am
not
against
this
planning
this
master
plan
by
any
means,
I
feel
we're
a
very
critical
point
here.
We
need
to
be
very
careful
about
how
we
let
this
develop
they've
already
developed.
I
think
one
phase
of
this
refinery
from
right
and
approving
the
master
plan.
Then
the
different
faces
come
in
once
those
faces
come
in
a
study
after
that
really
locks.
L
So
we
have
a
lot
of
critical
traffic.
That's
going
to
be
coming
through
there.
There's
no
study
that
says
that
the
intersection
will
be
able
to
support
700
acres
of
more
truck
traffic,
at
least
with
one
entrance.
It
says
as
an
example,
if
you're
familiar
with
just
the
development
further
south,
where
pan-american
is
yeah
and
world
trade
center,
that
has
two
exits
and
that
that's
even
smaller
than
this
and
look
at
the
traffic
we
have
there
yeah.
L
So
it's
not
a
question
of
saying
yes
or
no,
but
it's
just
about
being
smart
about
how
we
do
this
and
that's
what
we
need
to
study
for.
I
asked
them
for
one
also
an
effort
to
allow
the
one
of
the
faces
to
go
through.
We
said
we'll
agree
to
do
that
phase.
We
give
our
approval
letter,
but
he
said
no
more
phases
will
be
allowed.
L
So,
even
if
you
do
the
master
plan,
then
we
should
not
be
allowing
more
phases
until
we
know
exactly
how
that
master
plan
is
going
to
look
like
it's
one,
one
entrance
with
a
very
large
world
on
the
other
side.
Who
knows
if
we
can
handle
the
traffic
and
we're
going
to
paint
ourselves
into
another
kiln
type
of
kiln
and
mineral
type
of
situation?
L
A
L
L
L
So
we
can
all
work
together
to
try
and
get
to
that
point.
So
we
don't
get
to
the
point.
Where
say
you
can't
develop
anymore
because
we're
not
ready
for
you
in
the
past.
That's
what
happened!
You
know
going
back
to
that
same
development
I
mentioned
earlier.
We
had
two
connections
and
what
did
we
do?
We
just
kept
growing
and
growing
growing
to
the
west
and
there
was
no
thought
put
into
it.
It's
the
same
thing
here.
L
L
L
A
The
thing
is,
you
got
to
do
a
study
to
figure
out
what
is
the
solution
if
any,
and
how
are
you
going
to
resolve
traffic
issues
in
this
particular
700
acre
development
as
it
you
know,
totally
builds
out.
That's
why
he's
saying
you
know
there
are
potential
solutions
in
the
future,
but
it
has
to
be
studied.
The
achar
ruth
ninja
road
may
be
a
solution.
Maybe
I
don't
know
that's
why
they
have
to
do
studies.
A
C
So,
to
the
point,
the
traffic
point
and
to
mr
glen:
yes,
his
comments
without
the
traffic
analysis
there
won't.
We
won't
we're
not
protecting
ourselves
from
the
growth.
We
need
that
analysis
to
tell
us
how
the
volume
is
going
to
be
for
that
area.
So
that's
a
document,
that's
needed,
so
that
if
we
need
a
second
outlet,
we
can
get
to
it
quicker
than
not.
C
If
we
don't
have
that
information,
we're
just
going
to
be
winging
it
as
we
go
through
this
property-
and
this
is
this
potentially
could
be
a
high
volume,
and
so
that's
the
concern
of
the
traffic
department
to
make
sure
that
we
have
that
information
so
that
we
don't
just
have
one
salida
and-
and
you
know
we
have
lines
of
traffic
everywhere.
This
way
we
can
be
talking
to
the
developer
and
they
could
they
could
they
can
make
the
adjustments
in
order
to.
T
D
A
F
F
M
A
We
don't
have
the
engineering
record
here,
anybody
for
that
engineering,
firm,
yeah.
No,
all
right.
We
don't
have
the
engineer
record
here
I
mean
I
guess
the
best
issue
we
can
do
right
now
is
maybe
table
this
item
I
mean
and
that's
up
to
the
commission.
Whatever
you
all
decide,
you
can
do
one
of
two
things.
We
can
table
this
item
or
we
can
deny
it
going
forth
whatever
y'all.
H
H
There
was
conversations
previously,
but
if
we
did
that
river
road
and
if
they
would
respect
that
mine,
because
that
exit
out
leads
to
the
future
fm
3338
intersection
changeover
and
that's
something
we
in
the
future
landed
our
future
thoroughfare
plan.
We
kind
of
coordinated
to
see
if
this
was
something
feasible
to
give
some
car
access
only
versus
tractor
trailer
and
that's
been
on
the
fence
with
passcode
players.
That's
the
other,
but.
D
A
T
T
A
J
J
I
feel
that
when
we
approve
the
whole
subdivision
by
not
granting
this
we're
holding
the
developer,
okay,
we're
already
putting
a
condition
that
he
has
to
comply
with
yeah
with
texas.
Are
we
not
yes?
So
if
he
complies
or
he
doesn't
comply,
doesn't
really
matter?
If
we,
if
we
table
it,
we're
holding
the
developer
from
going
forward,
see,
I
think
that
the
engineer
should
have
been
here
exactly
that's
the
reason
I
have
suggested
this
and
if
you
want
to
table
it
for
the
next
meeting,
I.
A
A
A
R
For
the
record,
the
overview
on
the
applicant
is
patro
llc,
the
engineer
of
record
sport,
residence
engineering,
approximately
ten
and
three
quarter:
acres
located
east
of
highway,
83
and
south
of
obsidian
boulevard.
The
zoning
for
the
68
law
development
is
b3
and
r1.
The
proposed
use
is
residential,
general
location,
aerial
view
street
view.
A
U
A
U
The
other
item-
that's
on
several
several
comments,
but
we'll
just
address
the
one
on
planning.
It's
planning
number
two:
it's
they're
asking
us
to
recognize
the
subdivision
master
plan
south
of
us,
which
is
las
adelas.
It
has
a
stub
out
coming
into
the
bottom
of
our
subdivision.
We're
fine
with
that.
We'll
address
that,
but
we
just
want
to
clarify.
I
don't
know
if
this
overhead.
U
U
There
we
go
all
right
as
I
I'm
I'm
speaking,
to
planning
department
and
then
I'll,
follow
through
with
the
rest
of
the
departments.
We
just
want
to
clarify
the
the
the
developer
is
willing
to
comply.
Here's
the
the
master
plan
that
was
recently
approved
south
of
it
yeah
as
long
as
we're
talking
about
coming
in
through
here
and
then
tying
into
a
tea
like
that,
which
is
logical.
I
believe
that
that's
what
you
all
want,
but
if,
if
that's
what's
in
mind,
yes,
we're
fine
with
that,
we
can,
we
can
provide
that.
U
L
L
That
connection
right
now
is
a
is
a
connection
to
the
old
abandoned
us-83.
I'm
not
sure
how
that
ever
happened,
but
it
does
not
connect
to
a
a
standard
street
right
now
that
the
road
is
like
20
feet
wide,
it's
deteriorating,
it
should
either
be
improved,
I'm
not
sure
by
who,
because
this
there's
other
subdivisions
that
we're
allowed
to
connect
with
either
that
or
connect
all
the
way
to
us
83.
L
That
needs
to
be
straightened
out
some
someday,
but
we
keep
adding
more
and
more
houses
to
it
more
more
traffic
and
that
needs
to
be
looked
at.
We
brought
that
with
tech
start
and
there's
really
no
answer
forthcoming,
but
I
think
it's
something
that
needs
to
be
taken
care
of
soon.
Let's
take
that
right
away,
correct.
Yes,
that's
correct,
but
it's
our
city,
where
it's
our
city
street,
that
they're
tying
into
and
we're
allowing
these
subdivisions
to
go
on.
Really
it's
like
a
path.
L
S
A
This
real
quick
question
techdot
is
requiring
a
traffic
study
for
that
whole
subdivision
to
get
out
right.
It's
just
it's
out
of
the
comments
so,
and
I
guess
that's
you
know,
and
and
what
we're
trying
to
get
at
here
right
now
is
obviously
he
is
tying
a
subdivision
into
an
existing
roadway.
That
is
a
public
right-of-way
right
that
is
controlled
by
the
state
of
texas
tax.
B
L
C
D
L
Well,
I
I
don't
see
it
that
way.
I
see
it
is
that,
where
we're
as
the
planning
process,
we
provide
water,
sewer,
drainage
and
street
city
streets
for
our
citizens,
in
this
case,
they're
coming
off
a
highway
going
on
to
a
20-foot
road.
That's
not
striped!
It's
not
delineated,
it's
not
lit
and
then
they're
going
into
a
city
street
that
provides
all
those
amenities
and
the
road.
D
In
in
my
experience,
when
txdot
no
longer
uses
an
on-system
roadway,
it
turns
around
and
gives
the
right-of-way
of
that
on-system
roadway
back
to
the
city,
and
if
that
hasn't
occurred,
then
the
responsibility
still
lays
with
textile.
It
never
goes
to
the
city
unless
a
city
acquires
a
right-of-way
off
of
the
road
system.
I've
had
that
situation
occur
before.
L
C
A
U
A
A
A
G
A
Q
Good
evening,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
commission,
frank
estrella
with
surefie
engineering,
we
concur
with
all
staff
comments.
I
just
wanted
to
get
some
clarity
on
the
comment
from
traffic
safety
in
regards
to
block
length
shall
not
be
less
than
300
feet.
Our
blocks
in
this
particular
phase
all
carry
over
the
length
300
feet,
and
I
was
just
curious
to
where
the
comment
was
coming
from
over
300
over
300.
Yes,
sir,
it's
it's
a
moot
column.
Q
C
E
L
A
R
For
the
record,
the
applicant
is
garcia,
ayers
investment
group
limited.
The
engineer
of
record
is
daniel
gomez,
approximately
7.36
acres
located
north
of
jaime
zapata,
memorial,
highway
and
west
of
bloomstown
street.
The
zoning
for
this
one
lot
development
is
m1
and
the
proposed
use
is
industrial,
general
location,
aerial
view
street
view.
This
is
the
agricultural
facility
along
zapata
and
the
proposed
flat
commons
from
planning
engineering
and
water
utilities,
traffic
safety
and
utility
coordination.
A
O
A
Questions
for
mr
gomez,
all
right.
What
are
the
wishes
of
the
commission
I'll
make
a
motion
to
approve
subject
to
that
confidence?
We
have
a
motion
by
commissioner
rule
second
by
commissioners,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
that
those
against
motion
carries
next
item's
preliminary
consideration
of
the
plan
of
the
phoenix
village
subdivision
phase
10
the
intended
residential.
R
For
the
record,
the
applicant
is
afw
investments,
2
limited.
The
engineer
of
record
is
surefree
engineering
company
llc,
approximately
6.92
acres
located
north
of
us
highway,
59
and
east
of
monastery
road.
The
zoning
for
this
48
law
development
is
r1mh
and
the
proposed
use
is
residential,
general
location.
Q
Mr
chairman,
members
of
the
commission,
frank
style
with
surefie
engineering,
we
concur
with
staff
comments
once
again
that
same
traffic
note
came
out.
I
don't
know
if
it
was
just
kind
of
one
of
those
copy
and
paste
type
deals,
but
this
road
is
about
a
thousand
feet
long.
So
we
just
wanted
to
make
a
comment
that
you
know
we
fall
within
that
300
feet.
Let.
Q
A
A
R
R
Mrnd
development,
llc,
the
engineer
of
record
is
top
side.
Civil
groups
llc
approximately
eight
acres
located
east
of
cuatro
vientos
route,
20
and
north
of
wormsa
road.
The
zoning
for
the
46th
law
development
is
our
name
and
the
proposed
use
is
residential,
general
location,
aerial
view
street
view.
A
V
B
V
E
V
The
other
phases
which
the
same
common
is
and
the
other
phases
we'll
talk
about
right
now,
have
that
a
little
bit
more,
I
guess
shown
and
so
researching
our
current
ordinance.
Our
ordinance
just
talks
about
block
length.
It
doesn't
talk
about
block
width
if
you
research
ordinances
from
san
antonio
other
municipalities,
they
specifically
state
block
with
so
in
essence
here,
when
you
have
a
rectangular
block,
you
have
a
length
and
a
width
right.
The
length
is
on.
Obviously
it
has
to
be
greater
than
300
feet.
V
So
it's
probably
more
than
you
know
six
lots
in
a
row,
but
when
you
start
making
those
turns
or
when
you
start
coming
into
the
entrances
of
subdivisions
right,
that's
where
you
get
probably
a
a
different
perspective
of
the
way
you
know
it's
being
interpreted,
and
so
you
have
you
have,
let's
just
say
for
this:
one,
which
is
the
next
one.
I
I
I
just
making
you
make
a
quick.
So
when
you
come
into
the
subdivision,
this
distance
here
right,
they're,
counting
it
as
a
block
length
and
that's
really
not
a
block
length.
V
That's
a
block
width.
The
length
is
along
the
block,
so
all
this,
and
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
we've
had
that
comment
before
we've
discussed
it
at
one:
stop
shop
to
try
to
resolve
it
at
one
stop
shop,
but
we're
getting
the
same
comment
over
and
over.
The
actual
comment
that
we
got
was
that
this
was
discussed
with
us
and
that
we
agreed
to
this.
We
didn't
agree
to
this.
V
In
the
master
plan
phase,
the
actual
agreement
was
to
punch
out
some
roads
that
we
already
have
in
the
master
plan,
but
as
far
as
block
length,
I
think
there
was
a
couple
previous
projects
that
had
it.
We
have
it
on
the
next
three,
and
so
that's
what
I
kind
of
want
to
make
sure
that
either
we
clarify
with
traffic
or
I
would
like
for
the
commission.
A
I
think
that's
a
good
idea,
because
the
way
I'm
looking
at
it
is
that
whole
street
there
is
one
street
and
yeah
it
does
intersect
at
that
loop
that
you
got
there.
But
I
understand
your
your
comment
too.
I
mean
that's
my
interest.
The
design
is
probably
I'm
gonna.
Let
dan
mcgee
address
it,
but
here,
commissioner,.
L
If
you're
driving
down
major
boulevard,
you
don't
want
to
have
cars
turned
in
front
of
you
every
200
feet,
that's
the
intent
as
far
as
length
and
width
the
overhead
system
will
square.
There
is
no
way
what
with
there's
no
length
it's
just
one
side,
okay,
but
I
guess,
like
I
mentioned
earlier,
we're
not
looking
so
much
at
that.
But
what
we
don't
want
is
a
bunch
of
streets
come
out
every
150
feet
200
feet,
because
some
of
these
are
getting
there
close
yeah.
If
you're
driving
down.
A
L
V
I
apologize,
I
didn't
bring
a
copy
of
the
master
plan,
so
you
see
it.
We
actually
limited
the
amount
of
accesses
on
isla
mujeres
before
we
had
more
access
points
within
the
whole
master
plan.
So
we
limit,
we
eliminated
a
couple
to
suffice:
what
plan?
What
traffic
wanted,
but
on
little
pockets,
that
you
know
we
our
neighbor,
we
can't
we
can't
develop
to
the
to
the
east
and
or
to
the
west,
because
we
can't
connect
any
roads.
V
So
whenever
you
have
a
design
with
parallel
streets,
right,
you're
always
going
to
have
rectangular
blocks,
and
that's
why
the
city
of
san
antonio
specifically
states
they
have
a
width
factor.
Now
this
ordinance
came
after
the
grid
system.
It
didn't
come
in
before
the
grid
system.
Grid
system
happened,
ooh,
eastern
western
division.
Even
before
you
know
the
the
our
code
book
came
in
this
was
actually
developed.
This
part
of
the
ordinance
was
actually
developed
by
the
previous
administrator.
A
V
And-
and
I
know
mr
selman
was
sitting-
mr
selman
was
sitting
there,
mr
murillo,
the
old
traffic
director.
They
were
all
there.
It
just
so
happened
that,
in
my
opinion,
the
width
was
left
out
because
it's
obvious
when
you
have
parallel
streets-
and
you
have
one
entrance
into
a
subdivision-
your
width
can
only
be
a
hundred
feet.
It
can
only
be
that
one
line
so
that
that
that
really
isn't
considered
a
block
length.
V
Yeah
so
coming
in
here
you
have
the
main
entrances
to
limit
the
amount
of
access
points
along
the
major
roadways.
But
when
you
come
in
here,
that
entrance
is
only
one
lot
deep,
so
that
lot
based
off
of
zoning
you'll,
never
see
a
300
foot
depth
lot.
You'll,
never
even
see
a
150
foot.
I
mean
you
can,
but
those
are
a
dime,
a
dozen
of
anything
on
the
norm,
you're
somewhere
between
100
and
120,
now
you're
going
to
start
seeing
87s
with
r1b.
V
You
know,
so
you
do
that.
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify-
and
I
think
we're
on
the
same
page,
mr
mcgee
and
I,
but
when
we
get
to
one
stop
shop,
these
comments
are
there
and
if
we
have
to
redo
roads,
it
discombobulates
the
entire
design
plan.
So
on
on.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
in
something
like
this,
where
this
is
a
block-
or
this
is
a
block-
there
is
widths
on
those
blocks
and
we
have
to
distinguish
a
width
and
a
length
I
feel
like
so.
J
It
was
a
good
presentation,
I
knew
about
that
and
I
agree
with
you,
but
I
also
agree
that
he's
trying
to
do
his
job
as
a
member
of
the
city
of
radio.
So
what
I
would
say
is
that
we
leave
the
comments
when
you
come
before
us.
We'll
do
we'll
just
remove
the
comment
and
that
will
not
create
a
problem
on
the
on
the
one-stop
shop
and.
V
I
I
guess
that's
why?
Okay,
I'm
here
to
I
guess,
to
remove
to
remove
the
comet.
I
do
understand
what
the
we
get
it.
We
we
also
want
to
try
to
limit
the
amount
of
access
points
to
our
major
roadways
to
not
flood
them
in
there.
We
don't
want
so
many
turns.
We
understand
that.
But
ultimately,
sometimes
we
don't
have
a
choice
and
we're
forced
to
connect
certain
roads
there
I
do.
V
I
do
want
to
say
that
that
specific
comment
said
that
we
had
already
had
discussions
with
traffic
again
we've
our
everything
that
they
wanted.
Beefalo
was
going
to
connect
from
east
to
west
that
opened
up.
Also,
we
eliminated
one
access
point
off
of
islamojedis
so
that
we
we
did
we
did
conform
to,
but
these
other
that
this
little
technicality
we've
ran
to
it.
On
previous
subdivisions,
I
have
it
on
the
on
the
next
two.
V
A
V
A
V
That
and
then
on
the
master
plan,
when
we
submit
a
master
plan,
that's
where
we
discuss
okay,
can
you
know,
instead
of
tying
into
a
collector
here?
Why
don't
we
make
it
into
an
l-shaped
intersection
where
you
limit
the
access
points?
We
talked
about
that
on
the
on
the,
but
now
we're
looking
at
it
at
more
a
little
microscope
to
each
pod
and
that
comments
coming
out
again
and
so
that
comment's,
obviously
gonna.
L
L
We
recognize
at
least
I
do
since
I've
been
with
the
city
two
years
that
there's
a
lot
of
master
plans
that
were
agreed
to
and
done
years
ago.
Okay,
my
job
and
my
intent
is
not
to
make
anybody
go
back
and
redesign
those.
However,
sometimes
there
are
little
changes
that
can
be
made
and
that's
when
we
ask
for
things,
but
for
the
most
part
we're
trying
to
get
those
master
plans,
those
phases
done
and
over
with
and
pay
more
attention
to
the
new
ones.
So
we
don't
have
these
kind
of
discussions
in
the
future.
Okay,.
J
A
A
A
A
T
A
A
Okay,
so
we
have
motion
we
have
second
and
second,
all
right.
You
should
join
us
all,
those
in
favor
all
right.
All
those
against
motion
carries
next
time.
Preliminary
consideration
of
the
replay
of
lot
2-3
and
point
13
acres
of
21
20
foot
wide
strip
of
land
block
1965
into
lot;
3a
dash
one
block,
1965
eastern
division,
the
intended
commercial.
R
R
R
E
K
F
A
So
it's
it's!
You
do
have
access
to
the
other
properties,
yeah.
Okay,
all
right!
Any
questions
for
the
engineer,
not
questions
all
right.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
What
are
the
wishes
of
the
commission
move
to
approve,
got
a
motion?
Second
and
a
second
all
those
in
favor,
aye,
aye,
aye,
all
right,
persian
carries
the
next
night
is
preliminary
consideration
of
the
replay
of
law,
one
block
one
clinical
industrial
center
after
market
1472
unit
10
into
log
1a
block
1.,
the
attendance
light,
industrial.
R
For
the
record,
the
applicant
is
fm
1472
investments
career
cross.
President,
the
engineer
of
record
is
gilpin
engineering
company,
approximately
8.62
acres,
located
west
of
bethlehem,
1472
and
south
of
nicholas
dhr
road.
The
zoning
for
this
one
lot
development
is
m1
and
the
proposed
use
is
light.
Industrial
general
location,
aerial
view
street
view
proposed
plant.
This
is
they're,
taking
an
existing
platted
lot
and
reducing
the
acreage
from
13
to
eight,
and
these
are
the
comments
from
planning
and
engineering,
water
utilities,
traffic
safety,
utility
coordination
and
the
proposed
motion.