Remarks by Jose Luis
88 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 4
- Play at 36:53
“So I think this would probably be an expansion of what we're currently doing, it sounds like to me, because now we'd be requiring it on not just neighborhoods, but other parcels as well.”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 38:41
“Can we make the requirements so that there's an interconnectivity between an adjacent parcel? along the highway corridor overlay district. So they're either gonna go north or they're gonna go south. They can choose. The likelihood that there's gonna be an issue that's cost prohibitive on both sides is greatly reduced in that scenario. And then it gives them an opportunity to connect and then that way everyone can start doing it. And at least you're linking multiple parcels at that point.”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 39:30
“We want to stop the ingress and egress from 521 every single time there's a shopping center that's built.”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 40:02
“Yeah, because I think right now, to their point, it does require interconnectivity between neighborhoods. Right. That has been removed from this draft. So the comment that currently exists in the matrix is saying add it back in for neighborhoods as well as commercial, correct? I think we're all in favor of that. So I think we leave the matrix.”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 43:34
“Let me clarify, because I think what comment 100 is about is the alternate compliance language, which is 9.5.4.D, which what they're talking about which is really, it really is E at this point. It's alternate compliance when the planning director deems a required external street connection impractical due to severe topography, existing development, or other natural features, the county may require pedestrian bicycle access ways in lieu of the required street connections. This is an administrative decision that does not require additional review. And I think we just said we were taking that…”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 47:58
“I'm going to disagree with that. I don't think it's primarily the optics. I think it has a lot to do with stormwater runoff and things like that, and then drainage into streams and waterways and... Because when you have that much of mass grading, it is very difficult to then protect all of that and to make sure that you have the erosion control measures adequately in place. And when a developer is going through that, they're maintaining those that were initially installed and ensuring that issues are not arising later on. And I think that's what they're talking about with this. It's not…”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 49:15
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 53:29
“Should we just delete two then? Should we delete 14.9.3 .”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 53:52
“So. I'm gonna include it as a note, even though the matrix then says that we recommend deleting it, because there's still a question above it, so.”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 57:49
“What's the outcome of that? What are we doing?”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 58:33
“And I think the problem that we've seen is that when they're putting the buildings on a preliminary plat, then opens the door to conversations about setbacks and all these other issues which we are requiring. So if we want to open the door, for those additional issues and we're requiring that, then this would seem to indicate to me that it requires that obligation. That we would have to review those things as part of the preliminary plat because we're requiring them to show the building. So if we want to approve just a preliminary plat, we should be reviewing a preliminary plat. No buildings,…”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 59:42
“It's in the draft UDO right now. There is a requirement for those buildings and all that. Right. It's not just that the Planning Commission had said it's in that. It's in the current draft. It is in this draft.”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 1:00:50
“I got you on that too. I think what we should probably say on preliminary plats is that the preliminary plats should show what is required pursuant to applicable law. Got you.”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 1:02:25
“that correct okay all right and i'm gonna so i'm gonna have a rain delay so going back to comment 120 that had to do with the vested rights and i think probably what we should say in that one as well is refer back to applicable law that way if the law changes our udo is consistent with that provision i think i'm comfortable with that”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 1:06:45
“It was one horse and two ponies. What was it?”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 1:06:55
“Miniature horses or ponies. Okay. Per half acre.”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 1:07:19
“All right. Anybody else? Are we doing anything with 13?”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 1:07:27
“So what's the comment if we're adopting the matrix? Because it's really not giving anything. We're deleting comment 13?”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 1:09:23
“I'm just confirming the language in all the comments just to make sure that there's nothing that's...”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 1:09:45
“All right, can we pause that conversation and get through? Yeah, so section 21 or comment 21 is the recommendation in the matrix to delete this section in its entirety?”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 1:10:10
“So we should make that an affirmative comment because right now it's just talking about this list and then it just says this recommendation. Or do you think if we just refer, Jenny, if we refer generally to the matrix and the approvals, do you think we're okay with that language? Okay, so we're okay.”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 1:10:36
“So 23, comment 23, it's saying reconsider allowed uses in BT district, but there's no decision on that one. So are we saying to do that?”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 1:12:36
“So it was the recommendation to just make it a requirement to have arterial access? Yes. Are we, does that sound okay? Hold on, let me write it down. And then in 32, it's saying consider allowing vehicle services.”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 1:13:18
“So does the staff want us to have vehicle services minored as PR in NB? So we want to allow it, okay. 36, consider deleting government offices.”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026
- Play at 1:14:30
“So do we wanna, so delete, the recommendation is delete it. I'm just gonna say delete it. Yes, yes. 38, consider consolidating fairgrounds with outdoor amusement. So 38 is consolidate. Yes. I'm just gonna move forward. I'm assuming that's a yes. Sorry. 56, it's consider reducing the 500 foot separation distance in paragraph E1 for kennels.”
County Council · Sep 1, 2026