Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pzc Votes Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Laredo Planning and Zoning: votes at a glance from Feb. 18 special meeting
Summary
The commission approved multiple rezoning requests, a conditional use permit, final plats and a subdivision compliance item; items included rezoning at 4401 Nogal Lane, Flores Avenue B‑1, an auto‑dealer site at 720 Laredo Street, and several final plats and model subdivision compliance items.
At its Feb. 18 special meeting the City of Laredo Planning and Zoning Commission considered and approved multiple routine and contested land‑use items. Key outcomes:
• 4401 Nogal Lane (Lot 1, Block 5, River Hills South, Phase 1): Rezoned from R‑1MH (single‑family manufactured housing) to R‑2 (multifamily). Staff recommended approval; the commission approved the recommendation.
• West 83 feet of Block 7 & 8 / 2819 Flores Avenue: Zone change from R‑3 to B‑1 with a conditional use permit to allow a baseball‑bat manufacturing woodworking shop; staff supported and the commission approved the permit subject to staff comments.
• 720 Laredo Street (Lot 6, East Half of Block 5, Block 92, Eastern Division): Zone change from B‑1 to B‑3 for a used‑car dealer was presented by owners Alejandro and Elizabeth Martinez; staff supported and the commission approved the change subject to staff comments.
• TDB Holdings (~55.27‑acre tract south of Tuyecomino Boulevard): Rezoning from R‑1A to R‑1B for single‑family residential development; applicant representative indicated design and permitting timelines and commission approved moving forward consistent with staff recommendations.
• Final plats and replats: Multiple final plats (including Las Manas Industrial Park Phase 1 and others) were approved by consent motion.
• Model subdivision compliance: Copper Tree Subdivision compliance was approved subject to staff comments.
Several items were described in staff packets with mailed notice counts; where the transcript recorded letter counts or public responses (e.g., letters in favor/against), notes were included in the meeting record. The commission recorded motions and voice votes for each action; explicit roll‑call tallies were not recorded in the transcript for every item.
