[00:00:03]
[Call to Order]
OR 2 34 ON THURSDAY, MAY 12TH, 2022.TODAY'S MEETING OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION IS CALLED TO ORDER.
I AM COMMISSION CHAIR MARTY STEIN.
AND TO ESTABLISH WE HAVE 11 MEMBERS FOR QUORUM.
I'M GONNA CALL THE ROLE THE CHAIR IS PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER ABRAHAM? NOT PRESENT.
ABRAHAM IS, ABRAHAM IS PRESENT.
VIRTUAL COMMISSIONER VICTOR WILL BE ABSENT.
COMMISSIONER KANE PRESENT VIRTUALLY IS PRESENT VIRTUALLY.
COMMISSIONER DALTON PRESENT, VIRTUALLY PRESENT VIRTUALLY.
COMMISSIONER SMITH PRESENT IS PRESENT.
AND DIRECTOR MARGARET WALLACE BROWN.
18 MEMBERS HAVE RESPONDED TO ROLL CALL.
UM, SO OUR MEETING FORMAT ALLOWS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO PARTICIPATE EITHER IN PERSON OR VIRTUALLY ON TEAMS. UM, BUT TO COMPLY WITH TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS LAW, UM, THE CHAIR, OUR ACTING CHAIR MUST BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT.
ALL COMMISSIONERS PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY MUST BE BOTH AUDIBLE AND VISIBLE.
AND OF COURSE, WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN OUR QUORUM.
UM, COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE WITH US, YOU KNOW, TO KEEP YOUR CAMERAS ON AND LET US KNOW IF YOU'RE LEAVING THE MEETING TO ANY EVERYBODY ELSE JOINING US TODAY.
IF YOU'RE HERE TO, UH, ON A SPECIFIC ISSUE, YOU CAN FIND THE STAFF'S FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE.
UM, ALL ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENTS ON ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA THAT WERE RECEIVED BY NOON YESTERDAY ARE IN OUR PACKETS.
WE ASK THOSE OF YOU CONNECTED BY PHONE OR COMPUTER TO KEEP YOUR DEVICES MUTED UNTIL YOU'RE CALLED ON TO SPEAK.
UM, AND OUR VIDEO QUALITY OF COURSE, IS BETTER IF YOU KEEP YOUR CAMERAS OFF UNTIL IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO SPEAK.
UH, ONE ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM TODAY'S AGENDA UNDER PUBLIC HEARINGS.
ITEM 1 41 SPRING BRANCH, UH, REPL NUMBER TWO.
[Director’s Report]
UH, WE'LL GO TO THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS MARGARET WALLACE BROWN AND I AM SECRETARY TO THIS COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
UH, DETAILS FOR JOINING IN PERSON OR VIRTUALLY ARE ALWAYS ON OUR POSTED AGENDA ON, ON OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM.
THE 2022 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND FREEWAY PLAN AMENDMENT WORKSHOP, WHICH PROCEEDED THIS MEETING.
UM, UH, KICKED OFF THE ACTIVITIES FOR THE 2022 ROUND OF MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN CHANGES THE 2022 MA MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND FA PLAN.
OPEN HOUSE, WHICH IS THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS, WILL BE WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15TH FROM FIVE 30 TO SEVEN 30.
THE OPEN HOUSE IS VIRTUALLY ONLY THIS YEAR AND THERE WILL NOT BE A PHYSICAL MEETING.
FOR MORE MTFP INFORMATION, PLEASE VISIT HOUSTON TX.GOV/PLANNING/TRANSPORTATION.
AND MAY IS BIKE MONTH AND FRIDAY, MAY 20TH.
THE CITY OF HOUSTON IS BIKE TO WORKDAY.
PLEASE JOIN US FOR THE FIRST IN-PERSON BIKE TO WORKDAY IN TWO YEARS.
THIS EFFORT IS SPEARHEADED BY OUR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIVISION TO HELP PROMOTE MULTIMODAL SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS.
OUR WEBSITE HAS INFORMATION AND DETAILS.
TODAY IS A LITTLE BIT OF A BITTERSWEET ANNOUNCEMENT FOR ALL OF YOU.
UM, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PATRICIA BENAVIDEZ, AFTER HAVING WORKED FOR 35 YEARS AND OUR DEPARTMENT IS LEAVING, SHE IS RETIRING AT THE END OF THIS MONTH.
AND THIS IS HER LAST PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T KNOW, PATRICIA HAS KEPT YOU OPERATING VERY WELL BEHIND THE SCENES FOR, FOR ALL THIS TIME.
SHE STARTED HER PUBLIC SEAS SERVICE ON DECEMBER 10TH, 1986, STARTING WITH THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE, AND THEN SHE WORKED FOR THE MUNICIPAL PLANT CHANNEL, NOW KNOWN AS HTV FOR SIX YEARS BEFORE SHE BEGAN WORKING FOR US IN 1998.
SHE HAS WORKED VERY HARD AND EFFECTIVELY AS OUR
[00:05:01]
RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS COMMISSION, AND WE WISH HER THE BEST FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE.UM, IN CLOSING, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT (832) 393-6600.
OR YOU CAN CALL THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNER OF THE DAY AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 6 2 4.
OR AS ALWAYS, VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM.
THIS CONCLUDES MY DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
I WANNA ADD MY, UH, BEST WISHES FOR PATRICIA.
PATRICIA, I KNOW YOU'RE WATCHING VIRTUALLY, YOU ESCAPED BEING HERE IN PERSON,
YOU DO SO MUCH FOR US BEHIND THE SCENES.
WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU DO AND, UM, WE'RE GONNA MISS YOU, BUT YOU SURE DESERVE YOUR RETIREMENT AND I HOPE YOU ENJOY EVERY MINUTE OF IT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE DIRECTOR? OKAY, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO
[Approval of the April 28, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes]
APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 28TH, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, WHICH ARE IN YOUR PACKET IF THERE ARE NO ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS.UH, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? BALDWIN? IS THERE A SECOND TO HEAR? JONES? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
UH, THEN WE GO TO ROMAN NUMERAL ONE PLATTING ACTIVITY.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
[Platting Activities A & B]
SECTIONS A AND B ARE PRESENTED AS ONE GROUP, WHICH INCLUDES CONSENT AND REPLANT.ITEMS ARE NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION.
SECTIONS A AND B ARE ITEMS ONE THROUGH 1 28 SECTION A.
CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 60 AND SECTION B REPLANT ITEMS ARE NUMBER 61 THROUGH 1 28.
NO ITEMS NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MADAM CHAIR, IF THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSENT AND REPLANT ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE A ITEMS IN SECTIONS A AND B WE NEED TO TAKE SEPARATELY? COMMISSIONER SIGLER? YES.
MADAM CHAIR, I NEED TO ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS 4 8 9 18 THROUGH 20 32, 47, 56 AND 58.
UM, WE WILL TAKE THOSE SEPARATELY.
UM, IS THERE ANYONE, UH, SIGNED UP WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE ITEMS IN SECTIONS A AND B ONE THROUGH 1 28? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE CHAT? IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE A AND B CONSENT ITEMS? IF NOT, UH, WE WILL PROCEED WITH VOTING ON SECTIONS A AND B.
WE'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ALL ITEMS IN SECTIONS A AND B.
SAVE AND ACCEPT FOR ITEMS 4 8 9 18, 19, 20, 32, 47, 56 AND 58.
IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION? GARZA? GARZA.
AND THEN ON THE REMAINDER, WHICH FOR THE RECORD IS R 4 8 9 18, 19, 20, 32, 47, 56 AND 58.
UM, IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION MOTION FOR JONES SECOND POROUS PERLE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AND PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONERS DALTON AND SIGLER ABSTAINED ON THAT VOTE.
[c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Dorianne Powe-Phlegm, Devin Crittle, John Cedillo, and Geoff Butler)]
US TO SECTION C PUBLIC HEARINGS.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND PLA AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 1 29 IS SHAR EDITION, SECTION ONE, PARTIAL RELA NUMBER TWO.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WEST OF STELLA LINK EAST OF ACADEMY STREET ALONG LAWN NORTH STREET AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS.
THE REASON FOR RELA IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THE PLAT WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW.
LEGAL HAS REVIEWED THE ITEM, HAS REVIEWED THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THE PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE
[00:10:01]
RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED.STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
MADAM CHAIR PLEASES THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 1 29, UH, ISHARE EDITION IS CONTINUED.
UM, I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 29? HEARING NO RESPONSE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IS THERE DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? ALLMAN ALLMAN.
IS THERE A SECOND JUDGE? I HEAR ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM ONE 30, ITEM ONE 30 IS BAYOU WOOD, SECTION TWO, PARTIALLY PLA NUMBER FOUR AND EXTENSION THE SIZE LOCATED SOUTH ALONG FAIRISH CIRCLE WEST OF NORTH OF NORTH POST OAK LANE AND SOUTHWEST OF MEMORIAL DRIVE IN HOUSTON.
THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WOULD NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM ONE 30 BAYOU WITH BAYOU WOOD SECTION TWO IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYBODY LISTENING OR IN THE ROOM WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 30? HEARING NONE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION? SECOND GARZA.
THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF PRESTON AND SAMPSON STREETS IN THE AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS.
THE REASON FOR RELAID IS TO CREATE ONE LOT AND UNRESTRICTED RESERVE.
I MEAN, THERE ARE VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PORTION OF AN LOT TO BE RELA INTO AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE.
UH, LEGALIST CONTINUED IS, IS STILL REVIEWING THIS ITEM.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE, UH, APPLY FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 1 31 CHAMPS CORNER IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO'S LISTENING OR HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 31? IF NOT, WE WOULD, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DEFER THE ITEM AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ITEM 1 32 IS CLAREMONT PLACE, SECTION ONE, PARTIALLY PLA NUMBER SEVEN.
THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH ALONG, I'M SORRY, LAURA.
UM, EAST OF WAYSIDE DRIVE AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS.
THE REASON FOR REPLAY IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
[00:15:01]
RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 1 32 CLAREMONT PLACE IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 32? HEARING? NO RESPONSE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? BALDWIN? IS THERE A SECOND? ROBINS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM 1 33, ALSO CLAREMONT PLACE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLAN COMMISSION.
ITEM 1 33 IS CLAREMONT PLACE, SECTION ONE PARTIAL REPL NUMBER EIGHT.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS NORTH ALONG HOMEWOOD LANE, EAST OF NORTH WAYSIDE DRIVE AND SOUTH OF TIDWELL ROAD.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY NARROW FRONT LOADING LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIS REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT, UH, OR THOSE FILES SEPARATELY.
THE APPLICATION DID NOT MEET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THE SIGN, WHILE PRESENT, WAS SOMEWHAT ILLEGIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.
WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT FOR TWO WEEKS DUE TO INSUFFICIENT SIGN NOTICE TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ADJUST THE SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY.
MADAM CHAIR FOR PLEASE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 1 33 IS OPEN.
AND WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER, UH, BERTHA RUIZ.
UH, MY NAME IS BERTHA RE BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE ADDRESS.
UH, WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO WHEN YOU SAY THE, THE ADDRESS? THE LOT THAT'S ON QUESTION.
CAN YOU, SO, UH, MR. S UM, DO YOU KNOW THE, THE LOT I'M HERE REGARDING IS A, THE CORNER LOT.
SO YOU'RE THE, SO WE HAVE ANOTHER CLAREMONT PLACE? I BELIEVE SO.
IT'S A COUPLE OF LOTS FROM MINES.
WELL, I THINK WE JUST DID YOURS.
WE HAVEN'T ON THE, WE NONE OF THESE ARE ON THE CORNER.
WHAT, WHAT'S THE CORNER? OKAY.
MY, WELL, AND I APOLOGIZE AND I JUST REGARDED THE LETTER THAT I RECEIVED THROUGH THE MAIL.
THAT MY HOUSE WAS, UH, BY YURI, WHATEVER HIS NAME, HIS LAST NAME, IF YOU FORGIVE ME.
UM, THAT, UM, IT WAS ON TO HAVE IT, UH, DIVIDED TO MAKE IT INTO TWO LOTS.
ARE YOU REFERRING TO YOUR LOT BEING THE CORNER LOT? YES.
SO YOU RECEIVED THAT LETTER TO NOTIFY YOU THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THERE WAS A NOTIFICATION LETTER TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING AND TO GIVE YOU THE OPTION TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS DIVISION HAPPENING.
NOBODY CAN DIVIDE YOUR PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO CALL THROUGH THE PHONE, BUT I COULDN'T GET ANY ANSWER.
SO I CAME OUT HERE, UP HERE TO FIND OUT.
WE'RE GLAD YOU'RE HERE NOW SO THAT WE'RE GOOD.
NOBODY CAN DIVIDE YOUR PROPERTY OKAY.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENING DOWN THE STREET.
WELL, THANK YOU'ALL FOR YOUR TIME.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 33? THIS IS CLAREMONT PLACE, SECTION ONE, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER EIGHT.
IF NO ONE WISHES TO SPEAK, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER.
SO, UM, IF WE COULD GET A MOTION TO DEFER AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION.
ITEM 1 34 IS CLAYTON WOODS, SECTION ONE PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION NORTH ALONG TWIN MAPLE STREET, WEST OF STATE HIGHWAY SIX AND NORTH OF WEST PARK DRIVE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REPL IS TO CREATE SINGLE, OH, SORRY, TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A 42 1 93 VARIANCE, EXCUSE ME, TO ALLOW A PARK AND LANDSCAPE RESERVE TO BE REPLANTED INTO LOTS.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
[00:20:01]
THE CURRENT STAFF REPORT, UH, IN YOUR PACKET IS INCORRECT.STAFF INTENDED TO DEFER THE PLAT TO ALLOW MORE TIME FOR LEGAL TO REVIEW AND TO ACQUIRE A LETTER OF NO OBJECTION FROM THE CURRENT HOA REVIEW.
B LEGAL HAS COME BACK AND INDICATES THAT THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
WE HAVE RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE CLAYTON WOODS, HOA, AND CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAT.
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY OTHER ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE PLAT AND THE COUNTY STATES THAT THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MA'AM, CHAIR, IF YOU PLEASE THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 1 34, CLAYTON WOODS, SECTION ONE IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE WHO'S SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 34? IF NOT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
HERE'S, THERE'S THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE SCREEN.
UM, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NOT, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? JONES? IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.
RE PLA NUMBER ONE AND EXTENSION.
THE SITE LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF BARBIE STREET AND CRAWFORD STREET, NORTHEAST OF WHEELER STREET AND SOUTH OF US HIGHWAY 59.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REPLAY IS TO CREATE SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, FOUR OF WHICH WOULD BE NARROW FRONT LOADING LOTS.
THERE ARE NO BRANCHES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT MET ANY OF THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DISAPPROVE THE PLAT FOR FAILURE TO MEET NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
OH TH DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR REPORT? YES MA'AM.
MADAM, MADAM CHAIR, IF YOU PLEASE THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 1 35 CRAWFORD PLACE IS OPEN.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, I GUESS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NOTIFICATION
UM, I GUESS WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN GO AHEAD AND, UM, SEE IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM.
IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS TO DISAPPROVE BALDWIN? IS THERE A SECOND? ALMOND ALMOND NELSON.
1 36 IS DELLA ROCK ADDITION PARTIAL RE PLAT NUMBER TWO.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG DIAMOND STREET WEST OF TC JESTER BOULEVARD.
THE REASON FOR RELIGHT IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND TO REMOVE A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT FROM THE REAR OF THE LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PRINT TO CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
STAFF RECEIVED A COMMENT OF HOW THE REMOVAL OF THE STORM SEWER EASEMENT WOULD AFFECT THE CITY ABILITY TO CONTAIN STORM DRAINAGE.
THE APPLICANT IS REMOVING THE STORM'S SEWER EASEMENT FROM THE REAR OF THE LOTS.
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY DIVISION WILL REVIEW THE REQUEST FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STORM SOAR, WITH THE STORM SOAR REQUIREMENT.
AND THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THIS, UH, WR WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM, UH, PUBLIC WORKS PRIOR TO THE FINAL, UH, FINAL PLA SUBMITTAL.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
UM, I, JUST TO CLARIFY, I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY SANITARY SEWER, BUT IT'S A STORM SEWER.
NO, YOU SAID STORM, BUT ORIGINALLY I THOUGHT I HEARD SANITARY.
USUALLY THE ONES IN THE BACK ARE SANITARY SEWERS, BUT IT'S A STORM.
AND PUBLIC WORKS IS SIGNED OFF ON IT TO THE DEGREE THAT THEY CAN AT THIS POINT.
I MEAN, THERE'LL BE ADDITIONAL THINGS.
YEAH, THERE'LL BE ADDITIONAL OVER TO, OKAY.
[00:25:01]
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 1 36 IS OPEN.HAROLD ARMSTRONG, MR. ARMSTRONG.
GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY NORTH OF DIAMOND LANE.
MY PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY ADDRESSED 43 19 PINE LOT.
UH, REASON I'M HERE IS TO OPPOSE, UH, REMOVING STORM DRAINAGE.
UH, WE HAVE A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE.
WE HAVE HOMES ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
WE HAVE TO HAVE A PLACE FOR WATER TO GO.
WE HAVE OTHER ISSUES THERE THAT MAY NOT BE, IT'S EGRESS AND EGRESS, UH, ENTRY AND EXIT.
I'M SORRY, CAN I INTERRUPT? JUST MA'AM.
SOMEBODY THEY'D, WE WAS UNMUTED AND WE COULD HEAR TALKING.
I, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU.
UH, ANOTHER CONCERN IS THE, UH, UH, ENTRY AND A A, UH, ONTO THE PROPERTIES BEHIND US.
WE ARE HAVING SOME PROBLEMS WITH THAT.
WE HAVE A LOT OF WATER THAT, UH, SITS BACK THERE.
WE'RE STRUGGLING TO KEEP MAINTENANCE ON THE, THE, UH, UH, DRAINAGE BEHIND OUR PROPERTIES OFF OF PINE MOUNT, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE UP ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DIAMOND LANE.
SO WE HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS AS OWNERS THERE ABOUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE FLOODING IMPOSSIBLE SECURITY.
WE'VE HAD PEOPLE ABANDONING CARS BACK THERE, SO IT IS A PROBLEM.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY.
UM, MR. ARMSTRONG? YES, MA'AM.
I WILL, I'LL ASK IF YOU WOULD GET YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION TO MS. FLM BEHIND YOU.
SO THAT SHE CAN GIVE YOU A FULLER EXPLANATION ABOUT PUBLIC WORKS.
WILL HAVE TO REVIEW HOW THIS IS DONE, WHAT IS DONE THERE.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY WAY THAT THEY'LL JUST SAY, DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE DRAINAGE THERE.
THERE'LL HAVE TO BE ANOTHER, A COMPENSATING WAY TO, TO DEAL WITH THE FLOW.
SO, UM, SHE CAN PUT YOU IN TOUCH WITH PUBLIC WORKS WHO CAN TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HELP AND CONSIDERATION.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 36? I DO, YES.
UH, MADAME CHAIR, WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE SIGN UP IN THE CHAT.
COULD YOU GO AHEAD AND, UM, COULD WE CALL ON THE FIRST PERSON TO STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME? UH, FIRST PERSON IS LORI MORLAND.
COULD YOU SPELL YOUR LAST NAME FOR US? HI.
UM, MY LAST NAME IS M-O-R-E-L-A-N-D.
UM, I THINK THAT THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT OUT FROM THE CITY WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING TO PEOPLE.
I AM ACTUALLY SITTING IN THE HOUSE LOCATED IN THAT CENTER LOT, UM, ON DIAMOND STREET.
I THINK THE GENTLEMAN THAT JUST SPOKE, I THINK THEY, THE WAY THE LETTER WAS WORDED, IT SOUNDS LIKE THREE NEW LOTS ARE GOING IN.
AND THESE HOUSES HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN HERE FOR EIGHT, EIGHT YEARS, SINCE 2014.
IT WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE DEVELOPER OF THE SUBDIVISION TO FILE THE PROPER PAPERWORK TO MAKE SURE THE SEWER EASEMENT WAS ABANDONED.
I HAVE ALL THE LETTERS FROM THE CITY THAT STATE THAT THIS, THE STORM SEWER EASEMENT WAS ABANDONED IN 2014.
AND THE SURVEY THAT WE USED WHEN WE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE LAST YEAR ON MAY 28TH, SHOWS THAT THE, UM, THAT THE CITY WAS TO ABANDON IT.
AND I HAVE ALL THE LETTERS, I HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION.
WE WOULDN'T HAVE FOUND OUT THAT PART OF OUR HOUSE WAS SITTING IN THIS STORM SEWER EASEMENT HAD WE NOT GONE TO PUT IN A POOL.
AND THE CITY, YOU KNOW, KICKED OUR PERMIT BACK AND SAID, HEY, YOU CAN'T PUT A POOL IN.
SO THAT LED US TO TALK TO THE BUILDER AND THEN TO THE DEVELOPER OF THE SUBDIVISION.
SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING HERE.
THERE ARE THREE HOUSES ALREADY SITTING HERE.
BOTH OF MY NEIGHBOR'S SWIMMING POOLS ARE IN THIS SEWER EASEMENT ALREADY.
AND OUR, MY PART OF MY HOUSE AND PORCH IS ALREADY IN IT.
AND ALL OF THIS, IT WAS JUST A FAILURE TO PROPERLY FILE THE PAPERWORK ON THE DEVELOPER BY THE DEVELOPER OF THE SUBDIVISION.
SO WE'RE HAVING TO GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS JUST TO DO WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE EIGHT YEARS AGO.
UM, IF, IF THAT, IF THAT HELPS ANYONE UNDERSTAND, I THINK PEOPLE WERE KIND OF CONFUSED, BUT YES, IT'S VERY HELPFUL.
AND, UM, I, MR. ARMSTRONG WHO SPOKE BEFORE YOU IS LISTENING.
UM, IT AND I, THERE ARE LOTS OF EASEMENTS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS THAT ARE NOT IN USE FOR ANYTHING.
SO YOU'RE NOT GETTING RID OF ANYTHING, IT'S JUST YOU'RE CORRECTING A PAPERWORK ERROR.
IT'S ONLY PAPERWORK AND PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD YOU WOULD NOT BELIEVE THE THINGS WE'VE HEARD THAT PEOPLE
[00:30:01]
THINK ARE HAPPENINGBUT I'M LIKE, IT'S NOT, NOTHING IS CHANGING FOR ANYONE EXCEPT FOR HOPEFULLY US.
EVENTUALLY WE'LL BE SWIMMING, HAVE A CLEAR SURVEY AND BE ABLE TO GET OUR POOL
AND, UM, I, MS. POPLE, DO WE NEED ANY OF THE PAPERWORK? DO WE HAVE THE PAPERWORK THAT MS. MORLAND WAS JUST REFERENCING? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO US? UM, I'M HAPPY TO SEND EVERYTHING I HAVE.
IF YOU COULD PUT YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION IN THE CHAT AND THEN WE CAN GET IN TOUCH WITH YOU TO GET THAT.
ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE YOU GO? OKAY, THANK YOU.
AND I THINK WE HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER.
IS THAT F-I-S-H-E-R? THAT IS AFFIRMATIVE.
UH, YES, MADAM CHAIR, I, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO LORI AND MR. ARMSTRONG BECAUSE, UH, THAT DID HELP KIND OF CLEAR UP A LITTLE BIT WHAT WAS GOING ON.
I AM KIND OF ON THE SIDE THAT, UH, MR. ARMSTRONG WAS REFERENCING BECAUSE OUR HOUSE HAS FLOODED AFTER THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD COME IN.
AND SO WHEN WE SEE ANYTHING ABOUT A NOTICE OF VARIANCE WITH THE STORM SEWERS, THE BIGGEST CONCERN FOR PEOPLE IN THE, IN THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD IS WHERE ARE THEY GOING? YOU KNOW, WHERE WOULD IT MOVE? WHAT WOULD BE HAPPENING WITH IT? AND I KNOW YOU HAD STATED THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST SITTING, A LOT OF THE EASEMENTS ARE JUST SITTING IN THERE DOING ANYTHING, BUT THEY ARE PASSIVELY DOING SOMETHING WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, PROHIBITING PEOPLE FROM PUTTING UP SOME SORT OF A STRUCTURE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY ADD TO MORE FLOODING FOR OUR, OUR AREA.
AND THAT'S JUST ALL I WANTED TO ADDRESS WITH Y'ALL, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, WE STILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TO GO ON THIS.
AND, AND PUBLIC WORKS WILL BE ISSUING PERMITS AND, AND WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THIS.
SO, UM, I THINK WE'LL BE, YOU'LL BE OKAY.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 36? IF NOT, UM, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
OH, I'M SORRY, MS. MATER, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK? OH, I'M SORRY.
UM, SO, UH, LAURIE IS MY WIFE AND SHE WAS VERY ELOQUENT.
UM, SO I WON'T GO OVER A LOT OF WHAT SHE DID.
I DID WANNA ADDRESS ONE POINT, UM, THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY THE LAST SPEAKER AND, AND I THANK HIM FOR HIS COMMENTS.
BUT IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN, THERE'S A VERY LARGE RETENTION POND THAT WAS PUT IN, UM, SO THAT THERE WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE A SEWAGE EASEMENT THERE.
UM, AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.
I MEAN, IF THE EASEMENT IS NOT ABANDONED, THERE ARE THREE EXISTING HOMES THAT WHERE POOLS AND LITERALLY OUR MASTER BEDROOM COULD BE TORN DOWN.
SO I, YOU KNOW, I, I APPRECIATE OBVIOUSLY THIS AREA OF FLOODS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CONCERNS US AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE MOVED THERE.
BUT THE ONES HAVE BEEN THERE SEVEN YEARS.
THE EASEMENT WAS, WAS TO BE ABANDONED BY THE CITY.
THE DEVELOPER PUT IN A VERY LARGE RETENTION POND.
UM, AND SO I GUESS THAT THAT'S, THOSE ARE THE ONLY STATEMENTS I HAD.
AND THEN, UH, MADAM, I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION, WHICH IS, SO UNDERSTANDING ALL OF THAT, WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP IN TERMS OF WHAT THE CITY NEEDS TO DO FOR THE PERMIT? I CAN'T REALLY ANSWER THAT.
CAN YOU, DO YOU WANNA, IF WE GRANT THE VARIANCE, THEN YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO GET THE PERMITS.
MADAM CHAIR, I JUST, BUT I, YEAH, I GOT YOU.
BUT, BUT FOR Y'ALL TO, WILL Y'ALL, BUT Y'ALL, DO Y'ALL HAVE THE ABILITY TO VOTE ON THE VARIANCE TODAY? YES, WE DO.
I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS.
UM, NUMBER ONE, THIS IS NOT A VARIANCE REQUEST.
THIS IS A SHALL APPROVED REQUEST.
ALSO, THIS IS, UM, A PRELIMINARY, UM, REPL.
SO THE REQUEST WAS TO, UM, REMOVE, UH, THE, THE, UM, STORM SEWER EASEMENT OUT OF THE REAR OF THE LOTS.
UH, THE REASON WHY WE, UM, ADDED IN THE LETTER ABOUT THE THREE LOTS BECAUSE WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE WAY CONFUSING JUST TO SAY, TO REMOVE A STORM SEW EASEMENT.
UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT IS, UM, IT'S JUST TO REMOVE THE STORM SEWER EASEMENT.
SO AS A, UM, AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL ON THE CPC 1 0 1, UH, WE, WE LISTED THAT, UH, THE PUBLIC WORKS, UM, DEPARTMENT HAS,
[00:35:01]
HAS TO, UM, APPROVE THIS RE PLAT PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.SO THEY HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO RECEIVE A LETTER OF APPROVAL BEFORE THEY CAN EVEN SUBMIT FOR THE FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
AND IF THEY DON'T DO THAT, THEN THE PLAT WOULD NOT BE RECORDED.
SO, MR. MORELAND, WE CAN VOTE ON THE PRELIMINARY, UM, PLAT TODAY, AND I, I'M SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION.
THIS IS A REPL THAT INCLUDES GETTING RID OF THE STORM SEWER EASTMAN.
SO WE'LL VOTE ON THAT TODAY, BUT IT'S JUST THE PRELIMINARY STEP.
THEN WE HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FROM PUBLIC WORKS, THEN IT'LL COME BACK TO US FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
WHAT'S YOUR ESTIMATE ON HOW LONG THAT'LL TAKE? USUALLY? DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA? I GUESS I SHOULD PUT SHOULDN'T PUT YOU ON THE SPOT 'CAUSE IT'S OUT OF YOUR CONTROL.
UM, BUT THERE ARE SOME OTHER STEPS TO TAKE BEFORE THE PERMITS CAN BE ISSUED.
AND WHO CAN, WHO CAN MR. MORELAND TALK TO WHO WOULD HELP HIM UNDERSTAND THAT PROCESS? CAN WE MAYBE SOMEBODY IN PUBLIC WORKS? YES.
SO AGAIN, I THINK WE'VE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE MS. MORELAND'S CONTACT INFORMATION WE'LL GET, IF, IF YOU PUT THAT IN THE CHAT, WE'LL REACH OUT TO YOU AND SEE IF WE CAN GIVE YOU THE CONTACT INFORMATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS TO GET A LITTLE MORE DEFINITION ON THE PROCESS.
UM, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG.
COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG, JUST, JUST BASED ON MY PAST EXPERIENCE, UM, EASEMENTS ARE, ARE TECHNICALLY ASSETS.
AND TO MODIFY THOSE, DO THEY NEED TO GO TO JRC? UM, AND WOULD THEY POTENTIALLY NEED TO PURCHASE THE EASEMENT? NO, NOT IN THIS CASE.
BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN ABANDONED.
OH, WE, WE HAVE, I THOUGHT THE
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS.
IT CAN OWN THE LAND, BUT THE CITY STILL OWNS THE EASEMENT.
HERE, LET'S LET MS. MACHER ANSWER THE QUESTION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS DIPTI MATH, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, ROSENBERG.
IF THE EASEMENT IS THERE, THEN IT IS A CITY'S ASSET IF, BUT THERE ARE NO PHYSICAL UTILITIES IN IT.
IF IT WAS CREATED BY PLAT, WHAT WE GENERALLY, OUR USUAL PROCEDURE WOULD BE TO REQUIRE A LETTER OF NO OBJECTION FROM PUBLIC WORKS UTILITY DIVISION.
ONCE THAT IS RECEIVED, THE RE PLAT CAN CONTINUE BECAUSE THIS IS A PRELIMINARY, WE, WE, WE WERE MOVING IN THE DIRECTION OF GETTING, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY INDICATION YET THAT THE EASEMENT HAS BEEN ABANDONED.
SO WE DON'T HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS TO CLAIM HERE TODAY.
I THOUGHT MR. SEDILLO JUST SAID IT HAD BEEN ABANDONED.
DID I MISUNDERSTAND, JOHN, IS IT ABANDONED? DO WE HAVE THE DOCUMENTS? WE DON'T HAVE A, UH, I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING.
I THOUGHT SOMEBODY SAID YEAH, NEIGHBORHOOD.
YEAH, MS. MEMORIAL FROM THE CITY THAT I GUESS IT WAS MR. I CAN UPLOAD THEM SOMEWHERE NOW IF NEED BE.
I MEAN, I, I HAVE THE, THE LETTER FROM THE CITY SAYING IT'S ABANDONED.
I, MY QUESTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SUPPORT.
IT JUST HAD TO DO WITH PROCESS FOR YOU.
UM, AND, AND IF IT IS, IF IT, IF IT, IF THERE ARE NO IMPROVEMENTS, YEAH, IT CAN BE, UM, UH, NON ACCEPTED, BUT THERE SHOULD BE, UM, NO, UH, COST THERE.
SO I JUST, AGAIN, JUST JRC IS A VERY LENGTHY PROCESS.
I JUST WANTED THE OWNERS TO BE AWARE, BUT THAT I, IF IT'S AN ISSUE, DO NOT THINK THAT THIS NEEDS TO GO TO JRC.
THE JRC IN THIS CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN, IF THIS, IF THERE WAS A PUBLIC UTILITY PHYSICALLY, SAY SANITARY SEWER LINE WAS IN THERE, LIKE A UTILITY PHYSICAL LINE WAS THERE AND IT WAS USED, THEN IT ALWAYS HAS TO GO THROUGH JRC.
SOMETIMES IF THEY DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE REPLANTING PROCESS, THEN THEY CAN, THEY COULD ACTUALLY GO TO JRC AND GET A NON NON-ACCEPTANCE.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
THEY'RE REPL IT AND THEY COULD DO THIS OPTION ALSO BECAUSE THERE ARE NO PUBLIC UTILITIES IN THERE.
HOWEVER, IF WE, IF THE COMMISSION APPROVES THE PLA TODAY, IT WILL STILL HAVE THAT CONDITION THAT THE PUBLIC WORKS UTILITY DIVISION MUST PROVIDE US A LETTER OF NO OBJECTION BEFORE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
WE WILL ALSO SEE WHAT THE, UH, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS SAY SAYING THAT THEY HAVE ABANDONED IT, WHICH IS ALSO A POSSIBILITY.
SO WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT.
AND MS. MAER, I'LL ASK YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET BACK WITH, UM, MR. AND MRS. MORLAND AND GIVE THEM A BETTER, I THINK WE'RE CONFUSING THEM AND, AND TERRIFYING THEM AT THIS POINT,
SO IF YOU WOULD MAKE SURE THAT THEY,
[00:40:01]
IF WE CAN ASCERTAIN WHAT THE PROCESS IS AND, AND LET THEM KNOW ABOUT THAT.I THINK GOOD CUSTOMER SERVICE.
AND I DID SEE THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER ON THE CHAT, SO WE'LL WE WILL FOLLOW UP.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? UM, AGAIN, MADAM CHAIR, WE HAVE SOME, UH, WE HAVE SOMEONE ELSE SIGN UP IN THE CHAT.
LORI CUMMINGS, ARE YOU MUTED? STAR SIX.
CAN YOU SPELL YOUR LAST NAME FOR US? MADAM CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU.
WILL YOU GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME? MY NAME IS LORI CUMMINGS.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE A COUPLE OF POINTS HERE.
I UNDERSTAND, UM, THAT THERE IS A RETENTION POND BEHIND THE HOUSES.
UM, SINCE THE HOUSES WERE UH, DEVELOPED AND THE RETENTION PUT WAS PUT IN, WE HAVE FLOODED, WHICH IS ACTUALLY SOUTHEAST OF THAT PARTICULAR, UM, DIAMOND STREET.
UM, I THINK OUR, UH, ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BEG TO DIFFER ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT, ABOUT THE STORM SEWER.
I THINK THAT, UM, WITH GETTING US INVOLVED WITH THE HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS, WE HAVE BEEN TRYING NOW FOR OVER 20 YEARS TO HAVE SOME KIND OF RESOLUTION FOR OUR HOME FLOODING.
AND IT'S USUALLY CONNECTED WITH THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK, UM, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN OUTCRY WITH US AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE MORELAND'S ABOUT THAT.
WE JUST WANT, WE JUST DON'T WANNA FLOOD AGAIN.
AND WHAT WE SEE IS A REPENT TENSION POND THAT'S NOT WORKING.
AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE UP THE STORM SEWER.
ALTHOUGH I DO KNOW THAT IT IS ABANDONED, THAT STILL CAUSES, UM, SOME ISSUES FOR US.
AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANNA DO IS, UM, HAVE SOMEBODY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS, NOT ONLY GET IN TOUCH WITH THE MORELAND'S, BUT WITH US OVER IN THE SUBDIVISION THAT IT IMPACTS IF THEY WERE GOING TO REMOVE THAT STORM SEWER EASEMENT AND WHAT RISK WOULD IT HAVE ON US FLOODING.
IS THAT, UH, DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS? IT DOES.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY.
THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT BROADER THAN WHAT WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER HERE TODAY.
UM, I HA HAVE YOU, UH, YOU'VE REACHED OUT TO 3 1 1 OR YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER TO TALK ABOUT THE FLOODING PROBLEM IN THE SUBDIVISION? WE HAVE, YOU HAVE DONE THAT? UM, OKAY, WELL, WE'LL WE'LL ASK THAT.
UM, WE, YOU MAKE PUBLIC WORKS AWARE THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS REALLY NOT ATTACHED TO, TO WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TODAY, BUT WE'LL, WE WILL PASS THAT ALONG AND PERHAPS WE CAN, YOU CAN GET SOMEONE TO COME VIEW, I DON'T, WE CAN'T REALLY HELP YOU WITH THE, THE RETENTION POND THAT WAS BUILT IF IT'S NOT WORKING.
IS IT PART OF YOUR SUBDIVISION? IS IT OWNED BY YOUR CIVIC ASSOCIATION? NO, MA'AM.
IT'S, IT'S DIRECTLY BEHIND, UH, THE PLATS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW.
YEAH, BUT I MEAN, IS IT, WAS IT PLATTED WITH THE SUBDIVISION AS DETENTION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT OR IS IT, WHAT'S IT, WHAT'S IT FOR COMMISSIONER SIGLER? UM, I THINK I HAD A SIMILAR QUESTION AND MAYBE IF, UM, IF THIS IS DEFERRED NEXT TIME, UM, WE COULD SEE THE ORIGINAL PLOT AND JUST WHAT WAS ALL PART OF IT.
'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S SOME OF MY CONFUSION ON WAS THIS DETENTION.
PART OF IT WAS, WAS THAT EASEMENT PUT IN PLACE TO HELP SERVE THAT DETENTION.
UM, AND JUST THE BIGGER PICTURE WOULD HELP.
WE DO HAVE THE, UM, THE SLIDE OF THE, OF THE PLAID.
CAN YOU PUT IT UP REAL QUICK? 3, 3, 3.
SO THAT, THAT STORM SEWER EASEMENT THAT THEY'RE ASKING TO BE REMOVED WAS THERE.
UM, BUT THIS THE PLAT, THE, THE, YEAH, THE THE RETENTION IS, IS IT'S NOT THERE.
SHOW THE, UH, THE, THE PREVIOUS PLAT, THIS IS THE ORIGINAL PLAT DATED.
[00:45:01]
OLD IS IT? THIS, UM, WAS JUST 2012.OKAY, SO THIS IS DAR LOCK IS A VERY OLD PLAID.
SO THIS IS, THIS IS THE ONE FROM 2012.
THE ORIGINAL, ORIGINAL PLAT JUST SHOWED LOTS.
IT DIDN'T, HADN'T, IT DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT WOULD'VE SHOWED, UM, DETENTION OR DETENTION, BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THAT DETENTION WAS, UH, A FIXTURE THAT WAS PART OF, THAT WAS INTENDED TO SERVICE THAT LOTS.
IT WASN'T, OKAY, SO IT'S JUST THE STORM.
SO I'M JUST SAYING THE STORM SEW EASEMENT WAS THERE THAT THEY'RE ASKING TO REMOVE, BUT NOT THAT.
UH, WELL, COMMISSIONER SIGIL, WERE YOU SUGGESTING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DEFER THE ITEM OR I YES.
I, I FEEL LIKE WE, I, I PERSONALLY DO NEED MORE INFORMATION.
I HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I, YES.
WELL, LET ME JUST SAY WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER THE ITEM AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE HAVE A SECOND BALDWIN SECOND NELSON.
I, I WOULD QUESTION MOVING FORWARD IN THAT DIRECTION ONLY BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY THE STAFF THAT THE ACTION WE WILL TAKE, WE'LL REFER IT TO PUBLIC WORKS AND SUBSEQUENT TO THAT THERE'LL BE A SECOND ITEM.
SO THE EFFECT OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION IS TO COME BACK ANOTHER TIME TO US WITH, WITH PUBLIC WORKS INPUT AND MORE INFORMATION.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD PREFER THAT THE COMMISSION ACT TO CLARIFY THE DIRECTION TO PUBLIC WORKS AS TO WHAT INFORMATION WE'D LIKE TO SEE NEXT TIME KNOWING THAT, KNOWING THAT WE'RE SEEING IT A SECOND TIME.
DO WE KNOW RIGHT NOW IT, IT'S, SO WE, HAVE YOU ALL SEEN THE, UM, THE DOCUMENTATION THAT THE, THAT IT IS ABANDONED YOU ALL? NO, WE DID NOT RECEIVE THAT.
YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED THAT? NO, THE APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE THAT.
IT CAME FROM THE CITY, BUT, BUT I MEAN, IT'S ON CITY LETTERHEAD.
LET US DELIBERATE A LITTLE BIT HERE.
SO MY ONLY QUESTION IS IF MS. FLM, IF WE WERE TO DEFER TODAY, THEN THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT TAKE ANY ACTION AT ALL DURING THIS TWO WEEK PERIOD.
IE GOING TO PUBLIC WORKS OR COULD YOU? SO MY QUESTION IS, IF WE'RE DEFERRING, WHY ARE WE DEFERRING? NO, I TO GET MORE INFORMATION.
RIGHT? SO CAN WE GET MORE IF WE DEFER, CAN WE GET MORE INFORMATION OR IS IT THE SAME THING, UH, AS JUST APPROVING GET TODAY? IN OTHER WORDS, IS THE ACTION BY THE DEPARTMENT GONNA CHANGE? IF WE APPROVE OR WE DEFER? THE ACTION WOULDN'T CHANGE, BUT WE, WE CAN GO TO PUBLIC WORKS AND THEY MAY HAVE MORE INFORMATION THAT WE DON'T HAVE.
I, I WOULD CHANGE MY RECOMMENDATION.
I I FEEL LIKE WE'RE PUTTING A, A BURDEN ON THE HOMEOWNER.
AND IF THE WAY TO GET INFORMATION IS FOR PUBLIC WORKS TO REVIEW IT, THEN MOVE THE PROCESS ALONG.
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION, UM, FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
SO YOU'RE WITHDRAWING YOUR MOTION.
ARE YOU WITHDRAWING YOUR SECOND? OKAY.
WE HAVE A NEW MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WILL BE REVIEWED BY PUBLIC WORKS.
WE'LL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION AGAIN FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BALDWIN.
UM, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION THEN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY, OH WAIT, DID NOT CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THIS WAS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN WE THOUGHT IT WAS GONNA BE
BUT WE'LL GET THERE AND WE'LL, WE'LL JUST MADAM CHAIR, THIS WILL BE BACK.
I NEED TO STEP OUT FOR A FEW MINUTES.
NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER TAHIR HAS TO LEAVE THE MEETING BRIEFLY.
I THINK THAT TAKES US TO ITEM 1 37.
ITEM 1 37 IS LAKEWOOD PINE, SECTION 15.
THE SITE IS LOCATED EAST OF TIMBER FOREST NORTH OF LAKEWOOD PINES IN HOUSTON, EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE 60 LOTS AND FOUR RESERVES.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAT TO REPL LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE RESERVES INTO LOTS AND TO HAVE A UNIQUE NAME DUE TO A TECHNICAL CLERICAL ERROR.
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET.
STAFF HAS COMMUNICATED WITH THE APPLICANT THAT WE WILL WORK WITH THEM WITH THE RESUBMITTAL OF THE PLAT FUTURE SUBMITTALS AND RECOMMENDATION STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DISAPPROVE THE PLAT STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
[00:50:01]
OKAY, THANK YOU.THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 37 LAKEWOOD PINE SECTION 15 IS OPEN.
AND TO CLARIFY, THE, THE, UH, NOTIFICATION ISSUE IS JUST WITH ITEM 1 37.
OKAY, SO WE'RE TAKING THESE SEPARATELY.
UM, SO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE WHO IS SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 37? MADAM CHAIR? WE HAVE MYRA HERNANDEZ SIGNED UP IN THE CHAT.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS MYRA HERNANDEZ.
WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A TWO WEEK DEFERRAL INSTEAD OF THE, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO DISAPPROVE THE PLAT.
ORIGINALLY, ORIGINALLY WE HAD REQUESTED THAT THE PLAT BE DEFERRED FOR TWO WEEKS SO THAT THE CITY COULD PROPERLY NOTIFY, UM, ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY.
UM, STAFF INDICATED TO US THAT THAT WAS NOT AN OPTION FOR US AND THAT WE ONLY HAD THE OPTION TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION OR TO, UM, HAVE THE PLAT BE DISAPPROVED.
UM, AS WE HAVE RECENTLY HEARD, UM, WITH SOME OF THE PREVIOUS ITEMS, INCLUDING ITEM 1 33, UM, THAT WAS GRANTED A TWO WEEK DEFERRAL.
SO WE WILL LIKE TO GET THE SAME OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS ITEM.
WE UNDERSTAND AND WE DO APOLOGIZE FOR THE ERROR.
UM, I THINK THAT THIS IS A LEGAL TECHNICALITY, BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE CAN TAKE AN ACTION ON AN ITEM FOR WHICH NO NOTICE WAS PROVIDED, UM, OF ANY KIND EXCEPT TO DISAPPROVE IT.
UM, THE ITEM BEFORE THERE WAS NOTICE, IT JUST WAS THE SIGN WAS OUTTA WHACK AND SO THEY HAD TO MOVE THE SIGN.
SO, BUT THERE HAS BEEN NO NOTICE PROVIDED TO THE CORRECT RESIDENCE THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER, UNDER THE ORDINANCE IN STATE LAW.
SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEFER IT AT THIS POINT.
AND UH, I GUESS IS, IS MS. MICKELSON ON THE, ON THE CALL? ARE YOU THERE? OUR LEGAL, I I I AM.
THIS IS KIM MICKELSON, OUR ATTORNEY.
I THINK KIM MICKELSON FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UM, CHAIR STEIN, THERE'S BEEN NO NOTIFICATION AT ALL ON THIS ONE AND THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHEN THERE'S BEEN AN ERROR OR A LATE POSTING AND THERE'S BEEN SOME, SO I, I CONCUR WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UM, MS. HERNANDEZ, I'M SORRY, BUT WE, WE JUST CAN'T DO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
UM, FOR THE RECORD, COULD WE GET, UM, THE COMMISSION TO, UM, WAIVE ALL THE FEES, INCLUDING THE MAIL OUT FEES WHEN WE GET READY TO RESUBMIT THIS FLAT FOR PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE? YEAH, THAT, THAT'S WAY ABOVE OUR PAY GRADE.
WE, WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE ANY FEES, BUT AS THE STAFF STATED, WE, THEY HAVE AGREED THAT THEY WILL WORK YOU ON THE FEE WITH YOU ON THE FEES THAT THEY CAN WAIVE THAT.
DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR REMARKS? IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT CAN DO THAT? NO, NOT THAT I KNOW OF.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS KIM MICKELSON AGAIN, NOT AT THIS TIME.
SO SOMETHING WITHIN STAFF TO WORK OUT THE, THE FEE ISSUE.
UM, IT'S, IT'S NOT AT THE
YOU SORT OF BROKE UP THERE, BUT I THINK YOU SAID NO.
DID YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? YEAH.
UH, THIS IS DIRECTOR WALLACE BROWN.
WE FULLY REGRET THE MISTAKE THAT TOOK PLACE AND, AND WE'LL WORK WITH YOU AS WE CAN ON THESE FEES.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO IS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 37? IF NOT, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
UM, FOR THE REASONS STATED STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DISAPPROVE THE PLAT IS THEIR DISCUSSION O ONLY THAT THIS SEEMS AWFULLY RARE TO BE A SHALL DISAPPROVE ITEM.
WE'RE GLAD THAT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN FREQUENTLY.
IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION GARZA GARZA.
IS THERE A SECOND? JONES JONES.
OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM 1 38, ITEM 1 38 IS LAKEWOOD PINE SECTION 16.
THE SITE IS LOCATED EAST OF TIMBER FOREST NORTH OF LAKEWOOD PINES AND USE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
[00:55:01]
THE REASON FOR RELA IS TO CREATE 22 LOTS AND TWO RESERVES.THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PORTION OF A LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE RESERVE INTO LOTS AND TO ALLOW THE SECTION TO HAVE A UNIQUE NAME.
WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF BOTH VARIANCES.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS A RELAID OF A LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE RESERVE WITH THE LAKEWOOD PINE SECTION 10 PLAT.
THE LOTS ARE SIMILAR IN SIZE AND SINCE THIS IS A REPL OF A RESERVE, THIS SECTION WILL STAND ALONE AND IT WILL BE LOGICAL TO NAME THE PLAT AS ITS OWN SECTION.
THE RESERVE IS, THE LANDSCAPE RESERVE IS NOT REQUIRED AND THE REPLY IS CONDUCIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WOULD NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS PLAT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
AND WE DO NEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, CORRECT? YEAH.
MADAM CHAIR PLEASES THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 1 38, LAKEWOOD PINE SECTION 16 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN.
IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A HARDY MOTION OF APPROVAL.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
IS THERE A SECOND? HARDY SECOND.
THAT'LL BE A NEW CATEGORY FROM NOW ON.
I'M SORRY, WHO WAS THE HARDY SECOND? ALL THOSE IN PAUL NELSON.
YES, THAT WAS GARZA AND NELSON.
OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES THE HARDY MOTION ITEM 1 39.
ITEM 1 39 IS RUBER FIELD NUMBER 66 PARTIAL RE PLAT NUMBER NINE.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG ADO AND EDGAR STREETS IN HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS.
THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE THREE LOTS NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WOULD NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY THAT APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE C BBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 1 39 RUBER FIELD NUMBER 66 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 39? HEARING NO RESPONSE? UH, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IS THERE DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? HEES? IS THERE A SECOND? JONES? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM ONE 40 IS SHAMROCK MANOR PARTIAL REPLANT NUMBER TWO.
THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR LEGAL REVIEW.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF SWINGLE ROAD AND DONAL WAY.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RELAID IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MODIFY THE BUILDING LINES.
THERE ARE NO ANSWERS BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICT RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE, THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
AND IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ONE 40 SHAMROCK MANOR IS CONTINUED.
THE APPLICANT, MS. OWENS IS PRESENT.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 40? HEARING NO RESPONSE.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
[01:00:02]
IS THERE DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION BALDWIN? IS THERE A SECOND BINS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMITS LOCATED BETWEEN NORTH MAIN STREET AND MAIN STREET, SOUTH OF FAR WOOD STREET AND NORTH OF EAST WOODLAND STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS RELA IS TO CREATE ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE.
THIS APPLICATION ORIGINALLY INCLUDED A VARIANCE REQUEST TO NOT DEDICATE THE FULL AMOUNT OF RIGHT OF WAY.
UH, THIS APPLICATION ORIGINALLY INCLUDED A VARIANCE REQUEST TO NOT DEDICATE THE FULL AMOUNT OF RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION ALONG EAST WOODLAND STREET.
SINCE THEN, THE APPLICANT HAS REVISED THE PLAT TO PROVIDE THE FULL DEDICATION AND A VARIANCE IS NO LONGER REQUIRED.
REVIEW VIA LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLATTER.
THOSE FILED SEPARATELY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME AND DURING THIS PAST WEEK, MADAM CHAIR'S STAFF HAS RECEIVED A, A FEW PHONE CALLS RELATED TO THIS ITEM, BUT WE'VE CLARIFIED THAT NO, UH, VARIANCE REQUEST WAS NEEDED.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
THE, UH, PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 42 WOODLAND SQUARE IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE WHO'S SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 42? HEARING NO RESPONSE? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION?
ITEM 1 43 IS YOAKUM GARDENS PARTIAL RELAID NUMBER ONE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST.
AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF VOGUE LANE AND MARVEL ROAD.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE 28 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND EIGHT RESERVES ALONG THE SHARED DRIVEWAY.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED.
SEPARATELY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM.
AND IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM.
AT THIS TIME, THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 1 43 YOAKUM GARDENS IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 43? HEARING NO RESPONSE? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IS THERE DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION SIGLER SIGLER.
IS THERE A SECOND? JONES JONES.
[d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests (Geoff Butler and Aracely Rodriguez)]
US TO SECTION D VARIANCES IS MADAM CHAIR.I'M GONNA RECUSE MYSELF ON ITEM 1 44.
NOTE THAT COMMISSIONERS, UH, AND SIGLER WILL BE ABSTAINING ON THIS ITEM.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 1 44 IS BELIN CREEK LAND VILLAGE, SECTION NINE.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON'S ETJ, UH, EAST OF PEAK ROAD, NORTH OF JACK ROAD, AND SOUTH OF AN UNNAMED MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 135 LOTS AND RESERVES INTENDED FOR LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE, UH, AND COMPENSATING OPEN SPACE, AND IS REQUESTING THREE VARIANCES.
THE FIRST VARIANCE IS TO EXCEED THE 1400 LOCAL INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE SUBDIVISION.
THE SECOND VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW LOTS 14 THROUGH 24 AND BLOCK TWO, UH, TO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
AND THE THIRD VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED ZERO FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR ALL LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION, WHICH WILL TAKE PRIMARY VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM 20 FOOT PRIVATE ALLEYS.
UM, AND, UM, STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF ALL THREE REQUESTS.
BRIDGELAND CREEK LAND VILLAGE SECTION NINE IS
[01:05:01]
CONNECTED TO THE BRIDGELAND DEVELOPMENT'S EXTENSIVE 40 ACRE TRAIL SYSTEM TO THE WEST BY THE SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION.THE TRAIL SYSTEM CONNECTS THE SUBDIVISION TO SCHOOLS, UH, PARKS, RETAIL CENTERS, AND OTHER FACILITIES WHILE MINIMIZING THE NUMBER OF ROAD CROSSINGS.
THE INTERSECTION SPACING AT THIS LOCATION IS APPROXIMATELY 1800 FEET, AND THE STREET PATTERN IN THE GP WILL SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESS THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN THE OVERALL AREA.
UM, UH, AND, UH, THE SUBDIVISION PROPOSES, UH, FOR NEXT SLIDE.
UH, IN ADDITION, THE SUBDIVISION PROPOSES ALL VEHICULAR ACCESS OF THE LOTS TO BE TAKEN BY THE DEDICATED 20 FEET PRIVATE ALLEYS IN ORDER TO PROMOTE A SAFE AND WALKABLE SUBDIVISION.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THIS VARIANCE BECAUSE, UH, HARRIS COUNTY CURRENTLY DOES NOT ALLOW FOR PUBLIC ALLEYS TO BE DEDICATED.
UM, IF THIS SUBDIVISION WERE LOCATED IN THE CITY, IT WOULD MEET CHAPTER 42 REQUIREMENTS.
UH, THE VEHICULAR ACCESS OF THE LOTS WILL BE, UH, LIMITED TO THE 20 FOOT PRIVATE ALLEYS, AND ALL LOTS WOULD HAVE ACCESS, OH, SORRY, ENTRANCES THAT WOULD LEAD TO SIDEWALKS, UH, LOTS 14 THROUGH 24, WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET.
UH, WOULD FRONT LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE, WHICH ALSO CONNECTS, UM, THE LOTS TO THE SIDEWALK.
UH, NETWORK, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES.
UH, THE SUBDIVISION PROMOTES WALKABILITY AND CONNECTIVITY TO THE LARGER OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL NETWORK.
IT LIMITS PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR, UH, INTERACTION, UH, WITH THE SEPARATION, OH, SORRY, WITH THE VEHICULAR AXIS BEING LIMITED TO THE 20 FOOT ALLEYS.
UM, THE INTENT OF CHAPTER 42 IS MET AND COUNTY HAS POSED NO OBJECTION TO THIS APPLICATION.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 44? UM, IF NOT, THEN, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN.
UM, IS THERE A FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER SMITH? NO.
I WAS GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UM, SMITH, IS THERE A SECOND? ROBINS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS MU F, ITEM NUMBER 1 45 VER RANCH.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, UH, EAST OF TEXAS, 4 95, UH, 4 94 LOOP NORTH OF MAJOR PINEDALE LANE.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSED TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOSS ON THE SUBJECT SIDE AND REQUEST TWO RENTS.
THE FIRST RENT IS TO NOT EXTEND NOR TERMINATE FIRST STREET WITH A CUL-DE-SAC.
THE SECOND RENT IS TO ALLOW LOT TWO TO TAKE ACCESS FROM A 30 FEET ACCESS EASEMENT STEP RECOMMENDS DEFERRING THIS APPLICATION FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW APPLICANT TIME TO SUBMIT REVISED INFORMATION BY NOON AS WEDNESDAY.
OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 45 CHAVEZ RANCH? IF NOT, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER.
UM, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER MOTION JONES? IS THERE A SECOND? A ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM 1 46, ITEM 1 46 MIDTOWN CENTRAL SQUARE.
THE SITE LOCATED IN HER, UH, IN HOUSTON, CITY LIMIT EAST OF MILAN STREET, WEST OF CHAVEZ, AND NORTH OF, UH, WEBSTER STREET.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSED AN, UH, RESTRICTED RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING TO RENTS.
THE FIRST BRANCH IS TO ALLOW A ZERO FOOT DUAL BOOTING LINE ON A PORTION OF, UH, GRAY STREET.
THE SECOND RANGE IS NOT TO DEDICATE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT GRAY STREET.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DEFER, UH, THIS PLEDGE TO ALLOW TIME FOR APPLICANTS TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL MATERIALS TO SUPPORT THEIR REQUEST.
UH, SINCE THIS IS A SECOND DEFERRAL STEP, WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF PRESENTATION, PLEASE.
THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ON THE SIDE WERE CONSTRUCTED WITH ZERO BUILDING LIGHT BACK TO 1950S.
[01:10:01]
SINCE THEY PREDATE THE ORDINANCE, THEY ARE QUALIFIED FOR GRANDFATHER.IN 2014, THE CURRENT OWNER BECAME THE SOLE OWNER OF THE WHOLE SITE.
THEN HE START TO REMODEL THE 14 STORY TOWER ALONG CHA AND WEST GRAY AND DEMOLISHED THE TWO STORY BUILDING AT THE CORNER OF WEST GRAY AND MILAN.
AFTER THE STRUCTURE WAS DEMOLISHED, THE OWNER START TO CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY RETAIL BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT.
IN 2015, THE CONSTRUCTION WAS STOPPED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT THAT TIME, THE MAIN STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING WAS COMPLETE.
THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT REQUEST RENT TO ALLOW THE NEW STRUCTURE TO HAVE A ZERO FULL DUAL BUILDING LINE ALONG GRAY STREET.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANT, THE REQUESTED DUAL BUILDING LINE RENTS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS, UH, PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED AT THAT TIME.
SINCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANT THE RENTS IN 2016, THE PROPERTY OWNERS CONTINUE TO CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY STRUCTURE WITHOUT RECORDING THE PLA.
SINCE THE PREVIOUS PLA HAS EXPIRED, THE APPLICANT MUST READJUST THE RANKS.
MEANWHILE, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS AN ADDITIONAL RANGE TO NOT PROVIDE A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AT GRADE, UM, WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY CLARIFICATION.
SO THEREFORE, THAT RECOMMENDS, UH, DEFERRING THE APPLICATION FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW APPLICANT TIME TO PROVIDE, UH, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND JUSTIFICATION.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF? MS. FUNG? YES.
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER GARZA.
DO, DO WE HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING AT ALL WHY? UM, WELL, OBVIOUSLY, AND WE WANNA BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCES.
DO WE HAVE ANY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THEY DID NOT FILE PERMITS? THEY DID NOT FILE THE INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO THEM AT THIS TIME.
THIS IS REALLY EGREGIOUS ON THE PART OF THIS DEVELOPER BUILDER.
UM, AND AGAIN, IT'S ONE THING TO PULL PERMITS ON ONE SO THAT YOU KNOW, YOU'RE PULLING PERMITS AND THEN NOT TO PULL PERMITS ON THE REST.
I JUST, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS KIND OF ACTION FROM THIS DEVELOPER.
ARE WE PLANNING ON MEETING WITH THEM TO GET SOME KIND OF EXPLANATION TO THE VERY LEAST, THAT AS MOVING FORWARD THEY WILL BE COMPLYING WITH CITY ORDINANCE? THAT'S A PLAN.
ACCORDING TO THE DEVELOPER, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY WERE NOT AWARE THE NEED OF RECORDING THE PLA, BUT, UH, SINCE THE CONSULTANT HAS BEEN CHANGED SINCE 2016, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THE CURRENT CONSULTANT IS NOT AWARE OF THE WHOLE LOT OF THE HISTORY.
UM, BUT THAT STAFF COULD DEFINITELY REACH OUT, UM, TO MAKE CLARIFICATION AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE BACK TO COMPLIANCE.
NO MORE ADDITIONAL REQUESTS IN THE FUTURE.
WELL, JUST, JUST BETWEEN US GIRLS, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE, UH, PETITIONER COME TO THE NEXT MEETING IF IN FACT THIS IS DEFERRED TO THE EXPLAIN THEMSELVES.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? COULD, COMMISSIONER SMITH COULD CLARIFY WHAT IT ACTIONS WILL BE CLARIFIED THAT ARE RELEVANT TO OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE PLAT? IS IT, IS IT THE SITE TRIANGLE AND, AND ITS DISPOSITION UNDER THE PROPOSED PLAT? IS THAT INCLUDING THE SIDE, THE, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE? ALSO, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE, BASICALLY NOW THE SITE IS DONE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT THEY HAVE DONE ON THE SIDE IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED BACK TO 2016.
AND ANOTHER THING WE ARE LOOKING FOR, BECAUSE THEY, IT'S THE SECOND TIME FOR THEM VIOLATING THE ORDINANCE, UH, WHETHER THERE'S A POSSIBILITY FOR THEM TO PROVIDE MORE, UH, PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY ELEMENTS ON THE SIDE.
BECAUSE THE VARIANCE WAS GRANTED IN 2016, THE WALKABLE PLACES ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED IN 2020.
UH, THE, THE STRUCTURE WAS THERE, KIND OF, UH, GRANDFATHER OF THE WALKABLE PLACES RULES, BUT IT IS IN, UM, WALK, UH, MIDTOWN, WALKABLE PLACE AND LONG GRADE.
THE PEDESTRIAN ROUTE DOESN'T MEET THE CURRENT MIDTOWN WALKABLE PLACE CRITERIA.
SO STAFF WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE THE, A POSSIBILITY WITH THE APPLICANT TO SEE WHAT ELSE ELSE THEY COULD DO TO CONTRIBUTE THE WALKABILITY AT THE SITE TO GET INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE MIDTOWN WALKABLE PLACES STANDARD, THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BECAUSE THE MAJORITY, THE, THE 14, UH, STORY TOWER PER DAY IS ALREADY THERE.
BECAUSE OF THAT, THE PROTECTION REALM IS LESS THAN THE REQUIRE, UH, 18 OR 20 FEET.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT NEXT MEETING? WHAT, WHAT THE DEFICIENCY REALLY IS? YES, WE DO.
THE OTHER CLARIFICATION I'D ASK MM-HMM
IS YOU MADE A REFERENCE TO A DUAL BUILDING LINE.
IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE, A LITTLE MORE CLEARLY AS TO WHAT THE DUAL PART OF THAT IS WHEN YOU COME BACK.
UM, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, I NOTICED THAT THE COMMENTARIES THAT WE GOT FROM THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS THAT WE REALLY NEED THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE THERE.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR, UH, WHATEVER PLANNING STAFF DECIDES JUSTIFICATION FOR EITHER LEAVING
[01:15:01]
IT, REDUCING IT, YOU KNOW, TAKING IT AWAY.ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS BEFORE WE VOTE? UM, I, I'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 46 MIDTOWN CENTRAL SQUARE.
UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER BALDWIN? IS THERE A SECOND? UH, EXCUSE ME.
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A SPEAKER.
IS THERE A SPEAKER IN THE CHAT? OH YES.
I HAVE FOUR PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
UH, CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND LIST THEIR NAMES OR GIVE US RYAN? UM, RYAN SANCHEZ.
IS THAT S-A-N-C-H-E? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
UH, SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I, I AGREE WITH, UH, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S, UH, UH, VIEWS ON NET, NEEDING THAT, UH, VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
I'M A RESIDENT OF 2016 MAIN AND EVERY TIME I'VE WALKED DOWN THERE, UH, CROSSING ON, UH, MILAM AND GRAY, IT'S A VERY DANGEROUS INTERSECTION.
UH, YOU PULL, YOU ARE WALKING AND PEOPLE DON'T EVEN SEE YOU.
SOMETIMES PEOPLE RUN THE RED LIGHT, AND I'VE ALMOST BEEN HIT AT LEAST FOUR TIMES IN THE LAST MONTH ALONE.
AND THE, UH, THE GRAY STREET BIKE LANE, UH, WE'RE REALLY LIKE WANTING TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THE DEVELOPER TO INSTALL TREES.
UH, ALONG THAT SIDE, UH, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO HAVE JUST DROVE, DRIVEN INTO THE BIKE LANE.
UM, AND AGAIN, IT'S LIKE A LOT OF US RESIDENTS AROUND THERE, UM, WALK OUR DOGS.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A FEW KIDS IN THE BUILDING THAT WALK AND GET OFF THE BUS NEARBY.
UH, SO WE JUST REALLY WANNA SEE IF WE CAN IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF THAT AREA.
WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE THIS UNDER ADVISEMENT IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT IN THE DEFERRAL PERIOD.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SANCHEZ? OKAY.
WHO IS OUR NEXT SPEAKER? WE HAVE CARLA DIAZ.
HI, IS YOUR LAST NAME HI, D-I-A-A-Z? YES.
UH, MY NAME IS CARLA DIAZ VO MAIN STREET.
WE'LL HAVE A TRANSLATION, UH, I CAN TRANSLATE IT.
I'M IN THE MIDTOWN SUPER NEIGHBORHOOD AND I'M ALSO IN SUPPORT OF PLANTING TREES ON GRAY STREET.
I WALK AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I'M ALSO IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING BUSHES AT THE CORNER OF MILAM AND WEBSTER STREET AS I'M CONCERNED OF CROSSING THE STREET WHEN I GO GROCERY SHOPPING.
CAN WE HAVE THE TRANSLATION FOR, FOR CARLA DIAZ, PLEASE? CARLOS SAID EXACTLY WHAT OH, HE TRANSLATED FOR HER? YEAH, EXACTLY WHAT THE APPLICANT SAID.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? YES, WE HAVE TWO MORE.
I'M KAREN LOPEZ AND I LIVE ON 2016, UM, MAIN STREET, AND I'M AGAINST THE REQUEST FOR ITEM 1 46.
SINCE WE HAVE, UH, SAFETY CONCERNS ALONG GRAY STREET AND CORNER OF, UH, MILAN AND WEBSTER STREET, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TREES ALONG GRAY STREET AND REMOVE BUSHES.
'CAUSE IT'S HARD TO SEE US WHEN WE LIKE WALK ALONG, UH, WEBSTER TO PROVE MORE SAFETY.
THANK YOU MS. LOPEZ FOR BEING WITH US TODAY.
AND, UM, WHO IS THE NEXT SPEAKER? LAST PERSON IS CARLOS G ESPINOZA E SANCHEZ.
[01:20:02]
HE ISN'T HE, IS HE THE APPLICANT? NO.CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN FOR THE RECORD? YES.
MY NAME IS CARLOS ESP JOSE SANCHEZ, AND I AM A RESIDENT OF MIDTOWN HOUSTON'S MORE WALKAWAY NEIGHBORHOOD.
I AM AGAINST CIVILIANS REQUEST ALONG WITH MY NEIGHBORS, UH, MY NEIGHBORS AND I, I WORRY ABOUT OUR PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE AS WE WALK THROUGH OUR, OUR STREETS.
UH, THE PROJECT IS SURROUNDED BY FOUR HIGH INJURY NETWORK STREETS, A PRIORITY BY THIS ADMINISTRATION OF MAYOR TURNER.
WE UNDERSTAND THIS BUILDING WAS A HUNDRED PERCENT REMODELED AND ALL THE EXISTING CONDITIONS CHAPTER 42 APPLY.
SO WE WOULD LIKE, UM, DEVELOPMENT TO COMPLY WITH THE MIDTERM WALK PLACES SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.
SHOULD I CONTINUE? YEAH, GO AHEAD.
UH, THE DEVELOPMENT HAS IMPROVED THREE OF THE FOUR STREETS, UH, EXCEPT FOR GRAY STREET.
AS MS. MS. HANEN, UH, PRESENTED, UH, THEY WERE SHOWING TREES ON THAT
WE'RE CONCERN, UH, WITH THE REMOVAL OF TREES.
UH, YOU CAN CHECK ON GOOGLE EARTH.
THEY, THEY, WE HAD BEAUTIFUL MAGNOLIA TREES IN 2010.
WE SENT PICTURES TO STAFF OF CARS DRIVING DOWN THE BIKE LANE ON GRAY STREET, SO THERE'S NOT REALLY A SAFETY BUFFER FOR US.
SO THE TREES WILL DEFINITELY COMPLY WITH THAT SAFETY BUFFER REQUIREMENT.
UH, THE OTHER CONCERN IS A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ON MILAM AND WEBSTER STREET.
THIS IS A HIGH CRASH INTERSECTION.
WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A CONDITION TO REMOVE BUSHES AT THAT CORNER.
ALL MY NEIGHBORS HAVE EXPRESSED, UH, WE WALK TO THE GROCERY STORE SHOPPING AND FEEL IN DANGER EVERY TIME WE GO SHOPPING TO THE, TO, TO THE RANDALL'S NEARBY.
WE SEND PICTURES TO STAFF WITH REVIEW AND HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS CAN MAKE SOME DECISIONS AND THIS, UM, WE'LL LOG.
ALSO SAY THANK YOU TO OUR PARTNERS THAT WE, WE, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS, THE MIDTOWN SUPER NEIGHBORHOOD LINK HOUSTON AND THE OFFICE OF COUNCIL MEMBER AB UM, CANAM FOR LISTENING TO US AND BEING OPEN TO COMMUNICATING ABOUT THIS, UH, REQUEST.
ANY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? UM, UH, MS. COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG, GO AHEAD.
UM, I HEARD EITHER THE PREVIOUS COMMENT OR THE ONE BEFORE MAKE A COMMENT THAT THEY THOUGHT THE REMODELING WAS DONE AND, AND DON'T WANNA SEE ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES.
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THIS IS A RETROACTIVE, UM, KIND OF REPAIR OF, UH, LEGAL DOCUMENTS.
THEY'RE NOT DOING ANY MORE WORK, ARE THEY? I THOUGHT THEY JUST FINISHED THIS SMALL AREA.
UM, BUT NO, NO NEW WORK IS, IS BEING SCHEDULED.
IS THERE, THIS IS MATT TUCKER, APPLICANT? UH, THAT IS CORRECT.
THERE IS NO PROPOSED WORK BEING DONE ON THE SITE.
UH, I STEPPED INTO THIS PROJECT EARLIER THIS YEAR AND UH, THROUGH THE HELP OF CITY PLANNING STAFF'S, UH, RESEARCH WITH CITY PERMITTING, UH, A LOT OF THESE ISSUES WERE UNCOVERED FROM THE PREVIOUS WORK THAT WAS DONE, UH, REQUESTED TO BE DONE OUT HERE.
EVERYTHING ON SITE HAS BEEN COMPLETED.
UM, CHEN HAS FOUND SOME MORE INFORMATION THAT SHE HAS SENT TO ME.
UH, I'VE BEEN REVIEWING THAT WITH THE DEVELOPER ON SITE.
UM, AS FAR AS THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES, UH, THOSE ARE FOUR LOCATIONS WHERE TRAFFIC FLOW, UM, LOOKING IN THAT DIRECTION IS NOT GOING THAT DIRECTION.
UH, AND EXISTING MULTI-STORY BUILDINGS ARE ON THOSE CORNERS, SO REMOVING THE BUILDINGS TO PROVIDE A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE IS INFEASIBLE.
UH, WE WILL LOOK FOR SURE AT POSSIBLY REMOVING, UM, SOME, UH, BUSHES AT INTERSECTIONS WHERE THOSE MAY EXIST.
UH, BUT ALL THESE WILL DEFINITELY BE IRONED OUT OVER THE NEXT WEEK.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN? NO.
UM, MS. LEE, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE IN THE CHAT WHO WANTS TO SPEAK? NO.
UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT STAFF TO LOOK AT IN THE DEFERRAL PERIOD.
IF THEY COULD GIVE US THE 2015 APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HIGHLIGHT THAT WHAT'S NOT DONE FROM THAT IN THE PACKET THAT THEY PROVIDE TO
[01:25:01]
US.THAT'S ACTUALLY STUFF WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE, LIKE WE APPROVED WITH THE PLAN, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? AND, AND THEN SO THAT WE COULD COMPARE YES.
AND IF YOU SHARE THAT WITH MR. TUCKER AS WELL.
UM, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE AN OVERLAY OF, SINCE THIS IS REALLY NOT GRANDFATHERED SINCE THEY DIDN'T FILE THE PERMITS OR, YOU KNOW, OR RECORD THE PLAT, WE'RE STARTING OVER.
AND SO IN MY MIND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN OVERLAY OF WHAT, UM, WHAT MAYBE THEY SHOULD BE DOING VIS-A-VIS WALKABLE PLACES.
SO WHAT THEY'VE DONE TO DATE, UM, IS OF NO IMPORT TO ME.
IF IT'S BEEN DONE, IT CAN BE UNDONE.
AND SO, UM, I, I WANNA SEE WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ACCORDING TO TODAY'S ORDINANCE.
WE DO, UM, THIS COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG, UM, I THINK PEOPLE ALSO NEED TO THINK ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND THE EXTENT THAT IT WAS DONE AND WHAT BETTERMENT IT HAS DONE FOR MIDTOWN.
UM, IF THIS IS AN OVERSIGHT, THAT'S ONE THING.
THIS WAS A VACANT BUILDING FOR YEARS.
HOMELESS INFESTED, CRIME RIDDEN, UM, A BLIGHT TO THE CITY OFF THE TAX ROLLS, FOR THE MOST PART IS A DELINQUENT ASSET.
THEY DID SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC REALM IMPROVEMENTS AND ALL OF THAT STUFF.
SO, UH, WHERE THIS BUILDING IS TODAY PRIOR TO IF SOMETHING WAS DONE AFTER THE APPROVED PROGRAM, I MEAN AFTER THE APPROVED DRAWINGS AND CONSTRUCTION AND COORDINATION WITH THE CITY FOR PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION.
UM, BUT UH, A WHOLE NEW SET OF STANDARDS SHOULD NOT BE CREATED FOR THIS, UH, DEVELOPER BASED ON THE QUALITY OF THE PROJECT THEY DID DELIVER AND THE IMPACT TO MIDTOWN IT HAD CREATED.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, MADAM CHAIR, I'M BACK.
THANK YOU MS. COMMISSIONER TAHI IS BACK WITH US.
UM, IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I THINK WE DID HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO DEFER THE ITEM.
UM, I SAW BALDWIN WHO DID THE SECOND TO REMIND ME.
BALDWIN, WE DIDN'T GET ONE THEN.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER BY COMMISSIONER BALDWIN.
IS THERE A SECOND? GARZA GARZA.
UM, IF THERE NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THE ITEM IS DEFERRED ITEM 1 47.
GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, MADAM CHAIR.
THIS IS JOHN PHILLIPS LIO, ITEM 1 47, IT'S RICHMOND APARTMENTS.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS A 17.7 ACRE PROPERTY IN THE FORT BEND COUNTY, EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION NORTH ALONG WEST BELFORT STREET AND EAST OF HARLEM ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 83 LOTS TAKING ACCESS FROM SHARED DRIVEWAYS, A LARGE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE INTENDED FOR MULTI-FAMILY, A LARGE DETENTION RESERVE, AND MULTIPLE OPEN SPACE AND PARKING RESERVES.
AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THREE VARIANCES VARIANCE.
ONE IS TO ALLOW EACH LOT LESS THAN 3,500 SQUARE FEET TO ALLOCATE AT LEAST 60% OF THE AREA TO BE UNCOVERED BY BUILDINGS.
UH, ALLOCATE AT LEAST 150 SQUARE FEET OF PERMEABLE AREA FOR EACH LOT AND RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF DRILLING UNITS THAT CAN BE CONSTRUCTED AS SO NOT EXCEED OF THE EQUIVALENT OF DENSITY OF 27 DRILLING UNITS PER ACRE WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY.
THIS WOULD BE IN LINE WITH OUR PERFORMANCE WITHIN THE PERFORMANCE CENTERS WITHIN THE CITY LIMIT VARIANCE.
TWO IS TO UTILIZE A 20 FOOT SHARE DRIVEWAY IN FORT BEND COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.
AND VARIANCE THREE IS TO UTILIZE A THREE FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG SAID SHARED DRIVEWAY IN FORT BEND COUNTY ETJ STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO REFINE THEIR VARIANCE LANGUAGE.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICATION.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 47 RICH RICHMOND DEPARTMENTS? UM, IF NOT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER.
IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER? MOTION JONES? SECOND.
UH, ITEM 1 48 ITEM, EXCUSE ME.
THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN HARRIS COUNTY AND PARTIALLY WITHIN FORT BEND COUNTY ALONG WEST WEST PARK, TOW WAY, AND EAST OF FM 1464.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO NOT EXTEND NOR TERMINATE TWO PUBLIC STREETS WITH A CUL-DE-SAC.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT FOR TWO WEEKS FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW AND COORDINATE WITH FORT BEND AND HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
[01:30:01]
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UM, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 48 REGAL MANNER? IF NOT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION.IS THERE A SECOND? SIGLER? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER, HE WILL BE ABSTAINING ON 1 49.
ALRIGHT, ITEM 1 49 IS SHAW ROAD, BTR.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HARRIS COUNTY WEST ALONG SHAW ROAD AND NORTH OF KE TAILGATE LAKE DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO NOT EXTEND NOR TURN, TERMINATE OT DRIVE WITH A CULDESAC AND TO ALLOW SIX LOTS TO TAKE A SOLE ACCESS THROUGH A PRIVATE ALLEY.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE TRACK CONSISTS OF 29 ACRES AND THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO DEVELOP 204 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 14 RESERVES.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE HAYDEN LAKES GENERAL PLAN, WHICH CREATED THE STUBB STREET WITHIN SECTION 11.
SECTION 11 TAKES DIRECT DIRECT ACCESS FROM SRA ROAD, WHICH ALSO PROVIDES SOLE ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED PLAT.
OTHER SECTIONS WITHIN THE GENERAL PLAN PROVIDES FURTHER PUBLIC STREET CONNECTIONS TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST.
ALL OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES ARE RECORDED WITH LITTLE CHANCE OF REDEVELOPING IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
IF THE STREET WAS TO BE EXTENDED, IT WOULD GO NO FURTHER THAN SHAW ROAD, WHICH WOULD NOT BENEFIT THE OVERALL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN THE AREA.
STAFF IS ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THE SECOND REQUEST TO, TO ALLOW SIX LOTS TO TAKE SOLE ALLEY ACCESS DURING THE DEFERRAL PERIOD.
THE APPLICANT IS COORDINATED WITH HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING AND ADJUSTED THE PLAT, WHICH ULTIMATELY RECEIVES HARRIS COUNTY SUPPORT.
THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL PROVIDE A MIX OF DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES, INCLUDING FLAG LOTS, FRONT LOADERS AND PRIVATE STREETS WITH REAR ALLEY ACCESS LOT 17 AND 18 OF BLOCK THREE WILL TAKE ACCESS FROM A LARGER 20 FOOT ALLEY SIMILAR TO THE OTHER HOMES ON THAT BLOCK.
LOTS THREE THROUGH SIX OF BLOCK ONE WILL TAKE ACCESS FROM A 16 FOOT ALLEY, TWO LOTS DEEP IN LENGTH AT THIS SHORT LENGTH.
AT THIS SHORT LENGTH FIREFIGHTING VEHICLES WOULD NOT NEED TO ENTER THE ALLEY BECAUSE THE EQUIPMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO FIGHT ANY FIRES ALONG THE FOUR LOTS ALONG THE ALLEY.
THE TRAFFIC GENERATED FROM THESE FOUR LOTS IS APPROPRIATE FOR AN ALLEY OF THIS WIDTH AND THIS SIZE, AND THE LOTS WILL BE SURROUNDED WITH LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE.
ULTIMATELY, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS PRIVATE AND WILL TAKE ACCESS FROM SHAW ROAD WITHOUT IMPACTING THE HAYDEN LAKE SUBDIVISION.
HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING OFFICE HAS VOICED NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST.
THEREFORE, A STAFF'S RECOMME RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THIS REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. CRIDDLE? UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON 1 49.
IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK? UM, IF NOT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT AND APPROVE IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION.
IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION JONES.
IS THERE A SECOND? SMITH? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM ONE 50 IS TRAVIS, UH, CAPITAL REPL.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF TRAVIS AND FRANCIS STREETS.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESERVE FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO CREATE A VARIANCE TO CREATE A SIX AND A HALF BY SIX AND A HALF VISIBILITY TRIANGLE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 15 FEET.
THE STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ALONG PRIMARY AND SECONDARY WALKABLE PLACES STREETS.
THE APPLICANT APPLICANT IS IN THE PROCESS OF ATTAINING MODIFICATION FROM STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THESE REQUIREMENTS.
ALONG BOTH FRONTAGES, THE SIDEWALK COMMITTEE HAS INDICATED THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS REQUEST.
[01:35:02]
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL ALLOW FOR A SIX AND A HALF BY SIX AND A HALF FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE AS OPPOSED TO THE REQUIRED 15.THE SITE WILL FEATURE A 20 FOOT BY 15 FOOT AREA AT THE INTERSECTION MA MEASURED FROM THE BACK OF THE CURB TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.
THE SIDEWALK WILL BE BUFFERED BY A FOUR FOOT AREA ALONG FRANCIS AND AN EIGHT FOOT AREA ALONG THE INTER AT THE INTERSECTION ALONG TRAVIS.
THIS ALLOWS FOR SIGNI A SUFFICIENT SITE DISTANCE FOR PEDESTRIANS AND MULTIMODAL TRANSIT AS ENVISIONED BY THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REQUIREMENT.
IN ADDITION, TRAVIS IS A ONE-WAY NORTHBOUND STREET REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF TURNS AT THIS INTERSECTION.
FURTHERMORE, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A LINE OF SITE EXHIBIT THAT DEMONSTRATES THERE ARE NO VISIBILITY HA HAZARDS PRESENTED BY THIS REQUEST.
CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE, UNIQUE SITE CONDITIONS, STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE TO STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE VARIANCE AND APPROVING THE PLAT FOR THE CCPC.
ONE FORM CONDITIONS STAFF RECEIVED ONE ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENT REGARDING TRAFFIC SAFETY AND THE IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER? I HAVE ONE.
MR. DID YOU MENTION SIDEWALK COMMITTEE? COULD YOU REFRESH MY MEMORY ON WHAT THE SIDEWALK COMMITTEE'S CHARGE IS? WHEN THEY MEET? WHAT, WHAT THEIR, THEIR, SO THERE'S A, A SET OF RULES THAT ARE APPLICABLE IF SOMEONE WANTS TO DEVELOP IN, IN A WALKABLE PLACES AREA.
AND IF THEY CANNOT MEET IN THIS CASE, THEY CANNOT MEET THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS.
THEY'LL GO TO THE COMMITTEE AND ASK FOR A, AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE STANDARDS.
I HATE TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.
DOES THAT APPLY AT ALL TO THE PLAT WE CONSIDERED A COUPLE MOMENTS AGO? UH, IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
UM, AND I'LL GIVE KUDOS TO MR. BUTLER.
YOU DID A GREAT JOB WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO MAKE THIS A BETTER DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK CARL APPRECIATE THAT AND THE APPLICANT.
UH, WE DO HAVE A COUPLE SPEAKERS IF THERE'S NO, NO ONE ELSE, UM, HAS QUESTIONS.
UM, ONE IS THE APPLICANT WILLIAM NELSON WHO SAYS HE'S HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, ALSO DANNY ARITA, ARITA ARGI WHO SPOKE LAST TIME.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL ON MR. ARGI HO FIRST, ARE YOU THERE?
AND DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, FOR MR. NELSON? OKAY, IF NOT, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN, UM, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION ROSENBERG.
WHO WAS THAT? HELLO? ROSENBERG.
[e. Subdivision Plats with Special Exception Requests]
SECTION E.SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS MADAM CHAIR, I'M GONNA REFUSE FROM THE NEXT FOUR ITEMS. OKAY.
NOTE THAT WE WE'RE LOSING COMMISSIONER HY FOR 1 51 52, 53 AND 54.
STAFF WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER ITEMS 1 52 AND 1 51 TOGETHER.
IS THAT THEY THEY'RE RELATED PLEASE.
UH, THIS IS UH, VENTURA FULL SHARE CHURCH GENERAL PLAN AND VENTURA FULL SHARE CHURCH APARTMENTS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE FORT BEND COUNTY, ETJ SOUTH OF FM 10 93 NORTH OF MCKINNON IN EAST OF FM 3 59.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A GENERAL PLAN OF MULTIPLE USES IN A SECTION FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENTS ALONG 3 59 BY NOT DEDICATING AN EAST TO WEST STREET THROUGH THE SITE.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF FM 3 59 AT THE INTERSECTION OF 10 93.
THE SITE CONSISTS OF AN EXISTING CHURCH AT THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A MULTI DEVELOPMENT AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THE SITE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE WILL BE DEVELOPED FOR RETAIL USES AT A LATER TIME.
FM 3 59 IS PROPOSED TO BE RECONFIGURED AS A FOUR-WAY INTERSECTION REPLACING THE EXISTING EAST WEST CURVE AT THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THE RESULTING THOROUGHFARE GRID WILL BE BETTER SUITED TO CIRCULATE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
IN ADDITION, THE SITE IS BOUND TO THE EAST BY A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION AND A LARGE DETENTION AREA WHICH WOULD BOTH COMPLICATE ANY EXTENSION OF FUTURE STREETS.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF CHAPTER 42, CONSIDERING THE ABUT THE STREET GRID SYSTEM AND BARRIERS TO STREET EXTENSION FORT BEND COUNTY EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR THIS REQUEST AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION
[01:40:01]
AND THE PLAT AND THE GP PER THE C PC ONE ONE FORM CONDITIONS.STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS? UM, GERALD GRISSOM, THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
UM, DID YOU HA WANNA SPEAK OR JUST FOR QUESTIONS? OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GRISSOM? I GUESS NOT.
UM, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEMS 1 51 OR 1 52? THEN IF NOT, WE WILL GO TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
WHICH UM, IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION DALTON.
OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES WITH COMMISSIONER HYS ABSTAINING.
[f. Reconsiderations of Requirement]
WE GO TO ITEM 1 53 IN SECTION F, RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENTS.MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS COMMISSIONER DALTON.
I'LL BE RECUSING MYSELF FROM 1 53.
NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER DALTON CUS ITEM 1 53 IS AZALEA DISTRICT GENERAL PLAN.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN MONTGOMERY COUNTY ALONG US 59 NORTH OF FM 1314 AND EAST OF VALLEY RANCH.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A GENERAL PLAN AS REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THE REQUIREMENT TO LOCATE A PUBLIC STREET INTERSECTIONS AT LEAST 600 FEET APART ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHBOUND FEEDER ROAD OF US 59.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SERIES OF RESERVES WITH PUB A PUBLIC STREET SYSTEM TO CIRCULATE TRAFFIC FROM THE FREEWAY.
THESE INTERSECTIONS WILL BE SEPARATED BY DISTANCES RANGING FROM APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET TO 366 FEET.
SINCE THE 59 FEEDER ROAD IS CLASSIFIED AS A THOROUGHFARE, STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS.
THE APPLICANT IS LOCATED EACH STREET AT CURB CUTS THAT WERE BUILT WITH THE FEEDER WHEN THE FEEDER WAS EXPANDED IN 2010.
IN ADDITION, THE INTENT OF THE 600 FOOT MINIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENT IS TO DISCOURAGE CONFLICTS RESULTING FROM VEHICLES MAKING LEFT TURNS ALONG HIGH CAPACITY THOROUGHFARES.
THIS CONDITION DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE SINCE THE FEEDER ROAD IS A ONE-WAY AND TRAFFIC WILL BE LIMITED TO RIGHT TURNS IN AND OUT.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING A LOCAL STREET PARALLEL TO THE FEEDER, WHICH WILL OFFER BETTER CIRCULATION WITHIN THE SUBJECT SITE.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH SOUND PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERING THESE FACTORS.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY'S EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE VARIANCE AND THE GP PER THE CPC ONE OH FORM.
CONDITIONS HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENT ON THIS ITEM AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER? UH, DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 53 AZALEA DISTRICT? UH, IF NOT THEN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLOT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION CAIN.
OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES WITH COMMISSIONERS HE AND DALTON ABSTAINING.
ITEM 1 54 IS OLD SPANISH TRAIL LOFTS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG OLD SPANISH TRAIL EAST OF STATE HIGHWAY 35 AND WEST OF WAYSIDE.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE FOR AN AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THE REQUIREMENT TO EXTEND BROCK STREET NOR TERMINATE IT WITH A CUL-DE-SAC.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG OLD SPANISH TRAIL ALONG BRAISE BAYOU EAST OF METRO'S, MCGREGOR PARK, MLK RAPID TRANSIT PLATFORM.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES 130 UNIT AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY COMMUNITY.
THE SITE WILL FEATURE ACCESS ALONG THREE ABUTTING STREETS, ALLOWING FOR CIRCULATION BETWEEN THE PROPOSED HOMES AND NEARBY PARKS AND TRANSIT.
THE ACCESS TO THE STUB PORTION OF BROCK STREET WILL BE DENIED AND THE EXISTING STREET IS NOT REQUIRED TO SATISFY INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENTS.
THE STUB PORTION OF BROCK STREET FEATURES SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BLOCK AND COMMERCIAL TRACKS TO THE SOUTH.
THE COMMERCIAL TRACKS USED IN ADJACENT STREET FOR PRIMARY ACCESS LIMITING THEIR TRAFFIC TO IMPACT ALONG BROCK.
THE RELATIVELY LOW TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THESE EXISTING USES AND DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE SUBJECT SITE MAKES THE NEED TO PROVIDE MEANS FOR HI VEHICULAR TURNAROUND.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF CHAPTER 42 AND STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANT THE VARIANCE AND APPROVING THE PLAT FOR THE CPC ONE ONE FORM CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENT IN THIS ITEM.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
[01:45:02]
UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 54? IF NOT, UM, STAFF'S.OH, I SHOULD SAY THAT THE APPLICANT IS, MR. GRISSOM IS WITH US IN THE AUDIENCE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, IF NOT, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE THEN A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM 1 54? MOTION? ABRAHAM.
IS THERE A SECOND? ALLMAN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THAT'LL TAKE US TO SECTIONS G AND H AND I.
OH, AND DID I, DID I NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER TAINED ON 1 54? OKAY.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IF IT PLEASES
[Platting Activities G - I]
THE COMMISSION STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS, GH AND I AS ONE GROUP.SECTION G EXTENSION OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 55 THROUGH 1 72 SECTION H.
NAME CHANGES CONSISTS OF ITEM 1 73 AND SECTION I.
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE HAS NO ITEMS. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTIONS GH AND I.
DO WE HAVE ANY ABSTENTIONS ON THESE GROUPS? YES.
OKAY, COMMISSIONER SIGLER WILL ABSTAIN ON 1 68.
COMMISSIONER HY 1 63 AND HE WILL ABSTAIN ON ITEM 1 63.
UM, IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL ON ALL ITEMS IN SECTIONS G AND H? WELL, THERE'S NO ITEMS IN AYE, GARZA, GARZA AND BALDWIN.
WE HAVE NO ITEMS IN SECTION J.
[k. Development Plats with Variance Requests (Nick Parker, Ramon Jaime Leon, Jacqueline Brown)]
GO TO K DEVELOPMENT PLOTS WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 1 74 78 18 BUFFALO SPEEDWAY.
THE SITE IS LOCATED NORTH OF BRIGHTWOOD BOULEVARD AND AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BUFFALO SPEEDWAY, UH, SORRY, NORTHWEST CORNER OF BUFFALO SPEEDWAY AND, AND DRUMMOND STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES.
ONE TO ALLOW AN 18 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG THE B ALONG BUFFALO SPEEDWAY.
TWO, TO ALLOW ACCESS VIA BUFFALO SPEEDWAY, A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER PER APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? UM, WE, DO WE HAVE ANYONE? I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON 1 74, BUT IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 78 18 BUFFALO SPEEDWAY? IF NOT, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER.
IS THERE DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER HEES? IS THERE A SECOND? SIGLER? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
COLQUITT STREET SITE IS LOCATED EAST OF SHEPHERD IN NORTH OF RICHMOND, ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF COLQUITT STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCE TO NOT PROVIDE A 28 FOOT PRIVATE STREET FOR GARDEN STYLE, UH, APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER, TO ALLOW TIME FOR LEGAL REVIEW.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? WHAT DO YOU WANNA DO EXACTLY HERE? SO, UH, THIS IS GARDEN STYLE BECAUSE THE DENSITY IS UNDER 30 UNITS PER ACRE.
UM, THEY'RE ADDING FOUR ADDITIONAL APARTMENT UNITS TO, UM, THERE'S ALREADY TWO UM, UNITS ON THERE WITH FOUR UNITS TOTAL.
SO THERE'LL BE EIGHT UNITS ONCE THEY ADD THESE FOUR ADDITIONAL ONES.
SO, UM, BECAUSE IT'S UNDER 30 UNITS, UM, PER ACRE, IT'S GARDEN STYLE, WHICH REQUIRES A 28 FOOT PRIVATE STREET BY CHAPTER 42.
SO THEY'RE REQUESTING NOT TO PROVIDE THAT 28 FOOT PRIVATE STREET INTO THE SITE.
THEY'LL HAVE A ONE WAY YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THERE'S GONNA BE A ONE WAY DRIVE LOOPING IN AND OUT.
IT'S KIND OF DEVELOPMENT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN OUR NEW RE UH, REGULATIONS WE'RE WORKING, WORKING ON, IN LIVABLE PLACES.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE WHO, WHO'S SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON 1 75.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON IT? IF NOT, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER.
[01:50:01]
IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER GARZA GARZA? SECOND.GOOD AFTERNOON MAD CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE HE'S AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ITEMS 1 76 TO 180 5 TOGETHER AS THEY ARE RELATED.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF PARK ROW, WEST OF HIGHWAY SIX AND NORTH OF INTERSTATE 10.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 15 FOOT BUILDING LINE IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG PARK ROW FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER FOR FURTHER STUDY AND LEGAL REVIEW.
AND THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? ARE THESE AFFORDABLE HOUSES LIKE WE'VE DONE BEFORE? NOT REALLY.
THEY'RE JUST A UNIQUE SUBDIVISION OR SOMETHING THAT THEY WANNA BE YEAH, THEY'RE GONNA TAKE, THEY'RE TAKING ACCESS FROM THE PRIVATE STREET, RIGHT? YES.
SO THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT TAKING ACCESS FROM PARK CLUB.
MADAM CHAIR, CAN WE RECONFIRM THE NUMBERS OF ITEMS WE'RE TAKING TOGETHER? I'M SORRY, I MISSED 10.
10 ITEMS. 10 ITEMS. THANK YOU.
UH, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THESE ITEMS? YEP.
I REMEMBER WHEN THIS PLAT CAME THROUGH FIRST TIME FROM THE GROUP, PROBABLY A YEAR AGO OR SO, AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T RECALL A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BUILDING LINE.
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A BUILDING LINE THAT WAS TIED IN WITH THE PREVIOUS 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE I'M REFERRING TO, TO THE PREVIOUS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY? UH, THIS WOULD BE IN, IN REFERENCE TO THE, THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE THERE IN FRONT.
SO IT'D JUST BE THE ORDINANCE BUILDING LINE.
SO REFER TO AN ORDINANCE, NOT NECESSARILY RECORDED PLAT.
IT JUST PUZZLES ME THAT WE HAVE A RECORDED PLAT NOW, AND I, IT'S MAYBE IT'S A LEGAL QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THAT RECORDING THAT PLAT WITH A DIFFERENT BUILDING LINE AT 15, IF THAT'S THE CASE, IF THAT SUPERSEDES OR IF THAT, UH, REPLACES A PRIOR BUILDING LINE AT 25.
UM, JUST, THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION HERE.
HONOR, CAN YOU ELUCIDATE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION? UM, THERE WAS A PLAT, YOU REMEMBER IT CORRECTLY, COMMISSIONER JONES.
THE, THE PLA WAS SUBMITTED AND RECORDED, UH, AND THE BUILDING LINE WAS NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE PLAT AND IT WAS MISSED BY THE STAFF.
UH, WE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT THAT THEY COULD HAVE ACTUALLY DONE A REPL, WHICH WOULD HAVE TAKEN ALL THESE TOGETHER AT ONCE.
UM, BUT UM, WE HAVE A PLA WHICH WAS RECORDED WITHOUT A BUILDING LINE AND THEY CHOSE TO DO A DEVELOPMENT PLAT 10 OF THOSE TWO COME IN FRONT OF YOU.
COULD THEY HAVE DONE IT ON A BLOCK BY BLOCK BASIS INSTEAD OF INDIVIDUAL? WAS IT 10 LOTS? I THINK SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
COULD THEY HAVE DONE IT? DOES THAT EVEN MAKE SENSE TO DO IT ON THE PARTICULAR BLOCKS? THEY, THEY COULD HAVE DONE A VARIANCE, YOU MEAN? RIGHT.
VARIANCE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE, UH, WITH A REPL TWO RELAS.
YEAH, THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT.
BUT DEVELOPMENT PLAT IS, BECAUSE IT'S A SITE PLAN REVIEW, IT'S IT'S LOT BY LOT BASIS.
JUST STILL QUESTIONING, I'M PUZZLED CONFUSED THAT THE RECORDING OF THE PLAT, IN ESSENCE SUPERSEDES WHAT WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY JUST BY THE ACTION OF A RECORDED DOCUMENT.
UH, SO THE, SO I I MAYBE, MAYBE THERE'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ASK.
LET ME, LET ME SEE IF, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
SO THE, THE RECORDED PLAT, ALTHOUGH SHOWS THE BUILDING LINE WHICH IMPACTS THE PROJECTS, IT ALSO HAS A PLAT NOTE WHICH SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THERE IS A BUILDING LINE APPLICABLE BY CHAPTER 42.
AND THE CH THOSE CHAPTER 42 BUILDING LINES ARE, IS ARE, IT COULD CHANGE FROM TIME TO TIME.
AND THAT IS APPLICABLE TO ON THESE PLOT PROJECTS.
SO IF WE SORT OF MISS THE PLATTED BUILDING LINE ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT AT PERMITTING, WE ARE STILL REQUIRED TO CHECK CHAPTER 42 BUILDING LINES.
AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED ON THIS PLAT.
I GOT YOU TO CATCHALL IN THE PLAT NOTES.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS, BUT I'LL ASK ONE MORE TIME, IF NOT, UM, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSIONS, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER ALL 10 ITEMS. IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER BALDWIN? IS THERE A SECOND
[01:55:03]
PINES? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.ITEM 180 6, ITEM 180 6 16 0 2 KIPLING STREET.
THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF WESTHEIMER ROAD, NORTH OF WEST ALABAMA STREET AND ALONG THE, ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF MANDEL STREET, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A ONE FOOT BUILDING LINE IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 10 FEET ALONG MANDEL STREET FOR A PERGOLA ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER APPLICATION TO DEFER, UM, PER APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WE DO HAVE SOME SPEAKERS.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, WHAT ARE WE STUDYING? WHAT ARE WE STUDYING IN THE TWO WEEKS DE RESTRICTIONS PARALEGAL? SORRY.
UM, FIRST SPEAKER IS LARRY, IS IT CARBO? C-A-R-B-O.
THE SPEAKER CANNOT BE HEARD ON TEAMS CAN'T HEAR.
UH, THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS THE, THE VARIANCE REQUEST SEEMS UNCLEAR AS TO THE EXTENT OF THE, UH, THE BUILDING LINE VARIANCE.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A ONE FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG MANDEL STREET, BUT DOES IT INDICATE WHERE THAT ONE FOOT BUILDING LINE IS GOING TO, UH, TO END? IS IT GOING TO RUN ALL THE WAY UP TO KIPLING STREET, WHICH UNDER THE CHAPTER 42 AND ALSO UNDER THE DEED, UM, RESTRICTIONS OF MANDEL PLACE, THERE HAS TO BE A 25 FOOT SETBACK OFF OF, UH, KIPLING STREET.
AND THE REQUEST HERE JUST REFERENCES CHAPTER 42.
THE PURPOSE OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO A, TO ALLOW A ONE FOOT BUILDING LINE RESTRICTION.
AND SO WITHOUT FURTHER CLARIFICATION AS TO HOW LONG THAT BUILDING, HOW FAR UP THAT BUILDING, I GUESS THE VARIANCE IS, IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ATTACHMENTS SEEM TO INDICATE THAT THERE ARE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED WITH RESPECT TO THE, UH, THE VARIANCE BEYOND THE, THE PERGOLA ARBOR EXTENSION OF THE HOME.
AND SO I WOULD, I WOULD REQUEST, I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT IT MEANS TO DEFER OTHER THAN IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S GONNA BE SOME MORE DISCUSSIONS COMES BACK IN TWO WEEKS.
IT SEEMS LIKE WE WOULD NEED SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO EXACTLY WHAT THAT EXTENSION IS GOING TO BE.
AND I'LL ASK MR. JAIME, LEON, CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION TO SOME DEGREE MAY BE SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING AT.
THE DEFER IS, UH, FOR LEGAL PURPOSES, UH, LE SORRY FOR, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS, UM, THERE, THE LAWYERS ARE GONNA, UH, IT WAS, OKAY, SO THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
BUT WE'RE CLEAR THERE'S A 25 FOOT FRONT BILL LINE AND THEY'RE NOT ASKING TO IMPOSE INTO THE 25, NOR DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO VOID YOUR DEED RESTRICTIONS OR VARIANCE THAT.
BUT I REVIEWED YOUR DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THERE IS NO SIDE SETBACK ON THAT LOT AND BLOCK FOR THAT CORNER HOUSE.
SO BECAUSE THERE'S NO DEED RESTRICTION, THERE'S THE CITY IMPOSED 10 FOOT BUILD LINE, WHICH THEY'RE ASKING THE VARIANCE FOR TO BE ONE FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WELL, SOMEWHAT, THERE IS A, THERE IS A 10 FOOT RESTRICTION ON THAT, ON THE SIDE PROPERTY AS WELL FOR SOME, FOR, FOR SOME, UH, IMPROVEMENTS, NOT FOR THIS PARTICULAR IMPROVEMENT.
BUT I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THAT, UM, I BELIEVE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT BEFORE IT'S APPROVED AND, AND WE NEED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT IS BEING BUILT IN THAT SPACE.
SO, SO IF THE COMMISSION FOLLOWS STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW OR TO DEFER, THIS WILL BE BACK ON OUR AGENDA IN TWO WEEKS.
WE'LL HAVE HAD SOME MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT IN THE MEANTIME.
AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS IF YOU WOULD LIKE.
UH, ALSO WE HAVE CAROL WAL, WOLK, MS. WK, ARE YOU HERE OR ON, ON THE PHONE, MS. WAL? I AM HERE.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME.
AND, UM, I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT WE HAVE A VERY OLD NEIGHBORHOOD, VERY TIGHT DEED RESTRICTIONS, WHICH EVERYBODY ABIDES BY, AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES OUR NEIGHBORHOOD VERY, UH, DESIRABLE.
THIS VARIANT REQUEST IS NOT BEING MADE BECAUSE OF ANY HARDSHIP.
AND I THINK THAT GRANTING IT WOULD SET A PRECEDENT
[02:00:01]
SUCH AS OPENING A CAN OF WORMS, AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES, ONE AFTER THE OTHER AND TOTALLY CHANGE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITH OUR WONDERFUL DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WE'VE NEVER HAD TROUBLE ENFORCING.AND AS COMMISSIONER BALDWIN HAD JUST SAID, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO YOUR DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THAT IF OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THIS APPLICATION VIOLATES DEED RESTRICTIONS, WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T OVERRIDE THOSE.
BUT PART OF OUR DEFERRAL IS TO FIND OUT IF THEY DO VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
BUT WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING TODAY.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1602 KIPLING? UH, MADAM CHAIR? YES.
HI, MY NAME IS LANSON WONG AND I'M THE HOMEOWNER AT 1 6 0 2 KIPLING STREET.
THE PROPOSED, UH, IMPROVEMENTS TO MY PROPERTY, UM, WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION IN OUR, UM, IN OUR WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD EXACTLY AS THEY'RE CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED.
AND MR. CARBO AND WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION, WE HAD SUBMITTED SO MUCH AS A THREE DIMENSIONAL RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED PLANS.
AND WE HAVE, UH, IN WRITING, UH, IN, UH, AN OPINION FROM THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION STATING THAT THIS DOES NOT IN FACT VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
SO IN FACT, THIS VARIANCE HAS, AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS.
AND ALL I AM TRYING TO DO IS TO BUILD A COVERED PERGOLA.
AS YOU CAN SEE, EVERYONE, I, THIS IS A CORNER LOT.
I ONLY HAVE A SIDE YARD, AND ALL I WANT TO DO IS TO BUILD A COVER, PERGOLA DANGLE, A SWING BED SO THAT MY CHILDREN MIGHT READ ON SUMMER EVENING, UH, SUMMER AFTERNOONS WITHOUT BEING TOO HOT BECAUSE THE SUN, UH, THE HOUSE DOES NOT SHADE THAT AREA OF THE YARD AT ANY POINT.
THAT IS ALL I AM NOT TRYING TO DESTROY MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M NOT TRYING TO ANGER MY NEIGHBORS.
I JUST WOULD LIKE A SHADED PERGOLA.
AND REGARDING MR. CARBO, WE ARE VERY HAPPY TO DISCUSS THIS WITH YOU, BUT NOTHING HAS CHANGED WITH REGARD TO WHAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH, UH, WITH THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION BACK IN MAY.
THE REASON WE HAVE NOT MADE ANY ADVANCEMENTS, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN IN THE FAIRLY SLOW PROCESS OF, YOU KNOW, OBTAINING ALL NECESSARY CITY PERMITS FOR THIS, UH, FOR THIS PROJECT.
WE, THIS IS NOT A BAIT AND SWITCH.
THIS IS NO CHANGES WITH WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY, UH, PROPOSED.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS NOT TRYING TO VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTION.
AND, UM, MR. IF YOU HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION, I HOPE THAT YOU HAVE SHARED THAT, UM, WITH CITY STAFF.
UM, I, YEAH, I WOULD LOVE TO REACH OUT TO, UH, THE CITY PLANNER AND, UH, SET UP THE MEETING AS REQUESTED SO THAT WE CAN SUBMIT ALL THE PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS AND ANY FURTHER PLANS THAT ARE REQUESTED.
UM, I, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW HOW, HOW TO SCHEDULE THAT MEETING.
YEAH, JUST IF YOU WOULD PUT YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION IN THE, UH, ARE YOU ON A COMPUTER OR A PHONE? I'M ON A COMPUTER MA'AM.
UM, SO I'LL BE HAPPY TO PUT IN MY CONTACT INFORMATION.
YEAH, PUT YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION IN AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WILL DO.
I HAVE NO DOUBT WE CAN WORK THIS OUT IN THE DEFERRAL PERIOD, BUT OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAD SOME QUESTIONS TOO.
SO THIS IS JUST OUR NORMAL PROCESS, BUT, UM, WE, UH, WILL APPRECIATE HEARING FROM YOU AND WE'LL TRY TO GET THIS WORKED OUT IN TWO WEEKS.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? WHO? NO, I'M SORRY.
YOU CAN'T, UH, ANYONE WHO'S HAS NOT SPOKEN, WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1602 KIPLING.
UM, OKAY WITH THAT THEN, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER THE ITEM MOTION? ABRAHAM.
IS THERE A SECOND? HEINS HEES.
ITEM 180 7, ITEM 180 7 40 12 MEADOW LAKE LANE, THE SIZE LOCATED WEST OF WILLOW ROAD AND SOUTH OF SAN FELIPE STREET AND NORTH OF MEADOW LAKE LANE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT BILLING LINE AND LIVE.
[02:05:01]
FOOT BILLING LINE ALONG SAN FELIPPE STREET FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO ALLOW TIME FOR LEGAL REVIEW.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION.
UM, AGAIN, WE'RE, THIS IS FOR LEGAL TO REVIEW.
UM, SO, UH, IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING OR HERE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 180 7, 40 12 MEADOW LAKE LANE? IF NOT, ARE THERE QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS? STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER.
IS THERE A MOTION? ALLON? IS THERE A SECOND? GARZA GARZA.
AND ITEM 180 8, ITEM 180 8 800 WALTON STREET SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF WEST PATTON STREET AND WALTON STREET WEST OF I 45.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A THREE AND A HALF FOOT BILLING LINE IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE.
REQUIRED 10 FOOT BILLING LINE ALONG WEST PATTON STREET FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW WITH THE APPLICANT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. PARKER? UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE? OH, WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER ON, UH, 800 WALTON STREET.
THANK YOU FOR SAVING THE BEST FOR LAST, UH, LO LOCAL, UH, NEIGHBOR.
UM, GIVEN THE PROPOSAL, I DON'T THINK IT'S A BIG ISSUE FOR THE, THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD AND I THINK, UH, WE WOULD SUPPORT IT AS LONG AS, AS IT'S GOING OUT, THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES IN PLACE AND THE, AND THE SIDEWALK IS, IS, UH, YOU KNOW, IN, IN A GOOD, GOOD POSITION AND GOOD SHAPE FOR, FOR PEOPLE WALKING ALONG THE ROAD.
UH, AGAIN, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO DEFER IT FOR TWO WEEKS, SO IF YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION IN TWO WEEKS, YOU CAN COME BACK.
UM, ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 180 8? IF NOT, QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GET A MOTION TO DEFER? IS THERE A MOTION? UM, UH, THIS IS, THIS IS COMMISSIONER ABRAHAM? YES.
UH, THIS IS A, I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, THREE AND A HALF FEET SEEMS REASONABLE.
SO THREE AND A HALF FEET WILL BE, SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE ON THE SITE PLAN ON THE SCREEN THERE'S A RED KIND OF RECTANGULAR AREA HIGHLIGHTED.
SO THREE AND A HALF FEET WILL BE TO A SECOND, UH, STORY OVERHANG.
THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING WILL ACTUALLY BE FIVE FOOT TWO BACK.
SO REALLY JUST THAT SMALL PORTION WILL BE THREE AND A HALF.
BUT WE, THAT'S THE CLOSEST PORTION.
SO THAT IS WHY THAT IS THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THREE AND A HALF INSTEAD OF THE FIVE FOOT.
I SORRY, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT WAS FOR THE SECOND FLOOR OVERHANG.
OKAY, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ABRAHAM.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UM, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER ITEM 180 8? MOTION GARZA.
IS THERE A SECOND? BALDWIN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
UM, THAT CONCLUDES PLATTING ACTIVITY.
[II. Establish a public hearing date of June 9, 2022]
NUMERAL TWO TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JUNE 9TH, 2022 FOR THE FOLLOWING.AMENDED GULF CREST EDITION PARTIAL REPL NUMBER FOUR CASTLEWOOD EDITION SECTION THREE PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE, SETI GARDENS REPL NUMBER ONE CHAPMAN COVE PLACE GULF VIEW MANOR PARTIAL REPL.
NUMBER ONE, MANNERS AT WOODLAND HEIGHTS PARTIAL REPL.
NUMBER ONE ROSEWOOD ESTATES SECTION TWO PARTIAL REPL NUMBER FIVE, SPRING BRANCH ESTATES SECTION ONE PARTIAL REPL NUMBER THREE, AND WIL FRAN PLACE PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE.
IS THERE A MOTION TO SET JUNE 9TH, 2022 FOR THE HEARING.
IS THERE A SECOND? ALLMAN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[III. Excuse the absence of Commissioners Lisa Clark and Ileana Rodriguez.]
ROMAN NUMERAL THREE IS TO EXCUSE THE ABSENCE OF COMMISSIONERS LISA CLARK, AND WHICH I WILL TAKE THIS IN TWO PARTS AND ASK THAT BY ACCLIMATION WE EXCUSE COMMISSIONER CLARK'S ABSENCE IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION.UM, COMMISSIONER UH, RODRIGUEZ HAS RESIGNED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION DUE TO HER WORK SCHEDULE.
MAKES IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR HER TO ATTEND MOST OF THE MEETINGS.
SO SHE HAS SUBMITTED HER LETTER OF RESIGNATION AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE WILL, UH, REPLACE HER AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.
SO WE DON'T NEED TO ACT ON THAT.
UM, ROMAN NUMERAL FOUR IS PUBLIC COMMENT.
IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANYTHING AT ALL? HEARING NO
[02:10:01]
RESPONSE.A MOTION TO ADJOURN WOULD BE IN ORDER.
TODAY WAS ONE OF THOSE, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU REALLY, YOU REALLY DID YOUR JOB FOR HOURS AND HOURS.