* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:02] SUPER. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON. IT'S [Call to Order] ABOUT 2 31 ON THURSDAY, JUNE 23RD, 2022. TODAY'S MEETING OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION IS CALLED TO ORDER. I AM COMMISSION CHAIR MARTY STEIN. AND TO ESTABLISH WE HAVE OUR QUORUM OF 11, I'LL CALL THE ROLE THE CHAIR IS PRESENT. VICE CHAIR GARZA. PRESENT IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ABRAHAM, COMMISSIONER ABRAHAM IS NOT PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ALLMAN WILL BE ABSENT TODAY. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN IS NOT PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CLARK. PRESENT IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER HY PRESENT IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER HINES. PRESENT, PRESENT. COMMISSIONER JONES WILL BE ABSENT. COMMISSIONER MODEST IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER NELSON, COMMISSIONER NELSON. PRESENT IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER NELSON IS IN ENGLAND, SO HE GETS EXTRA POINTS FOR PARTICIPATING TODAY. , UM, HE IS PRESENT VIRTUALLY. UM, COMMISSIONER POROUS, PERLE POROUS PERLE IS NOT PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ROBBINS IS PRESENT. UM, COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG IS NOT PRESENT. COMMISSIONER SIGLER WILL BE ABSENT. COMMISSIONER TAHIR PRESENT IS PRESENT VIRTUALLY. COMMISSIONER VICTOR PRESENT, PRESENT VIRTUALLY. COMMISSIONER KANE IS NOT PRESENT. COMMISSIONER DALTON WILL BE ABSENT. COMMISSIONER SMITH IS NOT PRESENT AND FILLING IN FOR DIRECTOR MARGARET WALLACE BROWN IS DEPUTY DIRECTOR JENNIFER OSLAND. PRESENT IS PRESENT. SO 11 MEMBERS HAVE RESPONDED. WE HAVE A QUORUM. UM, OUR MEETING FORMAT ALLOWS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, CAN, UH, OCCUR IN A HYBRID FORMAT, UH, BOTH VIRTUALLY AND IN PERSON. UM, AND HERE, NOTE, PLEASE, THAT COMMISSIONER SMITH HAS JOINED US. UM, TO COMPLY WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS LAW, WE HAVE TO ALL COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE VIRTUAL HAVE TO BE BOTH AUDIBLE AND VISIBLE. SO, UM, COMMISSIONERS, REMEMBER, IF YOU NEED TO LEAVE FOR ANY REASON, SPEAK UP AND LET US KNOW THAT YOU'RE LEAVING THE MEETING. UM, TO EVERYONE ELSE JOINING US TODAY, WELCOME. UM, IF YOU'RE HERE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A SPECIFIC ITEM, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN FIND THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF ON THE DEPARTMENT WEBSITE. UM, ALL WRITTEN ADVANCE COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED BY NOON YESTERDAY ARE INCLUDED IN OUR FINAL AGENDA PACKETS. WE HAVE THOSE, THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE CONNECTED BY PHONE OR COMPUTER, PLEASE KEEP YOUR DEVICES MUTED UNTIL YOU'RE CALLED ON TO SPEAK, AND OUR VIDEO QUALITY IS MUCH BETTER IF YOU WILL ALSO KEEP YOUR CAMERAS OFF, UM, UNTIL YOU'RE CALLED ON TO SPEAK COMMISSIONERS, WE NEED YOU TO KEEP YOUR CAMERAS ON, BUT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, IF YOU WILL, TURN YOUR CAMERAS OFF, THAT HELPS, UM, AVOID LAG ON OUR VIDEO, THERE'S ONE ITEM THAT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM TODAY'S AGENDA. ITEM 1 53 UNDER PUBLIC HEARINGS, WEST HOUSTON EDITION WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. THERE WILL BE NO OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON IT. WITH THAT, [Director’s Report] WE'LL GO TO OUR DIRECTOR'S REPORT. MS. OSLAND. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. UM, I'M JENNIFER OSLAND, ACTING SECRETARY OF THIS COMMISSION AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DETAILS FOR JOINING IN PERSON ARE VIRTUALLY, UH, ARE ALWAYS ON THE POSTED AGENDA AND ON OUR WEBPAGE@HOUSTONTX.GOV BACK SLASH PLANNING OR HOUSTON PLANNING.COM. UH, TODAY IS THE, THE LAST DAY TO SUBMIT COMMENTS ON PROPOSED SIDEWALK ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS. UM, COMMISSIONERS YOU WILL BE HEARING FROM IAN FONG, UM, A SUMMARY OF WHAT WE'VE HEARD SO FAR, BUT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE NEXT COUPLE HOURS OF INFORMATION. BUT IF ANYBODY'S OUT THERE WHO HAS NOT SUBMITTED COMMENTS AND WOULD LIKE TO, YOU'VE STILL GOT TIME, UM, YOU CAN DO THAT. UM, THERE'S A FORM ON OUR WEBPAGE AT WWW.HOUSTONTX.GOV/PLANNING. UH, YOU'LL SEE THE SIDEWALK ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS LINK ON OUR HOMEPAGE AS REPORTED. UH, LAST, AT OUR LAST MEETING, UH, WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED SOME AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 42, THAT COUNCIL PASSED, UM, A MONTH OR TWO AGO. UH, THESE INCLUDE, UM, IN THIS INCREASING THE NOTIFICATION PERIOD TO 20 DAYS, SO WE'RE VERY PLEASED ABOUT THAT. UM, IT'S APPLICABLE TO ALL TYPES OF NOTICES, UM, SIGNS, LETTERS AND NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATIONS IN CITY VARIANCES, [00:05:01] WHICH REQUIRE MAILED NOTICES ARE NOW TO BE HEARD AT THE SUBSEQUENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING INSTEAD OF THE IMMEDIATE. SO IT'S, IT'S ADDING A COUPLE WEEKS, UM, TO THAT, UH, PLAT APPLICANTS. JUST A REMINDER, UH, SHOULD CONTINUE TO SUBMIT THE PICTURES OF YOUR SIGNS, UM, WITH YOUR APPLICATION. SO THAT HASN'T CHANGED. UM, THOSE ARE PHOTOS OF THE SIGNS ARE REQUIRED ON SUBMITTAL MONDAY BY 5:00 PM STILL. UM, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, 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 VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UH, IF NOT, THEN WE MOVE [Approval of the June 9, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ] ON TO APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 9TH, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, WHICH WERE IN YOUR PACKET. IF THERE ARE NO ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES, IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL ISH? IS THERE A SECOND? GARZA GARZA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. UM, PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER POROUS PURL HAS JOINED US. UH, ANYBODY ELSE VIRTUALLY? I DON'T THINK SO. OKAY. SO WITH THAT, WE GO TO [I. Presentation on draft Sidewalk Network Ordinance public comment summary (Muxian Fang)] ROMAN NUMER ONE AND, UH, MUHAN FONG WILL PRESENT, UH, THE PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY ON THE DRAFT SIDEWALK NETWORK ORDINANCE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAD CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME'S WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. UM, ON MAY 26TH, I PROVIDE YOU A BRIEF PRESENTATION OF, UH, THE PROPOSED SIDEWALK NETWORK ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS. SINCE THEN, I HAVE RECEIVED MANY VALUABLE COMMENTS FROM BOTH THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC. UNTIL THIS MORNING. WE HAVE RECEIVED 133 ONLINE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. UH, IN GENERAL, 74% OF THEM SUPPORT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND 26% OPPOSE THE SUMMARIES OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE INCLUDING INTO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, AGENDA PACKAGE. UH, IN THIS SESSION, SETH WOULD LIKE TO, UH, BRIEFLY GO OVER A FEW MAJOR TOPICS OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. THERE ARE MULTIPLE COMMENTS RELATED. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THERE ARE MULTIPLE COMMENTS RELATED TO THE USE OF THE SIDEWALK FUND. THESE COMMENTS SUGGEST WE SHOULD ALLOW THE SIDEWALK FUND TO BE USED FOR SIDEWALK REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE LIGHTING ALONG SIDEWALKS, SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, ALONG TRAIL, AS WELL AS CROSSWALK, AND A DA RAMP CONSTRUCTION. SO, ACCORDING TO THE SIDEWALK DEFINITION, THE AN A DA RAMP IS PART OF A SIDEWALK, UH, AT THE STREET INTERCESSION. THEREFORE, THE SIDEWALK FUND WILL COVER A DA RAMP CONSTRUCTION. HOWEVER, THE SIDEWALK FUND WILL NOT COVER THE OTHER ITEMS. THESE OTHER ITEMS CAN BE ADDRESSED BY THE OTHER FUNDING RESOURCES. THE INTENT OF THE SIDEWALK FUND IS TO FILL THE SIDEWALK GAPS AND PROMOTE A COMPLETE SIDEWALK NETWORK. TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL, THE FUND WILL FOCUS ON NEW SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION. THE FUND IS TO BE USED IN THE SAME RECONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWALK BY THE NEW APPLICANT WOULD HAVE HAD TO BUILD THEIR SIDEWALK. THESE OTHER USE ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE FUND'S INTENT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THERE ARE ALSO OTHER COMMENTS RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SIDEWALK FUND. THIS INCLUDE, WE NEED TO CREATE REASONABLE SIZE OF THE PROPOSED FIREWALL SERVICE AREAS. IT'S IMPORTANT TO BALANCE THE AVAILABLE FUNDING IN EACH SIDEWALK SERVICE AREA. THERE SHOULD BE A PROCESS TO UPDATE THE CYBER SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES. THE CITY SHOULD PARTNER WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES TO MAXIMIZE THE REVENUE OF THE SIDEWALK FUND. UM, WE SHOULD INVOLVE OTHER AGENCIES IN THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING AND PRIORITIZING SIDEWALK PROJECTS AND, UH, UNDER WHAT PROVISIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCE COULD EVERY FUND BE REQUESTED. THESE ARE ALL GREAT COMMENTS. UM, I WILL ADJUST THEM ONE BY ONE. UM, FIRSTLY, THE, THE FIRST THREE COMMENTS ARE KIND OF RELATED. THIS MAP SHOWS THE PROPOSED 15 CYBER SERVICE AREAS WITH THE SHIP NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY. UM, THE LIVE BLACK LINES WITHIN EACH SERVICE AREAS. THEY ARE THE SHIP NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY. SOME COMMISSIONERS THINK THE CURRENT PROPOSED, SO SERVICE AREAS ARE TOO BIG AND SUGGEST WE USE THE SHIP NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES TO CREATE A CYBER SERVICE AREA. WHY THE OTHER COMMISSIONER? THIS BOUNDARIES ARE TOO SMALL. UM, IF THE CYBER SERVICE AREAS ARE TOO SMALL, LIKE SOME OF THE SHIP NEIGHBORHOODS AS INDICATED ON THE MAP, THEN [00:10:01] LOTS OF THESE AREAS WILL PROBABLY RECEIVE NO CYBER FUNDS AS THERE ARE NO DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN THOSE AREAS. IF THES SERVERS AREAS ARE TOO BIG, IT WILL CREATE CHALLENGE TO ADMINISTER THE FUND. SO THE SIZE OF THE SERVERS SERVICE AREAS DIRECTLY IMPACTS THES FUNDING DISTRIBUTION. THE SIZE OF THE AREAS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BASED ON MULTIPLE FACTORS, INCLUDING THE FUND ADMINISTRATION POPULATION, AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES, ET CETERA. STAFF IS ANALYZING THE SIDEWALK PERMIT DATA TO HELP PROJECT THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SIDEWALK FUND. WE WILL INTEGRATE THIS DATA AND CONDUCT A THOROUGH ANALYSIS TO FINALIZE THE SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY. UM, ONCE THE AREA ANALYSIS IS FINALIZED, WE WILL SHARE IT WITH THE PUBLIC WHEN NEEDED. UM, THE CHIEF TRANSPORTATION PLANNER COULD PROPOSE TO UPDATE THE SO SERVICE AREA MAP BY FOLLOWING THE PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY, UM, CHAPTER 40, SECTION FIVE 80 2D, SO THE BOUNDARIES COULD, AFTER IT'S ESTABLISHED, IT COULD BE UPDATED WHEN, UM, DETERMINED BY CHIEF CHAIR SOLICITATION PLAN IS NEEDED. SO THAT'S A RESPONSE FOR THE THIRD COMMENT. SO THE FOURTH COMMENT UNDER THIS TOPIC IS RELATED TO THE, UM, SUGGEST WE SHOULD PARTNER WITH THE OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES TO MAXIMIZE THE REVENUE. UH, WE TOTALLY AGREE WITH THIS COMMENT. UH, ACTUALLY RIGHT NOW, SESSION 40 DASH 5 81 E DOES ALLOW OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDINGS TO BE ALLOCATED TO THE CYBER FUND TO SUPPORT THE SO CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. THE FIRST COMMENT UNDER THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT INVOLVING OTHER AGENCIES IN THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING AND PRIORITIZING. SO PROJECTS, WE THINK THIS IS A GREAT SUGGESTION. UM, THEREFORE WE WILL INCORPORATE THIS INTO THE AMENDMENTS. THE SIX COMMENTS IS ABOUT THE REFUND REQUEST OF THE FEE IN NEW OF SO CONSTRUCTION. AFTER CONS, UH, CONSULTING WITH OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, WE WILL DRAFT A PROVISION TO PROVIDE FOR REFUND IF THE FUNDS ARE NOT OBLIGATED WITHIN THE TIME PERIODS PROVIDED FOR. THERE ARE ALSO SOME COMMENTS RELATED TO THE FEE IN NEW OF SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION. MULTIPLE COMMENTS SUGGEST THE FEE AMOUNT SHOULD BE CLOSED TO THE ACTUAL SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION COSTS TO ENSURE THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE WE COLLECT WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO CONSTRUCT THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SIDEWALK THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE SUPPOSED TO BUILD. WE TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. THE CITY ENGINEER WILL DETERMINE THE FEE IN NEW OF SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION BASED ON A SQUARE FOOT BASIS, UM, CAUSE OF MATERIALS AND LABOR, UH, PER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER. SINCE IT'S VERY COMPLICATED TO EVALUATE THE SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION COSTS ALONG DIFFERENT TYPES OF STREETS, WE HAVE NOT DETERMINED THE FEE YET, BUT THE INTENT OF THE FEE IS TO COVER THE ACTUAL SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION COSTS. THERE ARE ALSO A FEW COMMENTS SUGGEST CORNER LAW SHOULD NOT BE THE CRITERIA OF DISQUALIFYING THE AUTOMATIC ELIGIBILITY OF THE A NEW FEE. FIRSTLY, I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT A CORNER LAW MAY QUALIFY FOR PAYING THE FEE IN NEW OF CYBER CONSTRUCTION. IF MEETING THE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED, UH, BY SESSION 40 DASH 5 61 DA CORNER LAW IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE FEE BECAUSE ONE, A SIDEWALK STARTS FROM A STREET INTERCESSION AND TWO SIDEWALKS IN FRONT OF CORNER LAWS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY BY REDUCING A CRASH, UH, AT THE STREET INTERCESSION. SO THAT'S THE REASON. ANOTHER CATEGORY OF COMMON ARE RELATED TO SIDEWALK EASEMENT. THE ORDINANCE HAS INCLUDE CLEAR DEFINITION OF SIDEWALK EASEMENT. A SIDEWALK EASEMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED WHERE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPACE IN THE PUBLIC ROADWAY FOR THE REQUIRED SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION. THE RISK OF THE SIDEWALK EASEMENT VARIES DEPENDING ON THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EDGE OF PAYMENT AND THE PROPERTY LINE. LEGAL ADVICE THAT CITIES CANNOT IN IDENTIFY PRIVATE PROPERTIES AND HAVE NO MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS AS TO SIDEWALKS. SIDEWALKS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. NOW, WHETHER ON A PLA DEDICATED RIGHT OR EASEMENT BY SEPARATE INTEREST. SO THESE ARE NOT CHANGED FROM THE CURRENT SIDEWALK ORDINANCE AND ARE IN PRACTICE APPLICABLE TO ALL SIDEWALKS ACROSS THE CITY REGARDLESS OF FUNDING, UH, SOURCES. THERE ARE ALSO COMMENTS, UH, ABOUT THE SIDEWALK COMMITTEE STRUCTURE. STAFF WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT THE SIDEWALK COMMITTEE IS A COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED TO EVALUATE AND MAKE TECHNICAL FINDINGS ON SIDEWALK APPLICATIONS. [00:15:01] THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE ON SIDEWALK MATTERS. THEREFORE, THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS MUST BE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE SPECIFIC CITY DEPARTMENTS. THE COMMITTEE EVALUATES EACH APPLICATION FROM DIFFERENT TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVES TO PROVIDE A COLLECTIVE RESPONSE FOR EACH APPLICATION IS IMPORTANT AND NECESSARY TO REQUIRE A UNANIMOUS VOTE. AND THAT'S WHY THE, UM, THE PUBLIC, THE MEMBER OF PUBLIC, COULD NOT BE THE MEMBER OF THE SIDEWALK COMMITTEE. AND THE CITY'S, UM, TRAFFIC ENGINEER HAS CONSISTENTLY ATTENDED THE SIDEWALK COMMITTEE MEETINGS. UH, WE WILL MAKE THE AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER AS A SIDEWALK COMMITTEE MEMBER TO REFLECT THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF THE COMMITTEE. UM, HERE IS THE PROJECT TIMELINE. WE HAVE POST THE, UH, PROPOSED ORDINANCE LANGUAGE AND THE SIDEWALK SERVICE AREA MAP ON OUR DEPARTMENT WEBSITE FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. UH, SINCE MAY 23RD, THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL END AT 5:00 PM TODAY. UH, AFTER I PRESENT THIS SUMMARY OF THE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS TO YOU, UH, WE WILL, UM, PRESENT THE, WE PLAN TO PRESENT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEES IN AUGUST. UH, IF EVERYTHING GOES SMOOTHLY, WE HOPE THE, UM, CITY COUNCIL WILL TAKE ACTIONS ON THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN, UH, LA SUMMER OR EARLY, UH, FALL. WITH THIS SET. I'M READY FOR TAKING, UM, ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? OKAY, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER SMITH. THANK YOU, MS. UH, FONG. COULD WE GO BACK TO THE, UH, I THINK THE VERY FIRST, UH, CONTENT SLIDE THAT INCLUDED DISCUSSION OF AADA A RAMPS? UH, I WANTED TO MAKE A, A GENERAL STATEMENT AND THEN OFFER A COUPLE OF CAUTIONS AS IT RELATES TO ACCESSIBILITY. AND THIS COMES FROM SOME OF MY ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE AS WELL AS AGENCY EXPERIENCE. UM, A A, UH, TO A, TO A PERSON IN A WHEELCHAIR OR A DISABLED PERSON, A GAP IN A PHYSICAL SIDEWALK IS EVERY BIT AS OBSTACLES OF INADEQUATE, UH, CROSSWALKS OR A DA RAMPS, UH, WHERE THAT SIDEWALK MIGHT LEAD TO. MM-HMM . UM, SO I WOULD CAUTION YOUR, YOUR, YOUR DEFINITION OF GAPS BEING TOO EXCLUSIONARY TO TO EFFECTIVELY PROHIBIT RAMP AND CROSSWALK IMPROVEMENTS, UH, AS A MATTER OF, OF FAIRNESS TO THE DISABLED COMMUNITY ON THE LEGAL SIDE OF THAT, THAT'S BEEN A PARTICULAR CONCERN OF THE CITIES IN THE PAST. I'LL, I'LL LEAVE IT TO MS. MICKELSON AND YOU TO CONFER ON HOW GLOBALLY, UH, A DA ACCESSIBILITY HAS BEEN A CHALLENGE, UH, HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY, UH, OTHERS IN THE PAST. AND I'D POINT OUT IN THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, UH, STATE REGULATIONS THAT FALL FROM THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACTS REQUIRE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION SCOPE BE REVIEWED BY AN ACCESSIBILITY EXPERT, UH, PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION. IF THE COST EXCEEDS A CERTAIN AMOUNT, I THINK IT'S $50,000. UM, IN MY EXPERIENCE, A GAP FILLING PROJECT THAT CONNECTS TO INADEQUATE RAMPS, UH, YOU'LL END UP PAYING FOR IT AS PART OF THE PROBLEM OR PART OF THE PROJECT EITHER WAY. SO, UH, SUGGEST A LITTLE DI DEEPER DIVE AND A BIT MORE NUANCE AS YOU ADDRESS THE CROSSWALK AND A DA PROGRAM. SURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER ROBBINS? UM, DO YOU KNOW, I ASKED LAST TIME, AND I KNOW IT'S HARD TO ESTIMATE, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH MONEY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OR THAT YOU'RE EXPECTING THIS FUND TO GENERATE? AT THIS POINT? WE DON'T BECAUSE THE GENERAL, LIKE THE AMOUNT WILL BE, DEPENDING ON THE FEE WE WOULD CHARGE, AND WE HAVEN'T COME A CONCLUSION ABOUT THE, THE FEE PER SQUARE FOOT. SO, UH, WE DON'T KNOW YET. OKAY. AND THEN, AND WITH REGARDS TO THE SIZE OF THE SPECIFIC AREAS, THERE'S 15 OF THEM IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, YOU SAID Y'ALL WERE GONNA ANALYZE IT AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? YEAH, POSSIBLY. UH, IT COULD IN MAYBE INCREASE A FEW MORE, BUT WE, WE STILL NEED MORE TIME TO ANALYZE BECAUSE, UH, I'M WORKING ON THE CYBER PERMIT DATA. THE CYBER PERMITS WE, THE CITY HAVE ISSUED SINCE OCTOBER 1ST, 2020. UH, ON THAT DATE, THE CYBER ORDINANCE WAS EFFECTIVE. SO I'M ANALYZING THAT BECAUSE THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SIDEWALK PERMIT WE ISSUE SINCE, UH, 2020, THAT WILL HELP US TO PROJECT THOSE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. OKAY. MM-HMM . AND I, I'M SURE YOU KNOW FROM MY EMAIL TO YOU, I THINK LESS WOULD BE BETTER, NOT MORE MM-HMM . AND THEN WAS ANY THOUGHT GIVEN TO CHANGING THE 70 30 SPLIT? WE, UH, HAVE NOT DISCUSSED THAT BECAUSE THE 70 30 ALSO KIND OF RELATED TO THE SIZE OF THE BOUNDARY AS WELL. SO WE WILL LOOK INTO THAT AND THEN, UM, FOR SURE, BEFORE WE PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE, WE WILL HAVE A CONCLUSION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER CLARK. MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. ARRIVED. [00:20:01] OH, PLEASE NOTE THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, ROSE ROSENBERG IS HERE. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER CLARK. GREAT COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONER ROBBINS. AND SO I WOULD QUESTION, YOU'RE GONNA BRING THE, THE 70 30 BACK, ARE YOU ALSO GOING TO TELL US WHAT THE FEE WILL BE? I MEAN, ARE YOU GONNA BRING ALL THESE ANSWERS BACK TO US BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL AND POST IT SO THE PUBLIC SEES IT? 'CAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS, BUT AT THIS POINT WE HAVE NO PLAN TO SCHEDULE ANOTHER MEETING WITH THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION. UM, BUT I WILL CONSULT WITH THE DIRECTOR AND, UM, YEAH, WE WILL KEEP YOU UPDATED. YEAH, I MEAN, THOSE ARE SERIOUS ISSUES AND I KNOW THAT WE DON'T NEED TO APPROVE THIS, RIGHT? IT'S CHAPTER 14, I THINK, BUT, UM, WE PROBABLY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANOTHER UPDATE. OKAY. UM, AT THE TIME YOU GO TO THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE, SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. OKAY. THANK YOU CHAIR. COMMISSIONER SMITH, I HAVE A, I GUESS A COMMENT OR A SUGGESTION THAT RELATES TO THE COST ITEM. UM, THE STATED OBJECTIVE OF MATCHING THE OUT-OF-POCKET COST FOR A HOME BUILDER TO PUT IN A SIDEWALK BEING EQUAL TO THE FEE, SORT OF TAKES THE DOLLAR AMOUNT TO A SECONDARY PRIORITY. I THINK TO GET AT THE, THE SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM, UM, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO ESTIMATE MILEAGES OR FEET OF FRONTAGE. IN OTHER WORDS, UH, YOU COULD MAKE SOME ASSUMPTIONS AS TO HOW MANY, UH, 'CAUSE FOLKS ARE CURIOUS ABOUT THE SCALE OF THIS PROGRAM, EVEN IF DOLLARS ARE UNIMPORTANT AS A RESULT OF MATCHING UP EXACTLY WHAT IT'S GONNA COST. THE, UH, THE DEVELOPER, EITHER WAY, YOU, I I THINK YOUR, YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND I THINK MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP ARE STILL CURIOUS, IS THIS A FIVE MILE A YEAR PROGRAM OR A 50 MILE A YEAR PROGRAM? ANY SENSE YOU WOULD HAVE OF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL AS YOU GO FORWARD? I THINK. OKAY. COMMENT. COMMISSIONER GARZA. UM, I JUST WANTED TO SAY TO ALL THE COMMISSIONERS, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WAS THAT IF WE GET IT WRONG, YOU KNOW, THAT, UH, CHEN AND I SPOKE THAT THERE'S M MANY, MANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO REVIEW EVERYTHING FROM THE BOUNDARIES TO THE NUMBER OF AREAS TO THE 70 30. AND THE TRUTH IS EXPERIENCE IS GONNA ALLOW US TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON REAL INFORMATION AS WE GO FORWARD. AND THE GOOD NEWS IS NONE OF THAT WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH US OR GO THROUGH, UH, WELL, UH, UM, THE, UM, YOU KNOW, CITY COUNCIL AND ALL OF THAT CAN BE DONE AND CHANGED AS WE MOVE FORWARD. UH, HAVING BEEN THE CHAIR OF LIKE THE, UH, PARKING COMMITTEE, I CAN TELL YOU YEARS AGO ON DAY ONE OF THE NEW ORDINANCE, THERE WERE PROBLEMS AND THIS WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO AVOID THE WAY THIS IS STRUCTURED. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO AVOID A LOT OF THAT, UH, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT HAVING TO VOTE ON, IT DOESN'T GO TO CITY COUNCIL. SO I HAVE REALLY GREAT, UH, CONFIDENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT AND THE WAY THEY PUT THINGS TOGETHER. AND I JUST WANNA SAY SIMPLY THAT THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS AND IT'LL BE MALLEABLE AND CAN CHANGE OVER TIME. THANK YOU. YES. STEP WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY LIKE THE, THE FEE AMOUNT, LIKE THE, UH, FEE IN CONSTRUCTION, THE AMOUNT COULD BE, UM, ADJUST UPDATED BY THE CITY ENGINEER ANNUALLY BASED ON THE ACTUAL, UH, CONSTRUCTION COST. SO THAT COULD BE, UM, REFLECTED IF, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, TODAY WE, WE ESTIMATE A FEE, BUT ONE YEAR LATER WE, WE FIND OUT THIS IS NOT ACCURATE, THE CITY ENGINEER WILL BE ABLE TO ADJUST THAT REGARDING THE SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY, THE CHIEF TRANSPORTATION PLANNER, IF HE OR SHE SEE THE NEED FOR TO THE CHANGE, UM, HE WILL PRESENT THAT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THAT DOES NEED THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S APPROVAL BEFORE IT COULD BE UPDATED. COMMISSIONER SMITH? UM, GO AHEAD CLARK. ONE MORE COMMENT. UM, IT MAKES ME NERVOUS WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE CITY ENGINEER CAN LOOK AT THE FEE ANNUALLY AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS, ALL OF A SUDDEN IT BECOMES MORE OF AN IMPACT FEE THAN JUST A SIMPLE SIDEWALK FEE. SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT SHOULD JUST BE SOMETHING THAT IS ON SOMEONE'S DESK AND THEY SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA UP IT BY X AMOUNT. I, I THINK THAT THAT NEEDS TO GO AT LEAST GO THROUGH CITY COUNCIL IN MY OPINION, OR ELSE PERHAPS BE BASED ON, YOU KNOW, A CONSTRUCTION INDEX, FOR EXAMPLE, CONSTRUCTION FACTORS ON, YOU KNOW, THE PRICE PER SOMETHING ON SOME ABSENT A MEASURING STICK THAT'S GENERALLY ACCEPTED. THE POLICYMAKERS OUGHT TO HAVE A SHOT AT IT. I THINK JUST THE PRINCIPAL, CORRECT? YEAH. I'M SORRY MS. MICKELSON. THANK YOU. YEAH, I'LL JUST, I'LL ADD TO THAT, THAT THIS, THIS IS EXEMPTED FROM THE IMPACT FEE STATUTE, UM, SPECIFICALLY FOR SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION. SO THAT'S NICE. AND REMEMBER THAT THIS IS AN EXEMPTION, THIS IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC FEE WE ARE CHARGING PEOPLE, OTHERWISE IT MIGHT FALL MORE WITHIN THAT KIND OF CATEGORY. AND TO LEGALLY DELEGATED TO THE CITY ENGINEER, WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR WHERE HE'S GONNA GET THAT NUMBER FROM. IT CAN'T JUST COME OUT OF HIS HEAD, SO DON'T THANK YOU. I DO UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT AN IMPACT FEE. MY POINT ON THAT WAS IT WILL FEEL LIKE AN IMPACT FEE. YES. THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. GOOD COMMENTS. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. THANK YOU MS. FUNG. GO FORWARD AND [00:25:01] GET IT ALL FIGURED OUT. YOU TOO. THANK YOU ALL. OKAY WITH THAT, WE ARE GONNA MOVE TO, UH, ROMAN NUMERAL TWO ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS PLATTING ACTIVITY SECTIONS A AND B. MADAM CHAIR, CAN I TAKE A MOMENT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE? OKAY. COMMISSIONER TAHIR, ONE MOMENT REAL QUICK. UH, REAL QUICK. MADAM CHAIR, UH, EVERY SUMMER I TRY TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE OR TWO OR THREE INTERNS DO SOME KIND OF A PROJECT, UH, UNDER MY GUIDANCE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION. UH, WE MISSED THAT LAST YEAR BECAUSE OF COVID. UH, THIS SUMMER I HAVE THREE STUDENTS. ONE OF THEM IS A COLLEGE STUDENT, MR. RAMAN HABI HASI, WHO IS AT UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS. AUSTIN WOULD LIKE TO BE AN ATTORNEY ONE DAY AND HE IS GOING TO BE OBSERVING THE MEETING TODAY AND WE'LL PICK, UH, SOME KIND OF A NICE PROJECT FOR HIM TO STUDY AND WRITE A PAPER ON. I THEN HAVE TWO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. THEY'RE BOTH IN 11TH GRADE. THEY'RE BOTH WITH OT INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, AND THEY'RE WORKING ON A HACKATHON PROJECT. AND, UH, EVENTUALLY THEY WILL COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WILL BENEFIT THE CITY. SO I WANTED THEM TO ALSO OBSERVE THE MEETING. ALL THREE OF THEM ARE OBSERVING THE MEETING. THE NAME OF THE TWO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ARE SAHE NEIGHBOR AND, UH, HIS, UH, UH, FRIEND AND ALSO 11TH GRADER, SERGEY, VE UH, I'M SURE I'M, UH, NOT PRONOUNCING THAT RIGHT, BUT SAHI AND SERGEI ARE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND THEY WOULD ALSO BE WRITING SOME KIND OF A PAPER. THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER TAHIR, AND WE WELCOME YOUR THREE INTERNS. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY, SORRY. YES, COMMISSIONERS. I THINK WE HAVE SOME, UH, SPEAKERS FOR THE AWA ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS. OH, ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, WE DO, AND I, THE ONES I HAVE LISTED ARE GONNA BE VIRTUAL, I THINK. OH NO ONE IS. UM, OKAY, SO I'M GONNA CALL ON THE IN-PERSON FIRST. UM, INEZ SIEGEL, AND THAT NAME IS SPELLED S-I-G-E-L. OKAY. SORRY, I ALMOST FORGOT YOU THAT, THAT'S OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. UH, MY NAME IS INES SIEGEL AND I'M WITH LINK HOUSTON. WE ADVOCATE FOR EQUITY AND TRANSPORTATION SO THAT ALL PEOPLE CAN REACH OPPORTUNITY. WE SUBMITTED OUR OFFICIAL COMMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED SIDEWALK ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, UM, IN WRITING, BUT I ALSO WANTED TO COME TODAY, UM, AND ADDRESS YOU IN PERSON AS YOU CONTINUE TO DISCUSS AND TWEAK THESE NEW RULES AND REGULATIONS. UM, OUR STAFF AND BOARD REGULARLY RIDE, TRANSIT, BIKE, WALK AND ROLL AS PART OF OUR WORK AND PERSONAL ACTIVITIES. SIDEWALKS IN HOUSTON TOO OFTEN ARE IN POOR CONDITION OR SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST. WE HAVE OBSERVED MANY NEIGHBORHOOD AND CIVIC CLUB MEETINGS WHERE PEOPLE RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT SIDEWALKS, BOTH THEIR CONDITION AND SAFETY. THROUGH OUR WORK, WE ADVOCATE ALONGSIDE RESIDENTS FOR EQUITABLE IMPROVEMENTS TO CITY INFRASTRUCTURE. WE VIEWED A PROPOSED SIDEWALK ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AS ONE STEP FORWARD ON A CONTINUING JOURNEY TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY, SAFETY, AND CONNECTIVITY IN HOUSTON. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO ADD A FEE IN LIEU CAN BE A POSITIVE STEP FORWARD, BUT MUST NOT BE THE ONLY STEP TAKEN TO IMPROVE OUR SIDEWALK NETWORK. WE URGED A PLANNING COMMISSION TO ENCOURAGE THE CITY OF HOUSTON TO ALSO INCREASE FUNDING FOR THE THREE EXISTING SIDEWALK PROGRAMS. THE CITY MUST ALSO PROVIDE FUNDING EQUIPMENT AND SUFFICIENT STAFFING TO MAINTAIN SIDEWALKS CONSTRUCTED THROUGH THE THREE PROGRAMS AND THE FEE IN LIE FUND. ADDITIONALLY, WE CALL ON EVERYONE INVOLVED TO AVOID PLACING AN IN INEQUITABLE BURDEN ON RESIDENTS SUBSTANTIALLY REBUILDING OR MODIFYING THEIR EXISTING PROPERTY, WHETHER DUE TO ELECTIVE IMPROVEMENTS OR REBUILDING POST-DISASTER. PROPERTY OWNERS WITH OPEN DITCH DRAINAGE, ESPECIALLY GOOD FOR STORM WATER RUNOFF WHEN MAINTAINED COULD FIND THEMSELVES BEARING HIGH FEE IN LEW DUE TO THE COST OF SIDEWALKS IN SUCH SITUATIONS. WHILE THE NEW SIDEWALK FUND WILL ADD MUCH NEEDED RESOURCES TO COMPLETE GAPS IN THE SIDEWALK NETWORK, WE LOOK FOR FAIRNESS IN THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE ON THE FEE PAYERS AS WELL AS EQUITABLE IMPLEMENTATION IN THE USE OF THE FUNDS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. UM, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS RICKY CARDENAS, C-A-R-D-E NS. MR. CARDENAS, I'M HERE. DO YOU HAVE ME? OH, YES, I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE GONNA BE VIRTUAL. [00:30:01] I MEAN IN PERSON. GO RIGHT AHEAD. OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. YEAH. UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO ASK, UM, ARE THERE A PROCESS IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FEE IN LIEU ISN'T ABUSED? UM, AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT TYPE OF TRANSPARENCY WILL WE HAVE WHEN IT COMES TO VIEWING HOW THE 70 30 SPLIT IS BEING DISTRIBUTED? UH, THANK YOU. I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK MS. FUNG TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTIONS. SO AFTER THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED, UM, IS THE CHIEF TRANSPORTATION PLANNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN, UM, THE LEASE OF SEVERAL PROJECTS, UH, ON THE DEPARTMENT WEBSITE. AND THE CHIEF TRANSPORTATION PLANNER IS ALSO EXPECTED TO, UM, PROVIDE A ANNUAL, UH, REPORT TO THE, UM, UH, COMMISSIONERS ABOUT LIKE THE FUNDING, THE AMOUNT, UM, THE USE OF THE FUNDING, ET CETERA. SO THERE'LL BE SOME ONGOING OVERSIGHT. YES. AND REGARDING THE 70 30 SPLIT, UH, BASICALLY IS ESTABLISHED BY, UM, THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT. SO WE ARE STILL WORKING WITH THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, UH, TO NOW DOWN THE DETAILS ABOUT THE FUND. BUT AFTER IT IS, UM, ESTABLISHED, WE WILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE STRUCTURE AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE FUND. AND THE FUND IS CLEARLY STATED, IS USED FOR NEW SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLETE THE SIDEWALK NETWORK IN THE CITY. OKAY? MM-HMM . THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. CARDENA. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING WITH US TODAY. UM, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS, UH, BENNY WILSON. MR. WILSON, MR. WILSON DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. THOSE ARE THE ONLY SPEAKERS I HAVE SIGNED. UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE SIDEWALK PROGRAM? IF NOT, WE WILL GO AHEAD. THANK YOU MS. VONG. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON [Platting Activities A & B] THE AGENDA. WE ARE ON ROMAN NUMERAL TWO PLANNING ACTIVITIES, SECTIONS A AND B. WE'LL TRY THIS AGAIN. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS RM LEE. SECTIONS A AND B ARE PRESENTED AS ONE GROUP, WHICH INCLUDES CONSENT AND REPLANT ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION. SECTIONS A AND B ARE ITEMS ONE THROUGH 1 38 SECTION A. CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 71 AND SECTION B REPLANT ITEMS ARE NUMBER 72 THROUGH 1 38. 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 REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSENT AND REPLANT ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION. OKAY, THANK YOU. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING IN A AND B. IS THERE ANY, ANYBODY IN THE CHAT? OKAY. UM, COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY ITEMS IN A AND B THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER SEPARATELY? COMMISSIONER HEISS? YES, MADAM CHAIR. ITEM 6, 10, 11, 23, 24, 33, 39, 51, 90, 94 AND ONE 14. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER ITEMS? COMMISSIONERS. OKAY, THEN WE WILL GO AHEAD AND PROCEED TO VOTE ON SECTIONS A AND B AND WE'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ALL ITEMS IN THOSE SECTIONS. SAVE AND ACCEPT FOR ITEMS 6, 10, 11, 23, 24, 33, 39, 51, 90, 94, AND ONE 14. IS THERE A MOTION? MME. CLARK? IS THERE A SECOND? MADAM CHAIRMAN? THAT'S JOHN, MADAM CHAIRMAN. HOLD, LET ME JUST GET A SECOND. IS THERE A SECOND? GARZA. OKAY. GARZA. OH, OKAY. YES, JOHN, MR. CILLO. THAT WAS NOT ME. MADAM CHAIRMAN. OKAY. I THINK THAT MADAM CHAIRMAN, THAT WAS THE GUEST SPEAKER. MADAM CHAIRMAN, CAN I BE HEARD? NO, NOT AT THIS POINT. I'LL COME BACK TO YOU IN JUST A MINUTE. OKAY. UM, OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE STATED ITEMS IN SECTIONS A AND B. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION? I MEAN, SORRY, CLARK AND GARZA. CLARK AND GARZA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. AND NOW ON THE ITEMS IN REMAINING, WHICH FOR THE RECORD ARE ITEM 6, 10, 11, 23, 24, 33, 39, 51, 90, 94, 1 14. IS THERE A MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND? ROBINS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES AND PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED ON THAT. OKAY. NOW WHO IS IT THAT'S WAITING TO SPEAK? [00:35:01] CHAIRMAN? NO, I CAN'T, NOT REALLY. GO AHEAD MADAM. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 21. OKAY. THE AGENDA. OKAY, NOW WE JUST VOTED ON THIS AND IT'S A, IT'S A SHALL APPROVE ITEMS, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS ON CONSENT. BUT GO AHEAD, WE WILL HEAR YOUR COMMENTS RIGHT NOW. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME, PLEASE? YES, MY NAME IS RON MADISON. M-A-D-I-S-O-N. OKAY, GO AHEAD. AND I'M SPEAKING ON, UH, BEHALF OF, UH, THE CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LAUDER ROAD, UH, WHERE THEY WANTED TO PUT, UH, SOMETHING COMMERCIAL AND THEY NEVER DID STATE EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO. I WAS SPEAKING ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IN THIS AREA IT IS VERY, VERY CROWDED ALREADY. IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY, LAUDER IS ONE OF THE MAIN ROADS TO GET, UH, EAST AND WEST, AND IF SOMETHING HAPPENS BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCIALIZATION AS IT IS ALREADY, AND, AND, UM, THAT AREA WOULD BE COMPLETELY SHUT OFF FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES, SCHOOL BUSES, UH, PEOPLE TRYING TO GET IN AND OUT OF THE COMMUNITY, THE WHOLE NINE YARDS. ALSO, THERE'S, THERE'S A COMMERCIAL, UH, PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE. IT LOOKS LIKE IT, IT'S A CAR LOT, BUT IT CAN'T BE DESIGNATED AS A CAR LOT BECAUSE IT'S NOT MEETING THE CRITERIA. BUT YOU HAVE VEHICLES ALL OVER AND I WAS JUST CONCERNED ABOUT PUTTING MORE COMMERCIALIZATION IN THERE. WHEN YOU HAVE ENOUGH IN THERE ALREADY, UH, YOU HAVE A STORE ACROSS THE STREET, UH, OF THE AREA TRYING TO PUT SOMETHING ELSE IN COMMERCIALIZED, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF LEAVING IT, UH, FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR HOMES OF, OF ANOTHER TYPE. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. MADISON. NOW WE'RE A LITTLE CONFUSED. I HAVE YOU AS A SPEAKER ON ITEM 1 42. NO, I'M ON 1 21. 1 21. OKAY. WE'RE GONNA ASK, UH, MS. MATO, UH, THE PLANNING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF TO, TO EXPLAIN TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS PROJECT. 'CAUSE WE DON'T, COULD WE CLARIFY THE NAME WITH THE SPEAKER AS WELL? THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER, THE NAME OF THE PLAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL. SATURN PROPERTIES AT FRANCIS STREET. NO, . OKAY, THAT'S ITEM 1 21 IT ROAD. I HEARD HIM SAY 1 41 1. YEAH. SO GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS DIPTI MATH. UH, THE SPEAKER IS TALKING ABOUT ITEM NUMBER 1 42 CASTLEWOOD ADDITION SECTION THREE PARTIAL RE REPLY NUMBER ONE. IT IS IN THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION, SO IF YOU WOULD ALLOW HIM TO SPEAK AGAIN, MAYBE, UH, AT THAT TIME THAT WHEN THE ITEM IS PRESENTED. OKAY. ALRIGHT, MS. MR. MADISON, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA RECALL YOU WHEN WE GET TO YOUR ITEM. IT'S IN THE NEXT SECTION ON THE AGENDA. OKAY? ALRIGHT. WHAT'S THAT NUMBER AGAIN? 1 42 1 4 2. THANK YOU, MADAM. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMING UP. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, [c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Dorianne Powe-Phlegm and Devin Crittle) ] NOW WE ARE ON PUBLIC HEARINGS. UH, ITEM 1 39. GOOD AFTERNOON, MA'AM. MY NAME IS DORIAN FL. ITEM 1 39 IS AMENDED GOLF CREST EDITION RELA NUMBER FOUR. THE SIGN LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF MEYER AND GAT STREETS IN HOUSTON. CORPORATE LIMITS. THE REASON FOR RELAID IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. THIS PLAT WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION. PER LEGAL'S REVIEW, LEGAL HAS REVIEWED THE PLAT AND DETERMINED THAT IT VIOLATES THE RESTRICTIONS PER THE BUILDING LINES. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS DEFERRED THE PLAT FOR THE, TO GIVE THE APPLICANT TIME TO PROVIDE REVISED INFORMATION BY NOON. NEXT WEDNESDAY. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM. MADAM CHAIR, IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 1 39, UM, IS CONTINUED. IT'S AMENDED GOLF CREST EDITION PARTIAL REPL NUMBER FOUR. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 39? HEARING NONE, UH, WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN A RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER. IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, [00:40:01] IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER THE ITEM AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING? MOTION TO DEFER MOTION. SECOND POES PER, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM ONE 40, ITEM ONE 40 IS BRICK AND STONE AT LYDIA PARTIAL PLA NUMBER ONE, THE SIZE, LOCATED NORTH ALONG LYDIA STREET, WEST OF, UH, LAAL AND SCOTT STREETS IN, UH, HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS. THE REASON FOR REPLANT IS TO CREATE FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND REVISE THE BUILDING LINE. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PARKING RESERVE WITHIN A SHARED DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT TO BECOME SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM. STAFF'S REQUEST IS TO, UH, DEFER THE PLAT FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW AND TO COORDINATE WITH, UH, PUBLIC WORKS CONCERNING THE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT. MADAM CHAIR PLEASES COMMISSION. YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM. AT THIS TIME, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM ONE 40 BRICK AND STONE AT LYDIA IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. I THINK , HOLD ON. I'M GONNA CHECK CAREFULLY THIS TIME. UH, NO. WE HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 40? UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER. SO I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DEFER AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION HINES MORRIS. SECOND. SECOND. HINES, HINES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES THE ITEMS DEFERRED ITEM 1 41. ITEM 1 41 IS CAROLINA PLACE, PARTIALLY PLA NUMBER THREE. THE SIDE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF KIRBY DRIVE AND SHERIDAN STREET AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS. THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE. THERE ARE NO VARIANTS REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT. 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. 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 1 41 CAROLINA PLACE IS OPEN. UM, THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT I THINK SHE'S HERE JUST FOR QUESTIONS. UM, IS THERE ANYONE WHO, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED IN ADVANCE. OTHERWISE, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 41? HEARING NONE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. IS THERE DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION AYE. SECOND CLERK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. UH, ITEM 1 42 CASTLEWOOD EDITION. ITEM 1 42 IS CASTLEWOOD EDITION SECTION THREE, PARTIALLY PLA NUMBER ONE, THE SIZE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF GREEN RANCH AND LAUDER STREETS IN HOUSTON. EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. THIS PLAT WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, BECAUSE LEGAL REVIEW WAS PENDING, BUT LEGAL HAS REVIEWED THE RESTRICTIONS AND THE PLAT AND, AND LEGALS REVIEW IS THAT THE PLAT WOULD NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO PROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM. MADAM CHAIR, IT PLEASES COMMISSION. YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. OKAY. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CONTINUED FOR ITEM 1 42 CASTLEWOOD EDITION. MR. MADISON, ARE YOU STILL WITH US? YES, I AM. MADAM CHAIR. OKAY, SO WE ARE GONNA ACTUALLY APPLY YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD INTO THIS ITEM. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT? YES. ALSO, MADAM CHAIR, AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, APPROVED SOMETHING FOR COMMERCIALIZATION OR, UH, ANOTHER ZONE CHANGING, UH, AFTER A WHILE, IF SOMETHING IS LEASED OUT OR RENTED OUT OR CHANGED, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION GOES BACK FROM TIME TO TIME TO, TO CHECK ON THESE THINGS, BUT I'VE SEEN LIKE A LOT OF EMPTY AND ABANDONED BUILDING AND SPACES, COMMERCIALS, SO FORTH AND, AND THEY CHANGE INTO ANYTHING. IT, IT COULD BE A, A PERSON SELLING, UH, [00:45:01] CIGARETTES ON THE SIDE. IT COULD BE A, A PERSON, UH, SELLING SCARFS ON THE SIDE, YOU KNOW, IN, IN A CAR LOT OR SOMETHING LIKE, LIKE THAT. OKAY. SO I'M, I'M JUST ASKING. I WE HEAR YOU. I I JUST, I HAVE TO REMIND YOU THAT HERE IN HOUSTON WHERE WE, WE DON'T HAVE ZONING, WE DON'T REALLY REGULATE USE OF PROPERTY. UM, THIS REQUIRED A PUBLIC HEARING. I GUESS AT ONE POINT IT WAS PLATTED AS AS RESIDENTIAL, BUT IT MEETS THE, UH, ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BE AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AND TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL. UM, I'LL LOOK TO MY, OUR LEGAL CONSULTANT IS, UH, NODDING. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT? I, I WOULD JUST SAY WHAT, WHAT WE FOUND IN THE DEED RESTRICTION REVIEW IS THAT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS HAD EXPIRED. OKAY. SO IT'S NO LONGER LIMITED TO RESIDENTIAL. OKAY. SO AT ONE POINT THERE WERE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THIS, WHICH MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, BUT THEY'VE EXPIRED. UM, AND SO WHEN, WHEN DID THEY, AND I THINK WHEN DID THEY EXPIRE? DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND? WE DON'T KNOW I MR. MADISON? I THINK ONE THING THAT MIGHT BE A GREAT IDEA IS, UM, IF YOU WOULD REACH OUT TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER, OTHER THINGS THAT YOU COULD, YOUR NEIGHBOR COULD, COULD DO TO, UM, CHANGE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA OR TO PRESERVE WHAT IS THERE NOW. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, THIS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT MEETS ALL THE RULES AND UNDER BOTH STATE LAW AND CITY ORDINANCE, WE ARE BEHOLDEN TO APPROVE IT AT THIS TIME. SO I'M SORRY, WE CAN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING TO HELP YOU AT THIS TIME. UM, OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE MADAM WHO WANTS TO MADAM CHAIR? YES. I'M, I'M SORRY. I DO HAVE THE DATE IF OH, OKAY. YOU'D LIKE GO AHEAD TO PROVIDE THAT. IT WAS, THEY EXPIRED ON JANUARY 1ST, 1999. OKAY. JANUARY 1ST, 1999. THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, UM, EXPIRED. UM, CAN YOU RENEW DEED RESTRICTIONS AFTER THE FACT? OR DO YOU HAVE TO START ALL OVER IF THEY, I THINK YOU HAVE TO START ALL OVER. OKAY. IT'S A DIFFICULT ACTIVITY, BUT TALK TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. CALL THE MAIN NUMBER OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND I THINK MAYBE THEY CAN HELP YOU UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO UNDER THE LAW IN HOUSTON. UM, OKAY. THANK YOU GARY. THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY. UM, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 42 CASTLEWOOD EDITION? UM, IF NOT, THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION. MOTION. NELSON GARZA, SECOND NELSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 43. ITEM 1 43 IS SETI GARDENS REPL NUMBER ONE THE SIZE LOCATED EAST ALONG SETI STREET NORTH OF AARON AND WEST OF IRVINGTON STREET. THE REASON FOR REPL IS TO CREATE SIX LOTS IN A PARKING RESERVE. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. THE PLAT WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION PENDING LEGAL REVIEW. LEGAL HAS REVIEWED THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLA PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORUM CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES TO COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 43 SET GARDENS IS OPEN, IS CONTINUED. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 43? HEARING? NO RESPONSE? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT CONDITIONS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? CLARK? IS THERE A SECOND? MAR ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 44. ITEM 1 44 IS CRAWFORD PLACE RELAID NUMBER ONE AND EXTENSION. THE REASON I MEAN, SORRY. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTH WEST INTERSECTION OF CRAWFORD AND BARBIE STREETS IN HOUSTON. CORPORATE LIMITS. THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE SEVEN LOTS. THERE ARE NO VARIANTS REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT. 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 PROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORUM CONDITIONS. [00:50:02] 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. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 1 44 IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP IN ADVANCE. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 44? UM, IF NOT, UM, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. MADAM CHAIR REC. COMMISSIONER GARZA? YES. UM, MS. FLE, JUST A QUESTION ON THIS. I WAS LOOKING AT THIS THE OTHER DAY AND, UH, IT'S REALLY DISAPPOINTING THAT THESE ARE ALL FRONT LOADERS WHEN THEY COULD VERY EASILY USE A SHARED DRIVE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT LIVABLE PLACES IS MOVING TOWARDS. NOW. IT, IT SEEMS TO ME, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THIS IS GOING TO USE THE SAME AMOUNT OF CONCRETE OR MORE, MORE THAN, THAN A SHARED DRIVEWAY WOULD BE ABLE WOULD BE USING. AND SO MY QUESTION IS, I'M SURE THAT THE DEPARTMENT PRESENTED THE CONCEPT OF A SHARED DRIVEWAY TO THIS APPLICANT YES. AND HAD NO INTEREST ON THEIR PART. RIGHT. NO INTEREST. ALRIGHT. SO JUST TO MAKE THINGS PERFECTLY CLEAR FOR ALL, ALL OF YOU, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT LIVABLE PLACES IS WORKING TOWARDS IS TO MAKE THIS A MORE WALKABLE CITY, OF COURSE. AND TO LESSEN THE AMOUNT OF CONCRETE THAT WE'RE USING. AND SO WE'RE LOOKING AT MOVING AWAY FROM THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT INTO SOMETHING THAT IS MORE AMENABLE TO NEIGHBORHOODS, USES LESS CONCRETE, HAS MORE COVERAGE. SO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE STILL BUILDING QUOTE OLD STYLE, BE PREPARED FOR CHANGES IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. WHAT'S TAKING YOU SO LONG? I DON'T KNOW. I REALLY DON'T KNOW. WE'RE ON, WE ARE ACTUALLY ON TIME. WE'RE ON OUR TIMELINE. IT'S COMING. THANK YOU. IT IS COMING. AND YOU'RE DOING A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? UM, SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT CONDITIONS. IS THERE A MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND? ROBBINS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. ONE. ONE OPPOSITION. ONE OPPOSITION. NO GROUNDS TO STAND ON. JUST FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU. WITH YES. COMMISSIONER GARZA. VOTING NO. NO . THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, 1 45. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS DEVIN CRIDDLE. ITEM 1 45. THIS GOLF VIEW MANOR PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE. THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF SO WESTSIDE DRIVE AND CHERRY HILL STREET. THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT DOES VIOLATE SEPARATELY FILED DEED RESTRICTIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRING THE PLAT PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 1 45 IS CONTINUED GULF VIEW MANOR. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 45 HEARING NO RESPONSE? UH, WILL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO DEFER AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNLESS THERE'S DISCUSSION. MOTION TO DEFER GARZA GARZA. IS THERE SECOND CLARK CLARK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 46, THIS IS COMMISSIONER POR PERLE. I NEED TO STEP AWAY FOR A FEW MINUTES. OKAY. NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER POROUS PERLE WILL BE LEAVING THE MEETING TEMPORARILY. 1 46 ITEM ONE. ITEM 1 46 IS DALE EDITION PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE. THE SITE LOCATED ALONG DALE NORTY STREET, EAST OF SHEPHERD DRIVE AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS. THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE ONE LOT. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT. 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 FILES SEPARATELY, 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 OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 1 46 DALE EDITION IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 46? HEARING? NO RESPONSE? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION CLARK. CLARK. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND TO HEAR NINES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? [00:55:02] DEMO. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 47. ITEM 1 47 IS LAKEWOOD PINES. SECTION 15 THE SIZE LOCATED NORTH OF LAKEWOOD PINES BOULEVARD AND WEST, WEST OF WEST LAKE, HOUSTON, PARKWAY AND HOUSTON. EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE REASON FOR RELIGHT IS TO CREATE 60 LOTS FOR RESERVES AND RIGHT OF WAYS. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PORTION OF A LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE RESERVE INTO LOTS AND RESERVES AND TO ALLOW THE SECTION TO HAVE A UNIQUE NAME. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. LEGAL IS, UH, CONTINUALLY, UH, REVIEWING THE SEPARATELY FILED DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR THIS ITEM. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO FURTHER APPLY FOR FURTHER REVIEW OF THE SEPARATELY FILED DEED RESTRICTIONS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM. MADAM CHAIR PLEASES COMMISSION. YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. ITEM 1 47, LAKEWOOD PINES. THE HEARING IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK THIS WEEK? ON ITEM 1 47? UH, HEARING NO RESPONSE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER. IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING? MAAS SECOND. AYE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 48, ITEM 1 48 IS MANNERS AT WOODLAND HEIGHTS PARTIAL RELA NUMBER ONE. THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR DEED RESTRICTION REVIEW. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF, ALONG MORRISON STREET, SOUTH OF PICO STREET AND WEST OF HOUSTON AVENUE. THE PURPOSE OF THE REPLANT IS TO CREATE ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT, FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE 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, IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. ITEM 1 48, MANNERS AT WOODLAND HEIGHTS. THE HEARING IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 48? IF NOT, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLATS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. DID I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. YEAH. UM, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? GARZA SEC MA ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. AYE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS RODRIGUEZ. ITEM 1 49 PINE TWOS SECTION NINE, PARK TWO. NUMBER ONE, THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY NORTH OF VALE ROAD AND EAST OF NOR MANDY STREET. THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLA IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT AND ONE COMPENSATING OPEN SPACE RESERVE. NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATE THAT THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTION ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE. THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLA SUBSTITUTE THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION. MADAM DEAR TO PLEASE TO THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 1 49, PINE TRAIL SECTION NINE, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE IS OPEN OR IT'S CONTINUED. UM, I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE CHAT? WE DO NOT. UM, WITH THAT, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. YES. COMMISSIONER, I MEAN, SORRY, WHO? THAT WAS A PROMOTION. . YEAH. YEAH. WE'VE WE'VE PROMOTED YOU. I I'M NOT SURE THAT'S A PROMOTION. EXACTLY. OKAY. MS. MICKELSON, I'D, I'D LIKE TO ADD, AND I BELIEVE WE'VE MADE THIS PART OF THE CCP C 1 0 1. YES. THE, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS IN THIS PLAT ARE A LITTLE STRANGE AND JUST THE WAY THEY DEFINE TERMS, REALLY ALL THEY CAN DO ON THIS IN DIVIDING IT INTO TWO LOTS. LIKE THIS IS A [01:00:01] DUPLEX WITH A PARTY WALL OR A SHARED WALL. SO WE HAVE MADE THAT THE, THE APPLICANT AWARE OF THAT ON THE CPC 1 0 1. UM, OKAY. AND THIS IS IN THE COUNTY RIGHT HERE. IT IS KIND OF WEIRD. YES. COMMISSIONER ROBBINS, UH, OUR, THE MATERIALS I HAVE INDICATED IT'S PARTIAL REPL NUMBER TWO. WELL THAT'S THE NEXT ITEM. THERE'S TWO ON THE SAME BLOCK. THANK YOU. WE'RE STILL ON REPL NUMBER ONE. YES IT IS IN THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM. AND ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE, DID WE GET ALL THE CLARIFICATION ON THE MAINTENANCE AND OWNERSHIP OF THAT? RESERVE A . FIGURE IT OUT. OKAY. I THINK WHAT WE DETERMINED IS THIS IS A BIGGER ISSUE THAT WE WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH AND WE WILL JUST, WE AREN'T GONNA DO IT THIS WEEK. OKAY. UM, OKAY. IF WE HAVE NO ONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 49, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UM, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT. IS THERE A MOTION? ROBINS? IS THERE A SECOND? CLARK? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. NOW ON ONE 50, ITEM ONE 50 PINE 12, SECTION NINE PART THREE. THAT NUMBER TWO. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY NORTH OF DALE ROAD AND E OR NO MANDY STREET. THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLA IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT AND ONE COMPENSATING OPEN SPACE RESERVE. NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS WERE MET. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATE THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTION ON THE PAGE OF THE PLAT FOR THOSE POWER SEPARATELY. THIS IS A SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE THE CPC 1 0 1 HAD THE NOTATION REPRESENT THE DATE RESTRICTION. WE HAVE NO RECEIVED. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE. STATE RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLA TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION. MADAM CHAIR, IF YOU APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ONE 50 PINE TRAIL SECTION NINE PARTIAL REPL NUMBER TWO IS CONTINUED. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE IN THE CHAT. SO WITH THAT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. UM, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION GARZA GARZA. IS THERE A SECOND? MAR? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM 1 51. ITEM 1 51 IS SPRING BRANCH ESTATE NUMBER TWO, PARTIALLY PLAT NUMBER 14. THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG CAROUSEL STREET, WEST OF HOLLISTER STREET AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS. THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE FOUR LOTS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. REVIEW BY LEGAL IS PENDING. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS DEFER THE PLAT FOR FURTHER FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW OF THE SEPARATELY FILED DEED RESTRICTIONS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 51 SPRING BRANCH ESTATES NUMBER TWO, UH, IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE IN THE CHAT. UM, SO WE WILL, OH, AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER. SO YES, WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S A MOTION TO DEFER AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. A IS THERE A SECOND? CLARK? CLARK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THE ITEM IS DEFERRED. ITEM 1 40 52. ITEM 1 52 IS TIMBER LAKE SECTION ONE, PARTIALLY PLAT NUMBER ONE. THE SIDE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF ROYAL OAKS AND SPREADING OAKS IN HOUSTON'S EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY. THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE ONE COMMERCIAL RESERVE. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. REVIEW BY LEGAL IS, UM, PENDING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW. UM, OF THE SEPARATELY FILED D RESTRICTIONS BY LEGAL STAFF'S. [01:05:01] RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCE 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 FOR ITEM 1 52 TIMBERLAKE, SECTION ONE IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. I SEE. WE HAVE NO ONE IN THE CHAT IF NO ONE WISHES TO SPEAK. OH, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? GREAT. UM, I DON'T HAVE, DID YOU GUYS FILL OUT A THING LIKE THIS? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UM, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL. YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME UP ONE AT A TIME. PLEASE WELCOME. I AM NEW. I DIDN'T DO MY RESEARCH. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M DOING, BUT I DO HAVE CONCERNS 'CAUSE WE LEFT. OKAY. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? I SORRY. MY NAME IS, SPELL YOUR LAST NAME. B-A-R-B-A-R-A, BI, B AS IN BOY, ICE. OKAY, GO RIGHT AHEAD MS. BI. AND AS I WAS SAYING, WE LIVE IN A LITTLE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S BEEN THERE FOREVER ON THE LITTLE BEGINNING OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY. AND WE HAD A, WE HAVE A LITTLE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT WHO HAS GOT, HAD A LITTLE, THEY'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, WE LIVE RIGHT BEHIND 'EM. WE'RE JUST CONCERNED IF THERE COULD BE A WALL FOR NOISE. I'M ALREADY NERVOUS. I MEAN, THE SIRENS AND LIGHTS AND WE HAVE LIGHTS GOING ON OUR WINDOWS. 'CAUSE I'M LIKE RIGHT BEHIND WHERE THE TRUCK PULLS IN EVERY DAY AND ALL DAY LONG. AND WE'RE JUST NOISE AND CONCERNED FOR OUR PETS AND ANIMALS AND OUR HEARING, QUITE FRANKLY, OUR HEARING HAS GONE OUT FOR ALL THIS. AND WE TRY TO TALK WITH THE CHIEF AND STUFF, AND WE JUST DON'T REALLY GET ANY, ANYTHING WITH THEM. SO I JUST WANTED THAT TO BE ON RECORD. I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. AND I, AND AS, AS, UM, WE SAID THIS IS BEING REVIEWED FOR DEED RESTRICTIONS, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT IT DOES VIOLATE YOUR DEED RESTRICTIONS. UM, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT WILL DETERMINE AND ADVISE US ON IN TWO WEEKS WHEN THIS COMES BACK. MS. NICHOLSON, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? I'LL, I'LL ADD THAT THIS BEING IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, IT SOMETIMES TAKES US LONGER TO GET THE, UH, DEED RESTRICTION INFORMATION. AND THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE DELAY ON THIS ONE AT THIS POINT. OKAY. MS. BY, DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR THE AREA OR, UM, I REALLY DON'T. IT'S, IT IS JUST THE OLD NEIGHBORHOOD AND, YOU KNOW, YEAH. YEAH. UM, THERE, THERE A LOT OF, UH, FACTORS, BUT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TODAY IS TO DEFER THIS FOR TWO WEEKS. UM, AND I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION WILL DO THAT. SO WE'LL BE BACK AGAIN IN TWO WEEKS TO TALK ABOUT IT. IN THE MEANTIME, IF YOU'D LIKE TO GET MS. POE PHLEGM'S CONTACT INFORMATION, SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO BUILD THERE. ALL WE'RE DOING IS APPROVING, YOU KNOW, A PLAQUE AND WE DIDN'T KNOW. WE JUST GOT A LETTER IN THE MAIL. WE'RE LIKE, WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, LET'S FIGURE IT OUT. WELL, WE'LL TRY TO GET YOU, YOU SOME MORE INFORMATION. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AND I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER SPEAKER. COME ON FORWARD, MISS, AND WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME? SURE. IT'S MARCELLA WITH ONE L COMISKEY, C-O-M-I-S-K-E-Y. OKAY. AND LIKE MY NEIGHBOR WAS SAYING, OUR CONCERNS ARE ABOUT THE, THE, THE SOUNDS. AND, UM, WE DON'T KNOW IF THIS WILL STILL BE PART OF THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT OR IF THEY CHOOSE TO SELL, IF IT BECOMES COMMERCIAL AND MY HOUSE BACKS UP RIGHT TO THE EASEMENT. AND SINCE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DEEDS, I DON'T KNOW, UM, IF THEY ARE IN EVERY RIGHT TO TAKE THAT EASEMENT AWAY FROM THE, WHERE I CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING, I, MY FENCE HAS TO BE THERE. SO THAT'S MY CONCERN. AND MY OTHER CONCERN IS THE PRIVACY SOUND BARRIER. UM, THERE'S CAMERAS THERE AND IF IT DOES BECOME COMMERCIAL, I JUST, UH, WOULD LIKE THAT PRIVACY WALL TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NO, YOU KNOW, KEEP EVERYONE ON THE RIGHT PAGE. THAT'S ALL. OKAY. SO YOUR CONCERNS HAVE TO DO WITH THINGS THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT DOWN THE ROAD ON THIS OTHER THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING. BUT IF IT DOES GO TO COMMERCIAL, YES. YEAH. BUT AGAIN, TRY TO HOOK UP DID YOU TRY CALLING THE NUMBER OF THE APPLICANT THAT'S ON THE LETTER? I DID NOT. OKAY. YOU MIGHT JUST TRY GIVING THEM A CALL AND ASK HIM, ASK THEM WHAT THEY'RE DOING. THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE NOTICE, SO. OKAY. BUT WE'RE, WE, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THIS FOR TWO WEEKS, SO IT'LL BE BACK ON THE AGENDA AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME BACK. OKAY. NEXT TIME. SOUNDS GOOD. OKAY. GO AHEAD. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? I, NO, I JUST HAVE A COMMENT. THANK YOU. SHE'S CONCERNED ABOUT THE EASEMENTS ON THE HOUSING PROPERTIES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHERE YOU LIVE, THERE'S A 10 FOOT EASEMENT ON YOUR PROPERTY ALL ALONG THAT WHOLE STRETCH. THERE'S ALSO A 10 FOOT EASEMENT THAT'S GOING TO BE ABANDONED ON THAT PROPERTY, BUT THEY CAN'T TAKE YOUR 10 FOOT 'CAUSE IT'S ON YOUR PROPERTY. CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. BUT, UM, THERE, THERE SHOULD BE AN EASEMENT, BUT [01:10:01] THEY, IT'S BEING ABANDONED. YES. IT'S, IT'S, THEY, THEY FENCED TO RIGHT UP TO MY FACTS. RIGHT. IT'S VERY CLEAR ON HERE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE ABANDONED. UH, IT'S A CENTER POINT. I BELIEVE IT'S A CENTER POINT, 10 FOOT, CENTER POINT EASEMENT. THEY DON'T NEED IT. AND THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO ABANDON THAT. I DON'T WANT, I DON'T WANNA GET YOUR HOPES UP THAT THAT COULD STAY. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GARZA. WHAT KIND OF FENCE DID THEY PUT UP? DID THEY PUT UP A FENCE ALREADY? YOU SAID WE HAVE OUR FENCE. THEY DID NOT PUT UP ANYTHING. OKAY. UM, OTHER THAN, UH, I GUESS WHERE THEY HOUSE A ANOTHER VEHICLE, IT'S, IT, I CALL IT A FENCE. IT'S A BARRIER. IT'S FALLING APART, BUT, OKAY. JUST A QUESTION, MS. FLM, IF THIS DOES BECOME COMMERCIAL, SO TO SPEAK, ARE THEY NOT REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE TO PUT UP A FENCE BETWEEN THEMSELVES AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I MEAN, THIS IS PURE SPECULATION. I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT MS. MS. ME, IF YOU WOULD TALK TO MS. FALE AS WELL, SHE CAN TELL YOU WHAT CITY ORDINANCES WILL, WILL ALLOW THEM TO DO AND NOT DO. OKAY. AND PERHAPS THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO DEAL WITH THE APPLICANT AND GET SOME, GET SOME SATISFACTION. YEAH. THIS IS IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY. OH, I SEE. TJ APOLOGIES, WE'RE NOT SURE. APOLOGIES. UM, I WAS BATTING OUT FOR YOU BUT NOTHING . OKAY. ALRIGHT. BUT, BUT STILL TALK TO MS. YEAH, TALK TO MS. FL. YOU COULD GET SOME MORE INFORMATION. THANK YOU. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WITH US WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM? UH, 1 52 TIMBERLAKES? UM, HEARING NONE WE WILL TURN TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS TO DEFER. UM, IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS FOR THE DEFERRAL PERIOD, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION? HEINZ HINES. IS THERE A SECOND? ROBBINS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. UH, THE ITEMS DEFERRED ITEM 1 53 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. ITEM 1 54, UH, CHAIR MAY WANT TO BE RECOGNIZED. SHE'S BACK IN THE ROOM. YES. FOR, AND SHE RETURNED PRIOR TO THIS ITEM. SHE WAS HERE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. OKAY. UM, ITEM 1 54. ITEM 1 54 IS WEST HAVEN ESTATES SECTION SECTION TWO PARTIAL RE PLAT NUMBER 11. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST ALONG NANTUCKET DRIVE WEST OF FOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE IN SOUTH OF SAN FELIPPE STREET. THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE FIVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON A SHARED DRIVEWAY. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL VIOLATE SEPARATELY FILED DEED RESTRICTIONS. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A DEFERRAL TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME AND STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 54 WEST HAVEN ESTATES IS OPEN. UH, THE ONLY SPEAKER I HAVE IS, UM, THE APPLICANT, UH, JOYCE OWENS, ARE YOU HERE JUST FOR QUESTIONS OR DID YOU WANNA SPEAK? MADAM CHAIR? GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO IS HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 54? NONE. AND WE HAVE NONE IN THE CHAT. UM, SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ISH SECOND MAD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 55, ITEM 1 55 IS WHAT? MAD CHAIR? YES, MADAM. HELLO? COMMISSIONER NELSON? YES. YEAH, I'M, UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER NELSON. COULD I, I AM GETTING A CONSTANT ECHO AND IT'S, UH, IT'S 15 MINUTES TO 10 HERE. I THINK I'M GOING TO DROP OFF WHEN YOU GET HOME. WE'RE GONNA GIVE YOU AN AWARD FOR ATTENDING PLANNING COMMISSION FROM ENGLAND. WELL, I WANTED, SO YOUR EXCUSE HOPING I'M THE ONLY ONE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR TRYING. OKAY. THANK YOU. BYE-BYE. YOU BET. OKAY. PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER NELSON HAS LEFT THE MEETING. UH, 1 55. YES. UH, ITEM 1 55 IS WESTHEIMER ESTATES PARTIAL REPL NUMBER 15. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS ALONG WINSOME ROAD, WEST OF CHIMNEY ROCK ROAD, AND SOUTH OF WESTHEIMER ROAD. THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE 16 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND FOUR RESERVES ALONG THE SHARED DRIVEWAY. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT [01:15:01] DOES NOT VIOLATE SEPARATELY FILED RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR SEPARATELY. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME AND STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, 1 55 WESTHEIMER ESTATES. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPENED. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO'S IN THE CHAT? IF THERE'S NO ONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 55, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION HINES HINES. IS THERE A SECOND? CLARK? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 56, ITEM 1 56 IS WILDWOOD GLEN, EXCUSE ME. WILDWOOD GLEN, SECTION ONE, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER TWO AND EXTENSION. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF FM 2 29 20 AND GLEN GLEN ELLEN LANE IN THE ETJ OF HARRIS COUNTY. THE PURPOSE OF THE RELA IS TO CREATE ONE COMMERCIAL RESERVE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL RESERVE TO TAKE ACCESS FROM A PRIVATE STREET. STAFFS RECOMMEND DEFERRING THE PLAT FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW OF THE SEPARATELY FILED DEED RESTRICTIONS. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS. THANK YOU. OKAY. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 1 56, WILDWOOD GLEN IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. UH, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 56? IF NOT, UM, WE WILL TURN TO THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER MOTION GARZA GARZA. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND TO HEAR A HEAR ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 1 56 IS DEFERRED ITEM 1 57. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JOHN PHILLIPS . ITEM 1 57 IS WOLFFER PLACE, PARTIAL REPLANT NUMBER ONE. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS WEST OF ALONG HAZARD STREET AND EAST OF SHEPHERD DRIVE AT NORTH OF VERMONT STREET. THIS WAS A DEFERRED LAST COMMISSION DUE TO LEGAL REVIEW. THE PURPOSE OF THE REPLY IS TO CREATE TWO NARROW FRONT LOADING SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICATION. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS MADAM CHAIR FOR PLEASES THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. OKAY. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 1 57 WILIN PLACE IS CONTINUED. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 57? IF NOT, 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 HAYES? IS THERE A SECOND? CLARK? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. AND THAT WILL CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. UH, WE MOVE CHAIR? YES. COMMISSIONER VICTOR, I NEED TO LEAVE THE MEETING. OKAY. NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER VICTOR IS LEAVING THE MEETING. UM, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'RE JUST GONNA DO A QUORUM COUNT. WE 12. OKAY. WE HAVE 12, SO IF ANYBODY HAS TO LEAVE, YOU HAVE TO GET PERMISSION. FIRST. OKAY. SECTION [d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests (Aracely Rodriguez, Geoff Butler, and Tammi Williamson)] D VARIANCES. UH, ITEM 1 58. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JEFF BUTLER. ITEM 1 58 IS INDUSTRIAL VECO DEVELOPMENT. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT NORTH OF I 10 IN EAST OF THE EAST LOOP, EXCUSE ME, WEST OF THE EAST LOOP. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESERVE FOR EXPANDING AN EXISTING MANUFACTURING FACILITY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO CREATE A RESERVE ACCESSIBLE BY EASEMENT RATHER THAN DIRECT FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN AN INDUSTRIAL PARK AT THE INTERSECTION OF I 10 IN THE EAST LOOP. THE SITE FEATURES AN EXISTING FACILITY THAT TAKES ACCESS FROM GLEN HORNE BY A 60 FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT. THIS EASEMENT FEATURES 26 FOOT WIDE CONCRETE PAVING AND PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE SUBJECT SITE AND TWO OTHER TENANTS. THE SITE IS PART OF A LARGER RESERVE THAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO REFL THE PROPERTY AS PART OF A [01:20:01] PROPOSED EXPANSION. STAFF FINDS THAT THE CURRENT EASEMENT SERVE A SIMILAR FUNCTION AS A PUBLIC STREET AND THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF CHAPTER 42 STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE VARIANCE AND APPROVING THE PLAT FOR THE CPC ONE ONE FORM CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. A. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER? UM, MR. A QUESTION FOR MY EDUCATION. SO I SEE IT'S STILL IN THE REVIEW FROM CENTERPOINT. SO IF THEY'RE UNABLE TO GRANT THE ENCROACHMENT, UM, DO THE APPLICANT HAVE TO RESUBMIT A DIFFERENT PLATTER? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE APPLICANT? FROM MY KNOWLEDGE, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD AFFECT THE PLAT IF THEY HAVE A DISPUTE TO RESOLVE WITH, WITH GETTING THE UTILITIES. IT'S AN EXISTING PLANT, SO I IMAGINE THEY HAVE ELECTRIC RUNNING THERE, BUT I I UNFORTUNATELY DON'T KNOW HOW THAT AFFECTS THE PLA ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, . OKAY. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE WHO'S SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS. UM, SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLOT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION BARK? IS THERE A SECOND? ROBIN ROBINS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 59 MADAM CHAIR, I DO NEED TO RECUSE FROM 1 59. OKAY. PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER HEWELL, UH, ABSTAIN ON 1 59. ITEM 1 59 ALABAMA COURT CHARGE. THE STUDY IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, CITY LIMIT, SOUTH OF WEST ALABAMA STREET AND WEST OF BUFFALO SPEEDWAY. THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO DETERMINE THE TYPE OF STREET OF WEST ALABAMA COURT. AFTER FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW, WEST ALABAMA COURT IS CONSIDERED A PUBLISHED STREET AT THIS LOCATION. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE WILL SERVE AND REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES TO NOT PROVIDE RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION ALONG WEST ALABAMA COURT AND SECOND TO ALLOW A PROPOSED WAS SERVED TO HAVE PUNISH ON ALABAMA COURT WITH THE RIGHT OF AWAY WIDTH OF LESS THAN 60 FEET. STEP IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING. ONE WAS SERVED WITH ACCESS TO WEST ALABAMA COURT. WEST ALABAMA COURT IS A SUBSTANDARD PUBLISHED STREET ABOUT 20 FEET WIDE AND 925 FEET LONG. THIS STREET PROVIDE ACCESS TO MULTIPLE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. THIS STREET HAS BEEN IN THIS CONFIGURATION FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS AND NO RIGHTAWAY DEDICATION WERE PROVIDED BY ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THEREFORE, PROVIDING RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION ON THIS PROPERTY WOULD NOT IMPROVE THE OVERALL RIGHT OF WAY. THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO IMPROVE THE STIC SIDE BY PROVIDING AT LEAST SIX FOOT SIDEWALK, FOUR FEET WIDE, FOUR FEET SAFETY BUFFER, THREE INCH CALIBER TREES, AND TRANSPARENT DECORAT DECORATIVE FENCE. SO THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLANS SUBJECT TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION THAT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS. IN EVENT, IN THIS CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU AND CONGRATULATIONS ON GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT THIS WAS. IT TOOK A WHILE. UM, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. RODRIGUEZ? UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 59 ALABAMA COURT? IF NOT, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THERE ON THE SCREEN. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION CLARK CLARK. IS THERE A SECOND MA? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES ONE 60. ITEM ONE 60 IS AUBURN LAKES. THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ETJ WITHIN HARRIS COUNTY, WEST OF GOSLING AND SOUTH OF RAYFORD. THE APPLICANT PROPOSED A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, OR EXCUSE ME, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME DEVELOPMENT ALONG TYPE TWO PAES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO NOT EXP EXTEND GLITZ PER WAY NOR TERMINATE IT WITH A CUL-DE-SAC. STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT REVISED MATERIALS BY NOON. NEXT WEDNESDAY. STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT IN THIS APPLICATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER BEFORE WE DEFER IT? UM, ANY DISCUSSION? [01:25:01] IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER ITEM ONE 60? MOTION HEINZ. HEINZ. IS THERE A SECOND? CLARK? CLARK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM ONE 60 IS DEFERRED ITEM 1 61. ITEM 1 61 IS BEIGY VILLAS. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG GRACE LANE, SOUTH OF GRIGGS AND WEST OF MLK. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG GRACE BY NOT CREATING AN EAST TO WEST STREET THROUGH THEIR SITE. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY WITHIN THE GRIGGS TERRACE COMMUNITY. AN UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DEVELOPED PRIOR TO CHAPTER 40 TWO'S INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENT AND FEATURES AN INTERSECTION SPACING INTERVAL OF APPROXIMATELY 2000 FEET BETWEEN GRIGGS AND PERRY. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND IS SUBJECT TO THE CURRENT INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENT OF 1400 FEET. FOR LOCAL STREETS. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL INCLUDE THREE LOTS, APPROXIMATELY 4,500 TO 5,000 SQUARE FEET. THIS WILL NOT GENERATE THE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC STREET. IN ADDITION, STAFF FINDS THAT THE STRICT INTERPRETATION WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL AS THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO LOSE ONE OR MORE LOTS IN ORDER TO DEDICATE THE RIGHT OF WAY. STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE VARIANCE AND APPROVING THE PLAT FOR THE CPC ONE ONE FORM CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENT IN THIS ITEM. THIS INCLUDES STAFF'S REPRESENTATION. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FROM MR. BUTLER BEFORE I CALL PUBLIC SPEAKERS? UM, THE FIRST SPEAKER WE HAVE IS SHANE BUSK. B-U-S-H-E-K. DID I PRONOUNCE THAT RIGHT? YES. GO RIGHT AHEAD. YES. UM, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE. I'M A RECENT RESIDENCE. I'VE BUILT MY OWN HOME RECENTLY ON GRACE LANE. UM, I ALSO JUST STARTED A FAMILY AND PART OF THE APPEAL WAS THAT IT WAS A DEAD END STREET THAT DIDN'T HAVE THROUGH TRAFFIC. AND SO THE CONCERN WOULD BE THAT IF A SECONDARY ROAD TEED IN, IT WOULD LEAD TO FU FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD THEN ALLOW FURTHER AMOUNTS OF TRAFFIC DOWN THE ROAD, WHICH, WHICH IS BE SOMETHING I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF. OKAY. GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? THANK YOU. UH, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS DAVID ANDERSON. A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N. MR. ANDERSON? YES. UH, I'VE BEEN LIVING ON THAT STREET FOR ABOUT, UH, MY FAMILY HAS ABOUT 50 YEARS OR SO AND MY MAJOR CONCERN IS IF YOU PUT A THROUGH STREET IN THERE, WOULD THAT CREATE TOO MUCH TRAFFIC? ON ONTO OUR, ONTO OUR STREET. WE HAVE KIDS PLAYED UP AND DOWN THE STREET. KIDS RIDE THEIR BICYCLE. UH, THE STREET IS REALLY NARROW. WE HAVE DITCHES ON BOTH SIDES. SO MY MAJOR CONCERN IS WHAT WOULD THAT DO TO US AND OUR PRESENT CONDITION OF LIVING IN THAT AREA. I MOVED ON THAT STREET BECAUSE OF THE DEAD END. MY SISTER RAISED HER CHILDREN BEFORE I MOVED ON THE STREET, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT STREET MAIN, A DEAD END STREET. AND, AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS THE VARIANCE THAT WE ARE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE AND WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF IT. SO IT, IT WILL BE. OKAY. SO GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. ANDERSON? IF NOT, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK. YEAH. DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY IN THE CHAT? YES. MADAM CHAIR. WE HAVE A ROSE NITRA. ARE YOU ROSE NITRA? I'M IN HERE. YES I AM. OKAY, LET ME TAKE MS. NIRA FIRST AND THEN I'LL CALL ON YOU. GO RIGHT AHEAD. CAN YOU, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME? SURE. MY NAME IS NITRA ROSE. LAST NAME IS SPELLED ROSE, JUST LIKE THE FLOWER. OKAY, GREAT. GO RIGHT AHEAD. . UM, I AM ALSO, UM, A HOMEOWNER ON GRACE LANE. UM, I HAVE BEEN A HOMEOWNER SINCE MY FATHER OWNED THAT PROPERTY BACK WHEN IN THE SEVENTIES, AND I'VE SINCE INHERITED THAT PROPERTY. AND GRACE STREET HAS BEEN A DEAD END. SO MY CONCERN IS, UM, THE STREET BEING OPEN AS WELL AS THE HOMES THAT WILL BE IMPEDED BY THIS PARTICULAR, UM, NEW SUBDIVISION THAT WANTS TO BE ADDED IN. UM, SO THAT'S KIND OF MY MAIN CONCERN BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THAT LOT AND THAT HOME THERE FOR QUITE A LONG TIME ON THAT STREET. AND WHAT HAPPENS TO THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE IF THEY'RE TO BUILD THIS NEW DIVISION THERE? OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? SO WE, SO THE, WHAT'S BEING PLANNED, THERE ARE THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ON, ON RATHER LARGE LOTS AND THEN MM-HMM . WE ARE BEING ASKED TO GRANT A VARIANCE SO THAT THEY DO NOT EXTEND THE STREET. [01:30:01] SO IT WOULD REMAIN A DEAD END. AND THEN THE, BUT ACCORDING TO THE, THE THREE HOMES THAT THEY'RE ADDING TO THE LOT, LOOKING AT THE MAP, IT LOOKS, THEY, THEY'RE ALREADY EXISTING HOMES ON THAT LOT. SO WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT? THOSE HOMES THAT ARE ALREADY THERE, THERE'S, THERE'S ONE HOME OCCUPYING THE SITE PER THE SURVEY. UH, THEY'RE RE REBUILDING THAT ONE AND BUILDING TWO MORE. OKAY. SO THEY'RE REBUILDING THE HOUSE THAT EXISTS NOW AND THEN THEY'RE BUILDING TWO OTHER HOUSES. OKAY. AND DO THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC ADDRESS FOR THE HOUSE THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE? I, I DON'T KNOW IF WE KNOW THAT, BUT, UM, OH, THERE IS AN ADDRESS ASSIGNED TO THE EXISTING HOME. I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, UNFORTUNATELY. OKAY. BUT THERE WILL BE TWO MORE FOR THE DEAL. YEAH. AND MS. ROSE, UM, I WOULD UHHUH IF, IF YOU WOULD, UM, ARE YOU ON A COMPUTER OR A TELEPHONE? I'M ON THE COMPUTER. THEN IF YOU COULD PUT YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION IN THE, UM, THE CHAT THEN MM-HMM . UM, SOMEBODY FROM THE DEPARTMENT CAN GET BACK TO YOU AND GET, GIVE YOU THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION AND THEN MAYBE NE UM, YOU CAN GET A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US. OKAY. MM-HMM . THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE IN THE CHAT BEFORE I CALL ON THE PERSON? COME FORWARD, YOU CAN COME. I TAKE IT YOU DIDN'T FILL OUT A FORM, UM, SET UP FOR THIS EARLIER, BUT MAYBE THAT WAS BEFORE IT GOT MOVED. EXCUSES, EXCUSES, . OKAY. WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WELCOME. STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME. WELL, NAME IS MARK SCHATZ. MY LAST NAME IS S-C-H-A-T-Z. OKAY. I, UH, LIVE ON GRACE LANE AT 59 10. I'VE BEEN THERE ABOUT 25 YEARS WITH MY FAMILY. I'M ACTUALLY AN ARCHITECT, TEXAS REGISTRATION 1 8 3 9 9. I'M A FELLOW WITH THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, WHICH EXPLAINS MY ABSENT MINDEDNESS. UH, I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST TODAY. UH, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ELABORATE BEYOND JUST THE ISSUE WITH THE OWNER AND THE DEPRIVING OF PROPERTY AND NOT INCREASING TRAFFIC. IT REALLY GOES TO AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF OVERLAYING CHAPTER 42 TO 70-YEAR-OLD NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE STREETS THAT DON'T CONFORM. MY CONCERN HERE IS THERE ARE FOUR STREETS THAT ARE LONG DEAD END STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AREA. ONE IS WAYLAND GRACE, CAROL AND SCHROEDER. THEY EACH HAVE DIFFERENT CHARACTERS. UH, WAYLAND IS BASICALLY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. NOW VACANT GRACE IS BASICALLY, UH, OUR THREE RESIDENTIAL. CAROL IS AN OPEN TRACT OF LAND THAT 30 ODD YEARS AGO WAS A MOBILE HOME PARK. AND THEN SCHROEDER IS 1960S APARTMENT BUILDINGS. THE ISSUE WITH, UH, REQUIRING A STREET CUT THROUGH, UH, HERE WOULD BE, IT WOULD TAKE CAROL AND CONNECT AND IT WOULD INADVERTENTLY IN THE FUTURE, POTENTIALLY SUBSIDIZE A DEVELOPER BY GIVING THEM ACCESS TO GRACE LANE AT THE EXPENSE OF THIS OWNER. SO I'M NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT ON THE STREET OR IN THE AREA, BUT IT'S ONE OF THESE ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO BE LOOKED AT IN A BIGGER PICTURE, NOT JUST A SPECIFIC ISSUE FOR THE PROPERTY. SO I WANTED TO BRING THAT ISSUE UP. UM, MY LAST COMMENT IS I DO HAVE KIND OF AN OPPOSITION TO ONE ASPECT OF THE PLAT. THE PLAT IS, UH, ASKING FOR A 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY. GRACE IS CURRENTLY A 50. UH, I REALIZE THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE FOR EACH SUBSEQUENT PROPERTY THAT GETS PLATTED ON THE STREET. UM, BUT THE ISSUE THERE IS THERE ARE ALREADY EXISTING RESIDENCES WITH SETBACKS THAT WOULD THEN NOT COMPLY WITH THE 17 FOOT SETBACK FOR PARKING. A LOT OF RESIDENTS HAVE FENCES THAT ARE AT THE PROPERTY LINE, SO IT MAY BE ONE OF THOSE UNINTENDED DOWNSTREAM CONSEQUENCES THAT COULD DISRUPT THE CONTINUITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNINTENTIONALLY. GOOD. OKAY. VERY THOUGHTFUL, INTERESTING COMMENTS. THANKS FOR BRINGING THESE TO OUR ATTENTION QUESTIONS. APPRECIATE IT. ANY QUESTIONS THAT COVERED YOU GUYS UP? ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 61? IS IT BI BIY? BI BIY? OKAY. BIY VILLAS. UH, HEARING NONE. UM, WE HAVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS NOT ON THE SCREEN, BUT IT IS TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION CLARK. CLARK. IS THERE A SECOND? MAD? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES 1 62. ITEM 1 62 IS ELGIN VILLAS. THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG ELGIN EAST OF STATE HIGHWAY 2 88. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ALONG A SHARED DRIVEWAY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG ELGIN RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF ELGIN AND SAN EMANUEL STREET, JUST WEST OF EMANCIPATION PARK. THIS SITE IS LOCATED ALONG ELGIN, A 80 FOOT WIDE MAJOR [01:35:01] THOROUGHFARE, HALF A BLOCK WEST OF A PRIMARY WALKABLE PLACES STREET. STRICT INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 42 WOULD REQUIRE A 25 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE SUBJECT SITE. THE APPLICANT ASSERTS THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH WALKABLE PLACES STANDARDS. THE NORTHERN UNITS WILL FEATURE WALK-UP ACCESS ALONG ELGIN BALCONIES AND A MAXIMUM 48 INCH SEMI OPAQUE FENCE. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROVIDING A TWO FOOT PEDESTRIAN REALM EASEMENT WITHIN THE SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR A FOUR FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, A SIX FOOT UNOBSTRUCTED SIDEWALK, AND A ONE FOOT SEPARATION FROM THE PERIMETER FENCE. THE RESULT OF THESE ENHANCEMENTS WILL PRO PRODUCE A RESULT CONSISTENT WITH THE WALKABLE PLACES REQUIREMENTS ALLOWING FOR AMPLE SPACE FOR AND TRANSPARENCY. STAFF FINDS THIS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF CHAPTER 42. STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANT THE VARIANCE AND APPROVING THE PLAT OR THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS RECEIVED ONE ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENT EXPRESSING CONCERN FOR THE LOSS OF VISIBILITY ALONG ELGIN. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER. UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 62 IN THE CHAT? IS THERE ANYONE HERE FOR 1 62? UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO, UH, GRANT THE VARIANCE, PROVE THE PLOT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, WHICH IS ON THE SCREEN. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION GARZA GARZA. IS THERE A SECOND? ROBIN ROBINS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 63. ITEM 1 63 IS ELIJAH SQUARE. THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG CAVALCADE STREET EAST OF HARDY AND WEST OF THE FUTURE HARDY TOLL ROAD. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE FAMILY LOT DEVELOPMENT ALONG A SHARED DRIVEWAY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THREE VARIANCES. ONE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG CAVALCADE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 2 TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY, FRONTING THE FUTURE HARDY TOLL ROAD AND THREE, TO NOT REQUIRE A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE WHERE CAVALCADE WOULD INTERSECT WITH THE FUTURE. TOLL ROAD STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF EACH REQUEST. THE PROPOSED HOMES WILL FEATURE WALK-UP ACCESS TO CAVALCADE BALCONIES AND A MAXIMUM 48 INCH SEMI OPAQUE PERIMETER FENCE. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A FOUR FOOT BUFFER AND A SIX FOOT UNOBSTRUCTED SIDEWALK WITHIN A 15 FOOT PEDESTRIAN REALM. THE HIGH DEGREE OF TRANSPARENCY AND THE RIGHT OF WAY ACCOMMODATIONS ALLOW FOR AN INVITING PEDESTRIAN REALM CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF CHAPTER 42. THE SITE IS BOUND TO THE WEST BY A SEGMENT OF THE PROPOSED HARDY TOLL ROAD EXTENSION. THOUGH THE STATUS OF THE PROJECT IS UNCERTAIN, THE FUTURE TRAVEL LANES ARE DESIGNED TO BE SITUATED APPROXIMATELY 80 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY'S EASTERN BOUNDARY STAFF FINDS REQUIRING A 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE AND A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE BE IMPRACTICAL CONSIDERING THE DISTANCE FROM THE FUTURE ROADWAY. THE HARRIS COUNTY TOLL ROAD AUTHORITY HAS EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDS GRINDING THE VARIANCE AND APPROVING THE PLAT FOR THE CCP C ONE ONE FORM CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT IN THIS ITEM AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER. UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 63? UM, IF NOT, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT CONDITIONS. ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ISH? IS THERE A SECOND CLARK? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 64. ITEM 1 64 IS THE GARROW PRESTON COMMUNITY LIVING. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT NORTH OF HARRISBURG, EAST OF SAMPSON AND SOUTH OF CANAL STREET. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE FOR AN EXISTING BUNGALOW COURT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR 50 FEET OF FRONTAGE FOR THE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 60 STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST. THE SITE IS LOCATED ON A B BLOCK BOUND BY GARROW, PRESTON, EXCUSE ME. GARROW AND PRESTON BOTH PRIMARY TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT STREETS. THE 50 FOOT WIDE SITE CONSISTS OF FOUR HISTORIC HOMES THAT WERE MOVED TO THE SITE IN LIEU OF DEMOLITION. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT FOR THE HOME FRONTING, GARROW, AND AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE FOR THE THREE HOMES. FRONTING PRESTON, STRICT INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 42 REQUIRES 60 FEET OF FRONTAGE FOR THIS RESERVE. THE SITE FEATURES A RELATIVELY LOW DEVELOPMENT DENSITY THAT ENVISION FOR TYPICAL UNRESTRICTED RESERVES. IN ADDITION, THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND BIKE LANES, REDUCING THE NEED FOR ACCOMMODATING AUTOMOBILES ON THE SITE. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF 42. CONSIDERING THE USE IN NEARBY TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS, STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE VARIANCE AND APPROVING THE PLAT FOR THE CPC ONE OH INFORMED CONDITIONS. WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENT ON THIS ITEM AND THIS CONCLUDES [01:40:01] STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 64? UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN. UH, ANY DISC? OH, COMMISSIONER SMITH, IT'S A CURIOSITY QUESTION. YOU USED THE PHRASE, UH, BUNGALOW BUNDLE OR A BUNGALOW COURT? BUNGALOW BUNGALOW COURT. SO I'M, I'M LOOKING AT A, UH, EXHIBIT ON OUR, ON OUR MATERIALS HERE. AND IT LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO A SHARED DRIVEWAY WITH THREE TOWN HOMES TYPE LOT DEVELOPMENT. BUT THE PRESENTATION IS INSTEAD OF THREE LOTS A SINGLE RESERVE, COULD THE APPLICANT HAVE, HAVE DIVIDED THESE INTO THREE LOTS WITH A SHARED DRIVEWAY AND, AND BEEN IN COMPLIANCE AND HAS CHOSEN OTHERWISE TO GO WITH THE RESERVE OR IT'S CURIOUS TO ME HOW HE ENDED UP WITH AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE IN THIS SITUATION. I, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO EXTEND A DRIVEWAY TO THE, THE THE REAR UNITS. I, UH, THE SURVEY SHOWS A WALKWAY THAT CONNECTS THE, THE FRONT OF THIS IS THE APPLICANT ON THE CALL. UM, HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. I CAN, CAN I ASK YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME? ABSOLUTELY. THIS IS JEFFREY KAPLAN. OKAY. I'VE LIVED, LIVED IN, IN THE SEVEN YEARS. UM, I DO A LOT OF, UM, WORK. I'M A CREATIVE ENTREPRENEUR AND I DO A LOT OF WORK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'VE BEEN IN THIS HOME FOR, UM, SEVEN YEARS. AND THIS IS, THIS WAS SORT OF AN EARLY ATTEMPT AT CREATING A CO-HOUSING COMMUNITY, UM, IN HOUSTON. SO THE IDEA IS TO LIKE REALLY SHARE OPEN SPACE AND, YOU KNOW, AND REALLY MAKE IT KIND OF A MODEL FOR SUSTAINABILITY. BUT THESE HOMES WERE 1890S BUNGALOWS THAT WERE, WERE ALL MOVED HERE. AND ONE NIGHT IT WAS THE LARGEST MOVE EVER WITH FROM CHERRY MOVERS. AND WE WERE, THEY WERE RESTORED AND IT, IT'S SORT OF, YOU KNOW, THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THIS IS TO HAVE A SHARED WALKING EASEMENT. UM, BECAUSE I, I MEAN THIS IS IN THE INTENT, THE INTENTION IS THAT THIS IS MY, MY, MY HOME, MY PERMANENT HOME. I MEAN, THEY WERE, THEY WERE COMPLETELY REMODELED, YOU KNOW, DOWN TO THE SHE THE CORE. UM, SO THERE'S NO INTENTION TO DO ANY DEVELOPMENT WITH THIS HOME. IT'S JUST MY PERSONAL HOUSE. UM, WELL, I, I BRING IT UP, UH, AND I I COMMEND YOU FOR, FOR THE PRESERVATION ACTIVITY AND, AND I BRING THIS UP AS A MORE GENERAL POINT PERHAPS FOR MR. BUTLER TO, TO TALK WITH, UH, OUR CHAIRS OF THE, THE COMMITTEE. THIS IS THE TYPE OF, OF, UH, THING THAT I THINK THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONSIDER AS YOU LOOK AT DENSIFICATION. UM, AND, AND IT'S, IT'S ODD ENOUGH OR JUST DIFFERENT ENOUGH THAT I THOUGHT I'D, I'D REMARK AND SAY THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY PERHAPS TO MAKE THIS EASIER OR, OR MAKE IT MORE CLEAR AS WE GO FORWARD TO OTHERS WHO MAY DO THE SAME THING. THANK YOU MR. KAPLAN. AND YOU'RE CORRECT, WE'RE LOOKING AT JUST THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AT THE COMMITTEE, AT THE LIVABLE PLACES COMMITTEE. UM, BECAUSE I, AND I'M, I'M ACTUALLY ON THIS. I'M ON THE BASIS COMMITTEE AS A MATTER OF FACT. EVEN BETTER. THANK YOU . YEAH. GREAT. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR OH, OKAY. WE HAVE SOMEBODY IN THE CHAT WHO WANTS TO SPEAK. GO AHEAD. UH, YES, THE APPLICANT, ANDREW MOND ALSO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME BRIEF COMMENTS. OH, OKAY. ANDREW ALLMAN. UH, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, UH, MR. KAPLAN KIND OF STEPPED IN THERE AND SAID EVERYTHING THAT I WAS GONNA SAY, SO HE DID A GREAT JOB OUTLINING OUR CASE AND KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE. AND UM, WE JUST APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS JUST LET ME KNOW. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. ALLMAN? IF NOT, UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONERS? UM, SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLOT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS FURTHER DISCUSSION. IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION SMITH. SMITH. IS THERE A SECOND? HEES HEES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 65, ITEM 1 65 IS GROVES AT SPRINGWOOD. THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ETJ WITHIN HARRIS COUNTY ALONG KIRKENDAL NORTH OF CYPRESSWOOD. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE FOR A DUPLEX COMMUNITY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT EXTENDING TWO STREETS TO THEIR PROPERTY NOR TERMINATING THEM WITH CUL-DE-SACS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW. STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENT. THIS ITEM AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER? UM, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 65? IF NOT, UM, IS THERE NO DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER? MOTION GARZA SECOND ROBINS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE [01:45:01] MOTION CARRIES. IT IS DEFERRED. ITEM 1 66, ITEM 1 66 IS HER HOUSE. 1910. THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ETJ WITHIN HARRIS COUNTY ALONG MILLER WILSON ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS TO BUILD ONE HOME BEHIND AN EXISTING HISTORIC HOME. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO NOT EXTEND TWO STUB STREETS THROUGH THE SITE NOR TERMINATE THEM WITH CUL-DE-SACS. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST. THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG MILLER WILSON ROAD, SOUTH OF THE CROSBY VILLAGE SINGLE FAMILY COMMUNITY. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO LOTS AND TO ADD A DWELLING UNIT TO A PROPERTY THAT INCLUDES A CIRCA 1910 HOME, THE PROPERTY IS AFFECTED BY TWO STEP STREETS TO THE SOUTH AND THESE SUB STREETS HAVE BEEN IN THIS CONFIGURATION SINCE 1910. THE PROPOSAL TO ADD A DWELLING UNITS TO THE APPROXIMATELY FIVE AND A HALF ACRE PROPERTY WILL NOT GENERATE TRAFFIC TO WARRANT CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL STREETS. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF CHAPTER 42 AND FINDS THESE STREETS DO NOT NEED TO BE EXTENDED AS A RESULT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. HARRIS COUNTY'S EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION TO THIS APPLICATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE VARIANCE IN APPROVING THE PLAT FOR THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT. THIS ITEM, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UM, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO'S SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? UM, SO THE RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM 1 66 IS THERE BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN, IF THERE IS NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION CLARK? IS THERE A SECOND? HINES HINES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES IT'S APPROVED. ITEM 1 67 ITEM 1 67 IS HERITAGE PLAZA. THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG CULLEN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF GRIGGS ROAD. THE APPLICANT FEATURES, OR EXCUSE ME, PROPOSES SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ALONG A SHARED DRIVEWAY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG CULLEN RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 STAFFER COMMENDS DEFERRAL FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW. STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT IN THIS ITEM AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UM, THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. UM, MS. OWENS, ARE YOU HERE FOR QUESTIONS? YES, I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON 1 67? IF NOT, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION. IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER MOTION GARZA GARZA. IS THERE A SECOND? AYE ISH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 1 68. ITEM 1 68 IS HIGHLAND MEADOWS MOBILE HOME PARK GP. THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HARRIS COUNTY ETJ NORTH OF ALDE MALE ROUTE WEST OF JFK IN EAST OF ALDINE WESTFIELD. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A PAIR OF RESERVES FOR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT EXTENDING LAD BUR LANE THROUGH THE SITE AND TO NOT TERMINATE SANDYDALE LANE WITH CUL-DE-SAC. STAFF RECOMMENDS A SECOND DEFERRAL FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED GPS IMPACT ON CIRCULATION AND ACCESS. DURING THE FIRST DEFER DEFERRAL PERIOD, STAFF MET WITH THE APPLICANT AND HARRIS COUNTY TO EXAMINE THEIR REQUEST. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED SOME GENERAL INFORMATION OF HOW PROVIDING A PUBLIC STREET CONNECTION WOULD AFFECT THE FEASIBILITY OF THEIR DESIGN. THESE FACTORS INCLUDE FUTURE DEDICATION TO AN ABUTTING DRAINAGE AREA AND THE LOSS OF PROPOSED DWELLING UNITS. DURING THE SECOND DEFERRAL PERIOD, THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE REVISED MATERIALS THAT SUPPORT THEIR JUSTIFICATION. STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENT IN THIS ITEM AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OKAY, THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER? UM, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE. UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER? AYE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. IT'S DEFERRED. ITEM 1 69. ITEM 1 69 IS INTERNATIONAL LIFE CHANGE MINISTRIES. THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ETJ WITHIN HARRIS COUNTY ALONG BAMO, NORTH HOUSTON ROAD WEST OF, EXCUSE ME, NORTH OF WEST RICHIE ROAD. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESERVE TO DEVELOP A CHURCH. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO NOT EXTEND TWO STUBS STREETS NOR TERMINATE THEM WITH CUL-DE-SACS. STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW. STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT IN THIS ITEM. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE TO SPEAK ON 1 69? NO. UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER IF THERE IS NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER? MOTION ROBINS [01:50:01] GARZA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM ONE 70, ITEM ONE 70 MARNEY HEIGHTS THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON CITY LIMIT NORTH OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SIX 10 AND EAST OF TC JESTER BOULEVARD. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A VARIANT TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT EXTENDING OAK FOREST DRIVE THROUGH THE SIDE, BUT TERMINATING IT WITH THE CULDESAC STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. PREVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT PROPOSED A PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH SOLE ASSETS TO THE FREEDOM WORLD TO SIX 10. THIS PREVIOUS PROPOSAL IS NO LONGER UNDER CONSIDERATION DURING THE DEFERRAL PERIOD, THE APPLICANT REDESIGNED THE PROJECT AND IS NOW PROPOSING 37 SINGLE FAMILY LOT WITH SHARED DRIVEWAYS TAKING ASSETS TO A PROPOSED CUL-DE-SAC AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. MOST OF THE LOT WILL BE DUPLEX AND THE UNIT COUNT IS 60. SO THE DISTANCE ALONG ASHBURY DRIVE BETWEEN TC JESTER AND GASEY ROAD IS ABOUT 2,970 FEET. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO EXTEND OAK FOREST DRIVE TO SIX 10 FEET ROAD, WHICH IS IDENTIFIED WITH A RED ARROW. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. WHICH IS TO MEET THE INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENTS. OAK FOREST STOP TREE WAS RECORDED IN 1955 WITH, UH, THE SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTH WITH THE PURPOSE TO BE EXTENDED WHEN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED. SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOW BEING REDEVELOPED INTO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO TERMINATE BOTH FOREST DRIVE WITH THE ES STACK. THIS PROPOSAL WOULD MEET AND PRESERVE THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WILL HAVE ADEQUATE VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ASSETS TO THE ADJACENT PUBLISHED STREET AND NEARBY FACILITIES IN THIS AREA. TERMINATING OAK FOREST DRIVE WITH THE CUL STACK WOULD ALSO PROVIDE A PROPER TURNAROUND AND ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES WILL BE ALSO AVAILABLE ALONG THE COOLER STACK. PUTTING MORE TRAFFIC FROM THE FEEDER ROAD WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CUT THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS THERE'S NO LONGER A STREET CONNECTION. STAFF RECEIVED NUMEROUS PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE RELATED TO TRAFFIC SAFETY AND GUEST PARKING. THE APPLICANT PROPOSING 10 GUEST PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION AND THE COOL SET WILL ALSO PROVIDE ABOUT ANOTHER, UH, 10 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES. SO ALLOWING PUBLIC STREET ASSETS IS BENEFICIAL TO THE SAFETY, HEALTH, AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS THE RESIDENT OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WILL NOW HAVE ACCESS TO RESIDENTIAL STREET TO ACCESS NEARBY SCHOOL, RETAIL DAYCARE, THE HYKEN VICTORIA AND OTHERS PUBLIC WORK. WE REVIEW THE PLAID AND IS ALSO IN SUPPORT OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION. THE STEP RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLA STEPS TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION. OKAY, THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE QUITE A FEW PUBLIC SPEAKERS, BUT, BUT FIRST I'LL ASK IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. RODRIGUEZ. COMMISSIONER CLARK. I'M LOOKING AT THE T AND I DON'T SEE WHERE THERE'S PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO GET TO OAK FOREST. UM, THERE'S NO PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. THERE'S NOT PROPOSING STANDING FROM OAK FOREST DRIVE. SO WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS THAT LIVE THERE THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED TO RIDE THE BUS? 'CAUSE THEY'RE TOO CLOSE TO ALL OF THOSE SCHOOLS THAT ARE IN THAT AREA. WE'RE HAVING TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR THE DISTANCE OF THE INTERSECTION SPACING. AND THAT'S A COUPLE THOUSAND FEET. YEAH. AND NOW THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO WALK ALL THE WAY DOWN SIX 10 FEETER ROAD TO GET TO EITHER TC JE OR ELLA. DO WE REALLY THINK THAT'S A SMART, SAFE ROUTE? THERE'S A SIDEWALK ON ASHBURY STREET. SO THE KICKING, HOW DO THEY GET TO IT? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. WHERE IS FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC? SO THERE'S A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AT THE CUL-DE-SAC. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SIDEWALK ALONG THE CUL-DE-SAC, WHICH CONNECTS TO THE SIDEWALK, TO THE ADJACENT SUBDIVISION. I THOUGHT THEY WERE FENCING THIS PROPERTY OFF. NO, BECAUSE NO LONGER. UM OKAY. A PRIVATE STREET. IT IS THE SURE. DRIVER DEVELOPMENT. OKAY, GREAT. YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH, THIS IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT YES. DIFFERENT [01:55:01] PLAN THAN WE SAW LAST TIME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE CALL SPEAKERS? OKAY. UM, WE HAVE QUITE A FEW. PLEASE BEAR WITH ME. I'VE GOT A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENT LISTS I'M TRYING TO MERGE HERE. BUT THE FIRST SPEAKER IS THE APPLICANT RICK GROTH USE APOLOGIZE. START OVER. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS RICK GROTH. UM, AS IT'S BEEN MENTIONED, THE PLAN HAS BEEN CHANGED SINCE TWO WEEKS AGO. WE DID THIS FOR TWO REASONS. UM, ONE, THE FIRST, WE WERE ORIGINALLY SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO NOT EXTEND OAK FOREST TO KEEP THAT SUBDIVISION PRIVATE. SINCE THEN, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS CHANGED THEIR OPINION ON IT AND THUS, IN ORDER TO MOVE THIS PROJECT FORWARD, WE MADE THAT CONCESSION. THE SECOND WAS THE PREVIOUS PLAT SHOWED A PAE OVERLAPPING A, AN EXISTING ACCESS AGREEMENT THAT WAS DETERMINED BY LEGAL TO NOT BE FEASIBLE SINCE A BY DEFINITION A PAE CAN ONLY SERVICE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND THAT ACCESS AGREEMENT WOULD ALLOW BUILDINGS OR ACCESS TO THE OFFICE BUILDINGS TO THE WEST. UM, WE NEED OUR, OUR INTENT HERE TODAY IS TO GET SOMETHING THAT APPEASES EVERYONE WE NEED TO GET THE PROJECT MOVING FORWARD. WE WOULD PREFER THE PREVIOUS PLAT, UH, SOLELY BECAUSE IT REALLY DOES HELP OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH. THEY DON'T WANT THIS. AND WE FEEL THAT ACCESS OFF OF SIX 10 FOR THIS IS FEASIBLE, UM, IN OPPOSITION. IF THIS WAS TO HAVE CONTINUED ON AS THE OFFICE BUSINESS PARK AS IT WAS PLATTED FOR OAK FOREST WOULD NOT BE GOING THROUGH IN ANY, IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, STANDBY. WE'LL CALL YOU BACK AT THE END IF, IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS. OKAY. UH, THE FIRST SPEAKER I THINK IS GONNA BE, UM, DELINDA HOLLAND. HOLLAND. H-O-L-L-A-N-D. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS DELINDA HOLLAND AND I'M A 44 YEAR RESIDENT OF SHEPHERD FOREST. AND TODAY, I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING WITH THE CITY'S OWN RECORDING. IN 1996 OF MORE THAN 1300 CARS DAILY PASSING THROUGH THE OAK FOREST IN BURY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FROM THIS DUPLEX RENTAL PROJECT WOULD CREATE AN EVEN GREATER DANGER FOR AND HARDSHIP FOR SHEPHERD FOREST. THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ALONG OAK FOREST IS ALREADY RESTRICTED NORTH OF STONECREST AND ADDED TRAFFIC FOR RESIDENTS ALREADY FORCED TO WALK IN THE STREET WOULD CREATE A MORE DIRE SITUATION FOR THESE PEDESTRIANS. PARKING ISSUES WITH THE INFLUX OF 60 TO 70 RENTAL UNITS IN THEIR GUESTS WOULD ONLY WORSEN OUR ALREADY CROWDED STREETS MAKING EVEN MORE DIFFICULT FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES ON THE CITY DESIGNATED EMERGENCY THOROUGHFARE. THAT'S WHY WE COULD NOT GET SPEED BUMPS THERE. IT'S HARD TO FOLLOW WHY THE CITY WOULD RECOMMEND A CUL-DE-SAC WHEN NEITHER THE APPLICANT OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANT IT. AND ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE. IT PUTS THE SINGLE ENTRY TO A LARGE RENTAL PROJECT IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ALREADY TRAFFIC CONGESTED NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE AND A DECISION THAT WOULD BE FELT FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? UM, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ASHLEY GARNER, G-A-R-N-E-R-I. HI, UH, MY NAME'S ASHLEY GARNER, G-A-R-N-E-R. UM, I HAVE ONLY BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR FOUR YEARS. I'M A MOTHER OF TWO AND I HAVE ONE ON THE WAY. SO YOU CAN IMAGINE THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT, UM, PART OF OUR COMMUNITY TO ME. SO AS THEY'VE MENTIONED, EVERYONE IS AGAINST ANY SORT OF ENTRANCE THROUGH OAK FOREST. THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS. UM, I THINK NOT ONLY ARE THERE OTHER OPTIONS, BUT TO YOUR POINT, COMMISSIONER GARZA. UM, PREVIOUSLY THE OTHER OPTION ACTUALLY DOESN'T ADD AS MUCH CONCRETE AND DOESN'T ADD ADDITIONAL ROADS. UM, IT IS ACTUALLY UTILIZING ROADS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE. SO THAT IS ONE BENEFIT. UH, THE OTHER BENEFIT IS I AM NOT A TRAFFIC STUDY GENIUS, BUT BY MY QUICK MATH, WE HAVE ABOUT 200 HOMES IN OUR CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'D BE ADDING 35 UNITS, BUT THEY'RE DUPLEXES. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT 70 OF HOMES REALLY IN REALITY, UM, YOU'D BE INCREASING OUR TRAFFIC JUST RIGHT OFF HAND. [02:00:01] 30% I AM, AGAIN, NOT A TRAFFIC STUDY EXPERT, BUT THAT'S AT LEAST 30% INCREASE. UM, AND FROM A PERSONAL LEVEL, WE ALREADY HAVE PEOPLE DRIVING VERY FAST DOWN OUR ROAD. UM, IF WE ASK 'EM TO SLOW DOWN, THEY LOVE TO GIVE US SOME EXPLETIVES IN FRONT OF OUR CHILDREN. SO I'D REALLY LIKE TO NOT HAVE A FULL ROAD ACCESS TO SIX 10 WHERE PEOPLE CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT. UM, BUT WE WOULD LIKE YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVES WHERE YOU'RE NOT ADDING ROADS, YOU'RE NOT MAKING AN INTEREST TO OAK FOREST. AND THAT WOULD MAKE EVERYONE EXTREMELY HAPPY THAT IT DIRECTLY IMPACTS ON THEIR DAILY LIFE. OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? UH, THANK YOU. THE NEXT, UH, SPEAKER IS GONNA BE, UH, BID NUT NUTT BID NUT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS BID NUT. I'M A RESIDENT OF SHEPHERD FOREST FOR 44 YEARS. I AM AGAINST THE EXTENSION OF OAK FOREST DRIVE. THE INCREASED TRAFFIC, INCREASED STREET PARKING, POTENTIAL CRIMES AND LOSS OF PROPERTY VALUES WOULD BE A BURDEN TO ALL OF US AS HOMEOWNERS. THE MAJORITY, UH, MEY HEIGHTS PROPERTY MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR RESIDENTIAL USE, BUT I THINK THE REQUESTED DELAYS CHANGE OF PLANS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, DENIAL OF DRIVEWAY USE, INDICATE THIS PROPERTY REALLY MIGHT HAVE BEEN BEST SUITED FOR COMMERCIAL USE. HOWEVER, WE'RE TODAY TO STATE THAT THE MAIN OBJECTION TO THIS PROJECT AND USING SHEPHERD FOREST SUBDIVISION TO ACCESS THIS PROJECT VIA OAK FOREST DRIVE BY EXTENDING OAK FOREST DRIVE DEVELOPERS, WE BELIEVE INSTEAD OF EXTENDING OAK FOREST DRIVE, WE BELIEVE THE DEVELOPER HAS OTHER OPTIONS TO ACCESS THIS PROPERTY. THIS BUSINESS OF THE DEVELOPER IS IN THE RENTAL OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE PROPOSED CUL-DE-SAC RESULTS IN THE DEVELOPER LOSING ROUGHLY SEVEN TO NINE UNITS COMPARED TO USING ANOTHER ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. IT COULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE DEVELOPER AS WELL AS A SHEPHERD FOREST RESIDENCE TO FIND THIS ENTRANCE TIME. I'M SORRY, YOUR TIME'S EXPIRED. YOU WANNA WRAP UP REAL QUICKLY? THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. NUTT? UM, OKAY, NEXT SPEAKER IS, UH, PATRICIA WILLIAMS. I DO HAVE A HANDOUT AND I JUST GO AHEAD AND GIVE IT TO SOMEBODY. THANK YOU. STANDING NEAR YOU. I MADE FOUR COPIES SO THAT YOU COULD THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS FOR HEARING US TODAY. MY NAME IS PATRICIA WILLIAMS AND I'M THE SHEPHERD FOREST CIVIC CLUB PRESIDENT. AS YOU CAN TELL FROM THE NUMEROUS LETTERS, EMAILS, CALLS AND SPEAKERS, THE SHEPHERD FOREST RESIDENCE DO NOT WANT FOREST DRIVE TO BE OPEN IN ANY WAY. NOT ONE RESIDENCE HAS SAID TO ME THAT IT SHOULD BE OPEN. IN ADDITION, THEY ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE CUL-DE-SAC BEING BUILT. THE APPLICANT, UH, RICK GR HAS TOLD US THAT HE DOESN'T WANT THE CUL-DE-SAC EITHER, AS YOU HAVE HEARD JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO. WELL, WHAT IS BEST THEN? THAT MARIGNY HEIGHTS OWNER ALSO OWNS THE DRIVEWAY FROM WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD. AND IT, IT IS CURRENTLY OPEN 2 6 10. SO THERE'S ALREADY A DRIVEWAY THERE. IT'S NOW BEING USED BY BUSINESS PARK. AND THIS BUSINESS PARK HAS FOUR OTHER DRIVE DRIVEWAYS TO ENTER THAT BUSINESS PARK. SO IT'S NOT JUST ONE DRIVEWAY THAT THE, IF IT WAS REPEAT SPEAKER, ONE MINUTE, I, YOU KNOW WHAT WE HAVE, I CAN'T TELL WHO'S I'M GOING TO DO. EVERYBODY. TWO MINUTES. YES MA'AM. JUST GO AHEAD. YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER MINUTE, . THANK YOU. UH, SO WITH THIS, THE MORIGI HEIGHTS, UH, OWNER COULD HAVE THE, A GATE ENTRANCE, A GATED ENTRANCE TO THE RESIDENCE FROM THE SIX 10 DRIVEWAY. AND THAT WOULD SOLVE MANY OF THE ISSUES. THERE WAS A 1996, UH, CITY OF HOUSTON TRAFFIC STUDY, AND I'VE JUST PASSED THAT OUT. THAT SHOWS THERE WAS 1,290 VEHICLES EACH DAY ON BERRY. AND 18% JUST RIGHT, 18% WERE SPEEDING. SO YOU CAN IMAGINE WHAT IT IS FROM 1996 TO TODAY, UH, THE APPLICANT IS ESTIMATING THAT ABOUT 400 VEHICLES EACH DAY WILL, UH, ENTER AND EXIT THE PROPERTY FROM MARIGNY HEIGHTS. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE BECAUSE I'M, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S IN CHAPTER 42, BUT THAT MAY EXCEED THOSE LIMITS. [02:05:01] I ALSO WANT TO MENTION ABOUT PEDESTRIANS WALKING. OFTENTIMES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET, WE HAVE MANY SENIOR CITIZENS, UH, STUDENTS GOING TO WALTRIP HIGH SCHOOL, I WENT TO WALTRIP, SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT ONE. UH, WALKING THEIR DOGS, JOGGING, ET CETERA. THAT IS A PROBLEM IF YOU HAVE ALL THE TRAFFIC. AND THEN ALL THE PEDESTRIANS, WE ALSO HAVE CRIME. UH, WE HAVE, UH, THE GUEST PARKING WOULD PERHAPS INCREASE THE CRIME BECAUSE PEOPLE, WE HAVE, UH, A LOT OF SMASH AND GRAB AND CATALYTIC CONVERTERS GOING AWAY, AS YOU KNOW. AND THE AC WAS EVEN STOLEN AT BURY TWO DAYS AGO. SO, AND IT IS AN EMERGENCY THOROUGHFARE, UH, ASBURY'S, AN EMERGENCY THOROUGHFARE. SO YOU THINK ABOUT ALL OF THE TRAFFIC THAT'S HEADED THAT WAY. WE ALSO ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE NOISE POLLUTION AND FLOODING ISSUES. AND I KNOW YOU'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE. I WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING TO OUR CONCERNS AND ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. OKAY. UM, TRYING TO CALL ON THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE ROOM FIRST, SO THAT'S WHY I KEEP KIND OF GOING BACK AND FORTH HERE. UM, IS DON BARNES HERE? MR. BARNES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. UM, WENDY BURMA. WENDY BURMA. I'M, I'M NOT, UH, AT THE LOCATION, BUT I'M ON VIDEO CHAT. THERE YOU ARE. OKAY. JUST GO AHEAD THEN. YES. HI, MY NAME IS WENDY BERMA. UM, I SPOKE A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. I AM A RESIDENT OF FOREST AND LIVE ON THE FIRST COSAC ON, UH, BERRY. I ECHO THE CONTINUED CONCERNS OF MY FELLOW NEIGHBORS AND, UM, I I, I DON'T WANNA KEEP, YOU KNOW, REPEATING, UM, THAT, BUT I GUESS MY JUST GENERAL QUESTION IS JUST HOW ARE WE GOING TO REMEDY THE CONCERNS OF OUR RESIDENTS AND, UM, THE APPLICANT AS WELL. SO THAT, THAT'S JUST SOMETHING I GUESS TO THINK ABOUT. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE OR FOR BEING WITH US. UM, OKAY. UH, JOAN DELANEY, I THINK NOW WE'RE, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM WHO'S HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS? OKAY, WHY DON'T YOU JUST COME UP ONE AT A TIME AND THEN I'LL FIND YOU ON THE LIST. THE FIR THE YOUNG LADY IN THE FRONT. JUST GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR US. SHARON UT THANK YOU. SHARON LAU, GO RIGHT AHEAD. I DO CONCUR WITH EVERYTHING EVERYBODY HAS SAID. ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS POPULATION INCREASING, NOT JUST HERE, BUT IT'S BEEN ESTIMATED THAT THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD TODAY WILL DOUBLE BY 2050, WHICH COULD CAUSE MORE FLOODING PROBLEMS AROUND, BUT THAT BURY BE IN THE, UM, ROUTE THAT HFD AND HPD TAKE. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW ANYBODY WOULD WANT ANY MORE TRAFFIC COMING DOWN THERE. AND HOW WOULD THEY EVER COME DOWN TO BURY IF THERE WAS AN, UM, ISSUE IN THE, AND IT WAS A CUL-DE-SAC. I THINK THAT WOULD JUST REALLY BE DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO, UM, SERVICE THAT AREA. AND I THINK IT'S TOO MUCH TRAFFIC AND AS WELL AS, UH, CONCURRING WITH EVERYBODY ELSE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. ANY QUESTIONS FROM MS. LAUCHE? UM, OKAY. UH HMM. OKAY. YEAH. AND I BET YOUR MARK SHOTS. OH, OKAY. TRIED TRY FIVE. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RIGHT. ALRIGHT. MY NAME IS GARRETT IKA. I AM A HOMEOWNER ON OAK FOREST DRIVE. UM, I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS, I HAVE A 4-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER AND OPENING THIS DRIVE UP TO SIX 10 WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR US. UM, OH GOD. SO I WANT TO JUST BRING UP A POINT THAT, UH, BOTH SHEPHERD FOREST RESIDENTS AND THE DEVELOPER SUPPORT THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO BE ABLE TO NOT RUN THESE STREETS THROUGH OR HAVE A CUL-DE-SAC. UM, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE CITY OF HOUSTON, HISD AND OTHER PROPERTY TAX, UH, OTHER, OTHER ENTITIES THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY TAX PAYROLL SHOULD ALSO SUPPORT THIS. UH, THE VARIANCE IS NOT APPROVED. THE DEVELOPER WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE LAND FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A STREET OR CUL-DE-SAC, AND, UH, DIMINISH THE AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS THEY CAN PUT ON THIS PROPERTY. SO, UH, THIS EITHER [02:10:01] PROPOSAL WOULD TAKE PROBABLY 6, 7, 8, 8 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. UH, REVIEW OF, OF OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNITS BUILT NEARBY, UH, BRINGS UP A TAXABLE VALUE OF $383,000, UH, AT 2.33% TAXABLE RATES. UH, SO THIS WOULD DIMINISH, UH, YEARLY TAXES BY ABOUT A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. YOU ROLL THAT OVER 50 YEARS OF THE, UH, EXPECTED LIFE EXPECTANCY, YOU'RE AT ABOUT $3.2 MILLION BASED TO TAXES. SO, UM, THE CITY OF HOUSTON, HISD, EVERYBODY HAS SOMETHING TO GAIN BY APPROVING THIS VARIANCE. SO, UM, THAT'S MY CONCERN. I SHARE, SHARE THE OTHER CONCERNS, TRAFFIC, NOISE, EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD HAPPEN TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON'S BEST INTEREST, UM, AS A TAX ACCEPTING ENTITY TO ACCEPT THIS VARIANCE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, ANY QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. CAN, CAN, CAN, CAN THE ORIGINAL PLAN BE PUT UP ON THE SCREEN, PLEASE? THAT WAS THE, UH, REQUEST TO MAKE ACCESS FROM SIX 10. YEAH, IT, THEY WITHDREW THE PLAT, SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT. GOTCHA. CAN, AND I MISSED IT. CAN YOU, CAN I, CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY, UM, IT WAS COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG? CAN I GO AHEAD AND FINISH THE, THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THEN WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION BY COMMISSION? I JUST DON'T WANNA HOLD UP THE REST OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE, WHO ARE IN THE ROOM. YEAH, I, I THOUGHT, YES, HER COMMENTS, I'LL COME RIGHT BACK TO YOU. UM, OKAY. JOAN DELANEY, I THINK, WELL, ANYBODY ELSE WHO'S HERE? OKAY, THEN. JOAN DELANEY. OH, YES. OKAY. SORRY, I DIDN'T SEE YOU COME FORWARD. I CAN'T HEAR WHAT SHE'S SAYING. WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL. OKAY. OH, OKAY. WE'LL COME TO THAT WHEN WE DELIBERATE, BUT I JUST, WE'RE RIGHT NOW WHAT OUR JOB IS TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, SO I WANNA GET THROUGH THAT. AND, UM, DID I CALL JOAN DELANEY? DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. DIANE, UM, BACK SHOWER, BAT SHOWER. IS BAT SHOWER NOT PRESENT? KEITH BURMA. KEITH BURMA NOT PRESENT. UM, ANGELICA LOZANO. ANGELICA LOZANO NOT PRESENT. UM, IRENE. UM, DUKE. D-U-Q-U-E. DUQUE. DUKE, IRENE NOT PRESENT. AND MARK SHOTS. MARK SHOTS. OKAY. UM, THAT'S EVERYONE I HAVE ON MY MANY LISTS HERE. WHO DO WE, WHO ELSE DO WE HAVE? MADAM CHAIR, WE HAVE ONE FROM THE CHAT. ANNETTE ANGEL, ANNETTE ANGELO. YES. SPELL THE LAST NAME. A-N-G-E-L-O-N-E. OKAY. ANNETTE ANGEL. HELLO? DO YOU HEAR ME? WE DO. GO RIGHT AHEAD. OKAY. ALRIGHT. I'M CALL, UH, MY LAST NAME IS A-N-G-E-L-O-N-E. AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MY 92-YEAR-OLD MOTHER, WHO, UM, HAS BEEN AN PROPERTY OWNER IN THE SHEPHERD FOREST SINCE INCEPTION. UH, BY OPENING OAK FOREST, UH, SHE SEES THAT THE TRAFFIC, THE PARKING, AND POTENTIAL CRIME WILL INCREASE. OUR CRIME IS ALREADY INCREASING, UH, DUE TO, UH, MORE INHABITANTS IN THE AREA. AND WE JUST THINK THAT THIS WILL BE, UH, A VERY BAD SITUATION TO HAVE 70 NEW RENTAL UNITS, UH, IMMEDIATELY BEHIND US. WE FEEL THAT THIS, UH, THE SAFETY ISSUES, BECAUSE WE HAVE NO SIDEWALKS AND FAMILIES ARE ALWAYS WALKING ON OUR STREETS, UH, WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT. WE SEE THIS AS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER. WE ALSO SEE THE INCREASED TRAFFIC ON BERRY. WE'LL TURN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREET INTO A MAJOR EAST WEST ACCESS TO ELLA AND TC JESTER, AND WE SEE THAT THE RESIDUAL TRAFFIC OVERFLOW WILL BE COMING DOWN ALL THE OTHER STREETS, INCLUDING OUR STREET, RON, HOLLY. AND WE SEE THIS AS A DEFINITE THREAT TO THE SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY AND AFFECT THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND, UH, WE ASK THAT, UH, THIS [02:15:01] IS NOT, UH, OPEN AND THAT WE OBJECT WHOLEHEARTEDLY TO OAK FOREST BEING OPENED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING TODAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. ANGELO? THANK YOU. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO IS, OH, I GUESS I DO. GO AHEAD, MADAM CHAIR. WE HAVE TWO MORE, A SANDY ESPINOSA AND AN ALFONSO ESPINOSA. OKAY. SANDY ESPINOSA. HI THERE. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. UM, JUST TO PAINT THE PICTURE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD, I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT FOR OVER 20 YEARS. I LIVE OFF OF AMESBURY. UM, OUR HOUSES ARE BUILT IN 1950, UM, IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. SO IF YOU CAN GO BACK AND SEE WHERE, UM, THE, WITH THAT AGE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OUR DRIVEWAYS CAN ONLY, UM, FOR THE MAJORITY OF OUR DRIVEWAYS, THEY'RE ONE CAR DRIVEWAYS. SO THAT MEANS THAT ONLY A MAXIMUM OF TWO VEHICLES CAN SIT ON OUR DRIVEWAYS AND OUR PROPERTIES ON BURY AND OAK FOREST. SO PLEASE CONSIDER, UM, WHERE WE CAME FROM AS A NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR, HOW WE CAN, WE ALREADY OCCUPY THE STREETS ON BOTH SIDES, UM, ON HANSBERRY AND ON OAK FOREST. SO IMPACTING ANOTHER 70 UNITS GOING OFF OF BOTH OF THESE STREETS WILL BE ABSOLUTELY IMPACTFUL FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO PLEASE KEEP THAT IN CONSIDERATION. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. ESPINOZA? OKAY. AND THEN THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ALFONSO ESPINOZA. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE NOTICE OF VARIOUS SIGN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD STILL READS, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OR THE DEFINITION OF A DUPLEX IS MORE COMMONLY DEFINED AS A MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING. ORIG HEIGHTS IS NOW EFFECTIVELY PROPOSING A DEDICATED MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL. COMMUNITY. RENTAL COMMUNITIES LIKE APARTMENTS HAVE A DEDICATED PRIVATE ACCESS THAT DOES NOT ENCROACH IN THE MIDST OF AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD TO PROPOSED RENTAL. COMMUN WILL INTRODUCE A 30% PLUS INCREASE IN TRAFFIC TO OUR SMALL SUBDIVISION REGULATED SOLELY BY THE OPENING OAK FOREST. THIS IS NOWHERE NEAR PROPORTIONATE OR SAFE TO OUR SUBDIVISION. OAK FOREST DRIVE IN THE INTERSECTING BURY IS ALREADY HEAVILY BURDENED WITH A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PASS THROUGH TRAFFIC FROM NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES THAT DO NOT ABIDE BY POSTED SPEED LIMITS. DUE TO LACK OF SPEED BUMPS ON SAIR AFFECTING WALKERS, RUNNERS, ELDERLY CHILDREN AND STUDENTS, THE LACK OF SPEED BUMPS IS DUE TO BEING DESIGNATED AS A EMERGENCY THOROUGHFARE. WITH THAT SAID, THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR THIS MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL COMMUNITY APPEARS TO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE PARKING FOR ITS TENANTS, MUCH LESS GUESTS, WHICH WILL INCREASE THE OVERFLOW ON THIS DESIGNATED EMERGENCY THOROUGHFARE AFFECTING THE WELLBEING AND SAFETY OF RESIDENTS. IF VEHICLES, EMERGENCY VEHICLES ARE NOT ABLE TO PASS WITH EASE, HAS ALSO UNDERSTOOD THERE'LL BE A PRIVATE TRASH COLLECTION SERVICE FOR THIS MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL COMMUNITY, WHICH CREATES ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC BURDEN FROM SUCH LARGE SERVICE VEHICLES. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, THE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES, UH, WILL USE THIS PROPOSED ACCESS FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, FURTHER CREATING STRESS AND SAFETY ISSUES FOR THE DAY-TO-DAY LIFE OF OUR RESIDENTS, AND FURTHER JEOPARDIZE THE EMERGENCY THOROUGH ASBURY. NOT TO MENTION SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES THAT COULD FURTHER DELAY THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE. WE KINDLY PLEAD, BUT STRONGLY REQUEST THE NEW RENTAL COMMUNITY HAVE SOLE ACCESS VIA THE ALREADY EXISTING DRIVEWAY VIA THE SIX 10 FEEDER. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. ESPINOZA. AND CLARIFY THAT ACCORDING TO OUR ORDINANCE, A DUPLEX IS CONSIDERED A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. SO JUST FOR I UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND. WE GET YOUR POINT, BUT THANK YOU. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. UM, ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK? WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE IN THE CHAT. THERE'S NO ONE ELSE HERE. IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING THAT I CALLED THAT DIDN'T RESPOND? UM, OKAY. THEN WE'RE GONNA CLOSE DOWN ON THE PUBLIC AND WE'RE GONNA GO TO THE COMMISSION TO DO A LITTLE DELIBERATION AND I'LL COME BACK TO COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG. UM, GO AHEAD AND START OVER PLEASE. YEAH. UH, SO WE DO NOT HAVE AN IMAGE OF, OF THE PREVIOUS ONE THAT WAS WITHDRAWN. SOMEBODY I'M LOOKING TO, I'M LOOKING TO MS. MAORI. I THINK WE HAVE IT, IT'S JUST THAT IT'S NOT ON THE TABLE. DOCUMENT CAMERA, PLEASE. WELL, MY, MY QUESTION SPECIFICALLY IS HERE, WE PUTTING IT UP ON THE, UM, WAS THE IF OR NOT SUPPORTED BY THE CITY. THERE YOU GO. CAN YOU SEE THAT? NO, MA'AM. UH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK HE CAN SEE THE, WELL, I, I CAN FINISH WITHOUT SEEING IT. UH, OKAY. JUST, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE REASON WAS. MY, MY GENERAL COMMENT [02:20:01] IS IN THE BIG PICTURE OF THINGS, UM, IF REAL ESTATE LEGAL ACCESS CAN BE GRANTED OFF OF SIX 10, UM, CAUSING PEOPLE TO DRIVE ALL THE WAY AROUND OFF SIX 10, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE MOST COMMON DIRECTION, THEY'RE COMING FROM LOOP ALL THE WAY THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD. CAUSE ALL THOSE EXTRA VEHICLE MILES, UH, DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A LOGICAL RATIONALE. IF THIS IS, CAN BE LEGALLY DONE AND IT'S SAFE FROM SIX 10, UM, I WOULD SUPPORT IF IT, IT COULD BE, UM, REVERSED BACK TO AN ORIGINAL PLAN THAT I DO BELIEVE, UH, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE CRITICAL. UM, BUT AGAIN, MY COMMENT WAS SINCE I UNFORTUNATELY MISSED THIS LAST MEETING, UM, AND WAS NOT AWARE OF, UH, THE ISSUES SURROUNDING IT, JUST WANTED TO VOICE, UM, MY QUESTION TO, TO WHY SIX 10, UH, ACCESS TO SCHOOL. OKAY. DO OKAY. DO MS. RODRIGUEZ, DO YOU WANNA RESPOND TO HOW WE GOT FROM THAT TO THIS OR ON THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, HE, THE APPLICANT PROPOSED A TYPE TWO PAE PRIVATE STREET, WHICH OVERLAPPING AN EXISTING ASSET EASEMENT THAT IS SERVING THE ADJACENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. IT'S A LOT OF NOISE. OKAY. SO WHO'S GOT THEIR PHONE? EVERYONE MUTE YOUR COMPUTER OR YOUR PHONE? WE'RE HEARING TRAFFIC. PLEASE MUTE STAR SIX OR MUTE YOUR, IF YOU'RE DRIVING WITH A COMPUTER, YOU'RE DRIVING A COMPUTER. CAN, CAN WE EVERYBODY THE PHONE? OKAY. YES, THANK YOU. OKAY. SO, UM, IT WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 42 BECAUSE, UM, THE PRI PRIVATE STREET CANNOT SERVE COMMERCIAL. THE INTENT IS ONLY TO SERVE RESIDENTIAL. SO THE APPLICANT WAS ADVISED TO MODIFY THE ASSET AGREEMENT BEFORE, UM, COMING FOR EVALUATION OF THE VAN REQUEST, BUT THE APPLICANT DECIDED TO REDESIGN THE DEPOSIT AND SUBMIT WHAT IS WITH THE PROOF OF SAC AND SHARED DRIVEWAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. UM, THIS MEETS, THIS MEETS CHAPTER 42. THIS ONE, JEFF ACCEPT THE VAN REQUEST, WHICH IS EXCEEDING THE INTERSECTION SPACING. RIGHT. AND THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE VARIANCE? YES. OKAY. RIGHT. SO TO CLARIFY, HOLD ON A SECOND. COMMISSIONER CLARK, WHO'S NEXT? SO I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THIS HAS BEEN FLIPPED. I THINK IT CREATES A VERY UNSAFE SITUATION. I LIVE JUST NORTH OF THIS AREA. MM-HMM . I DRIVE IT ALL THE TIME. YEAH. THAT ROAD IS LIKE A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE BERRY. PEOPLE FLY BACK AND FORTH. AND SO NOW INSTEAD OF PUTTING THAT TRAFFIC ON SIX 10, WE'RE GONNA PUT THAT TRAFFIC INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MAKE IT MUCH MORE UNSAFE THAN WHAT IT IS TODAY. UM, AND WHEN I SAY THEY FLY, I AM NOT KIDDING YOU, YOU MOVE YOUR CAR OVER TO LET THEM GO BY. THEY GO SO QUICK BECAUSE THEY CUT OVER FROM ELLA OR TC JESTER TO GET TO AND FROM. I, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS GOOD SOUND PUBLIC POLICY. I THINK IT'S UNSAFE TO BRING THAT TRAFFIC INTO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I, I KNOW IT'S BEEN RESUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT MM-HMM . BUT I THINK HE DID IT SO HE COULD GET IT THROUGH. UM, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT WE WORK WITH THAT ORIGINAL PLAT AND FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK. I WOULD RATHER SEE US GIVE A VARIANCE TO LET THAT ROADWAY CONNECT TO THE COMMERCIAL THAN TO CONNECT AND PUT 70 TO 140 MORE CARS ON BERRY EVERY DAY. SO, UM, HAVING THE CONNECTION TO THE FETAL ROAD, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICANT AND START, UH, UB SUBMIT THE APPLICATION. WE CANNOT CONSIDER THE PREVIOUS PLOT. AND, UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT. YES, I APPRECIATE THAT. I UNDERSTAND. AND HE WILL HAVE TO WORK OUT THE AGREEMENT AND, UH, HE ALSO HAVE TO COORDINATE WITH OC TO SEE IF THEY WILL BE GETTING A PERMIT TO GET A DRIVER CONNECTION TO THE ALWOOD AS WELL. AND SO, HAVE WE ASKED THE APPLICANT IF THEY'RE WILLING TO DO THAT SINCE THAT IS THE WAY THEY SUBMITTED THE ORIGINAL PLAT? I MEAN THE, A THE APPLICANT WAS ADVISED TO ADDRESS THE, AT EASTMAN, HOWEVER, UH, STAFF ALSO FEEL THAT THERE SHOULD BE A CUL-DE-SAC CONNECTION AT LEAST. SO THAT WOULD GIVE THE FUTURE RESIDENT DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE TO TRAVEL TO THE NORTH AND PEDESTRIAN TO THE NORTH WITHOUT HAVING TO ACCESS TO THE FEEDER ROAD. SO PREVIOUSLY I HAVE, UM, THERE'S A FLIGHT I THINK AFTER THE RECOMMENDATION, UM, WHICH SHOW THE DIFFERENT, IF THE OAK FOREST WAS NOT EXTENDED OR TERMINATED WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE, UM, THE VEHICLE TRIP TO GO TO WEST 34 OR THE NEARBY [02:25:01] FACILITY ALONG THE WEST 34TH STREET, PLEASE SWITCH TO THE OVERHEAD. I MEAN, EXCUSE ME TO THE DOCUMENT SPLIT SWITCH AWAY FROM THE DOCUMENT CAMERA PLEASE. HTV. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. A IS THAT, UM, I, I, I MEAN I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. OKAY, LET ME CALL ON COMMISSIONER MODEST FIRST AND SEE WHERE YOU WERE COMING FROM. WELL, I, I WAS CLARIFYING. SO BECAUSE THEY ARE NO LONGER TAKING ACCESS FROM SIX 10, IT REQUIRES A, A LARGER INTERSECTION SPACING THAN THE ORDINANCE. AND THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE TABLE TODAY. AND, AND TECHNICALLY THAT'S THE ON THEORETICALLY, THAT'S THE ONLY VARIANCE THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING BECAUSE GETTING ACCESS FROM SIX 10 IS OFF THE TABLE IN THIS EXACTLY. CONFIGURATION. EXACTLY. SO IF THE APPLICANT WAS NOT REQUESTING A VARIANCE, THEN THEY WILL HAVE TO EXTEND OAK FOREST, OAK FOREST DRIVE UP TO THE FEED OF OAK AND MAKE A CONOR SITE CONNECTION. RIGHT. SO I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT FOR EVERYBODY. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S ON THE TABLE, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S ON THE TABLE IS, IN MY OPINION, A SAFETY ISSUE. IT IT'S A HUGE SAFETY ISSUE. AND IF YOU AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA, , I CAN TELL YOU THERE ARE CUT THROUGHS. THEY CUT OVER ONTO ELLA, THEY FLY THROUGH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY FLY UP TC JESTER TO GET OVER TO TOWARDS THE TWO 90 AREA AND VICE VERSA. AND SO I'M, IT'S A HUGE CONCERN OF MINE THAT WE'RE GONNA PUT THAT MUCH TRAFFIC OUT THERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. COMMISSIONER SMITH, I I WOULD, I WOULD JUST OFFER THIS AS A STARTING POINT, OR NOT A STARTING POINT, BUT A COMMON, THE, I THINK THE COMMISSION, THE SPEAKERS, THE APPLICANT ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT CHAPTER 42 RULE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE VARIANCE IS A FULL STREET CONNECTION FROM THE OAK FOREST STUB TO SIX 10. I WOULD OFFER THAT THAT IS, IS, UH, EASILY APPROVABLE BY THE COMMISSION. UH, BECAUSE THE EXISTENCE OF THAT ACCESS DRIVEWAY EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDES A SECOND DRIVEWAY UNDER OUR, UNDER CURRENT RULES, WHICH IS A, A GRANDFATHERING CONDITION OF NO CAUSE OF THE OWNER. RIGHT. SO THE VARIANCE IS, IS NOT IN DISPUTE. WHAT HAS RESULTED FROM THE SEQUENCE THOUGH IS THE PLAT THAT'S IN FRONT OF US, AND WE HAVE TO SIMULTANEOUSLY APPROVE THAT WITH WHATEVER CONDITIONS OR WHATEVER RECOMMENDATION THE STAFF IS. I, UH, I, I UNDERSTAND IT WOULD BE GOOD IF WE HAD TWO PLATS TO CHOOSE FROM, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S IN OUR PURVIEW AT THE MOMENT. RIGHT. SO WE HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT THE APPLICANT TELLS US NEXT ABOUT WHY HE MADE THE CHOICES HE DID AND GO FROM THERE IN, IN MY OPINION. THANK YOU. AND THIS HAS BEEN DEFERRED TWICE SO WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEFER IT AGAIN. UH, THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT? THAT IT CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. WHO ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? ANYBODY? UM, OKAY. COMMISSION. CAN WE HEAR? YES, OF COURSE. UM, MR. GROTH, COME BACK. THANK YOU. UM, TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN, WE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT TWO WEEKS AGO AND WITH DEALING WITH FOUR OTHER OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATIONS AND TRYING TO GET THEIR AGREEMENTS TO TERMINATE THAT ACCESS EASEMENT IS NOT THE EASIEST THING. UH, THEREFORE YEAH, WE MADE THE DECISION JUST TO MAKE A QUICK CHANGE. THANK YOU. THAT EXPLANATION HELPS. STILL NOT HAPPY WITH IT, BUT IT HELPS. THANK YOU. WE AREN'T EITHER . MR. GARTHUS, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANTED TO SHARE WITH US OR SAY, OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF, IF THERE IS A WAY TO EASILY OVERLAP THE AGREEMENT WITH THE PAE, WE WILL DEFINITELY TAKE THAT OPTION. UM, IT'S JUST OBVIOUSLY A MATTER OF TIMING AND EVERYBODY, EVERY DEVELOPER TRIES TO GET THEIR PROJECTS THROUGH AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. THIS IS NO EXCEPTION. I'M LOOKING TO MS. MAHER TO SEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO. AGAIN, FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. NO, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION. UH, THE DEFINITION SECTION IN CHAPTER 42 FOR PRIVATE STREETS TYPE TWO PAES IS EXCLUSIVELY FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE. GIVEN THAT THIS IS A COMMERCIAL EASEMENT THAT IS EXISTING, APPLICANT IS CORRECT, THEY MAY BE, UH, IT IS PROBABLY AN UPHILL BATTLE FOR THEM TO REVISE THAT COMMERCIAL EASEMENT TO SOLELY BE ALLOWED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL USE. UM, UNTIL, AND UNLESS THEY DO THAT, THERE IS NO ABILITY OF THEM REQUESTING A VARIANCE BECAUSE CHAPTER 42 CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT THE, UH, VARIANCES ARE NOT ALLOWED FROM DEFINITION SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE. SO THIS, THIS IS, THIS IS A REAL LEGAL, UH, ISSUE THAT THEY MUST DO IT OUTSIDE AND THEN SUBMIT WHATEVER, UH, IT RESULTS TO. AND THERE'S NO OTHER ACCESS FROM SIX 10 EXCEPT THE ACCESS [02:30:01] EASEMENT YES. CURRENTLY FOR THEM. OKAY. UH, IF THE COMMISSION, COMMISSION FEELS, OR, OR, OR, OR THERE IS ANOTHER OPTION THAT THE APPLICANT COULD, COULD LOOK AT IS, UH, CURRENTLY THERE IS NO EXIT 2, 6 10. THERE COULD BE AN A WAY THAT THE APPLICANT MAY WORK OUT THAT THE DESIGN THAT YOU SEE ON THE SITE IS THE DESIGN THAT REMAINS. HOWEVER, THERE IS AN EXIT FROM ONE OR THE OTHER SHARE DRIVEWAY TO BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO EXIT OUT INTO THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. BUT THAT WILL BE AN EXIT OUT. UH, AND IN FOR THESE RESIDENTS ONLY NEIGHBORHOOD WILL NOT BE IMPACTED BECAUSE THE RESIDENTS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE ABLE TO COME IN FROM THE ACCESS EASEMENT, GO INTO THE SHARED DRIVEWAY, NOT OAK FOREST, BUT GO INTO THE SHARED DRIVEWAY AND ACCESS THEIR RESIDENCE. HOWEVER, NO RESIDENCE OF OAK FOREST OR NO PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE THROUGH CONNECTION, BUT THEY WILL, THAT WOULD DIVIDE THE TRAFFIC. UH, SOME COULD GO NORTH, SOME COULD GO, UH, SOUTH, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT MAY CONSIDER AFTER THE FACT. ALSO AFTER, IF YOU CHOOSE TO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, APPROVE THE VARIANCE TODAY. A QUESTION FOR APPLICANT. IS THERE GONNA BE A G OR IS THIS GONNA BE A PUBLIC STREET WITH JUST, JUST PRIVATE SHARED DRIVE OFF OF IT? UH, BY CHAPTER 42, IT CANNOT BE A PRIVATE STREET, UH, COMING OFF OF A DEAD END. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? UH, OKAY, SO WHAT IS, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT? OKAY. UM, WHAT'S BEFORE US ON A, IF WE COULD PUT UP THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR IT. IT'S TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AND HERE WE GO. UM, YEAH, THE RECOMMENDATION IS GRANT AND APPROVE. SO, UH, QUESTION MADAM CHAIR. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER GARZA. SO BASICALLY, UH, MR. RODRIGUEZ, OUR HANDS ARE TIED. THERE'S REALLY ONLY ONE OPTION HERE FOR US TO DO. AND IT IS THIS, THAT'S IT. OR THEY LIE. YEAH. AND, AND WHAT'S THE IMPLICATION OF DENYING IT AND WHAT, WHAT DOES IT, HOW DOES THAT PLAY OUT AFTER? IF IT, IF WE WERE TO DENY REACTION, IF IT WERE TO BE DENIED MS. RODRIGUEZ, WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP? THEY WILL HAVE, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED IF THEN OAK BOY DRIVE THROUGH THE PETER ROAD MAKE A NORTH STOP CONNECTION, THEY'D HAVE TO REAPPLY OR THEY'D HAVE TO REAPPLY. THEY'D HAVE TO FIGURE IT OUT AND REAPPLY. AND THEY COULD STILL DO THAT, BUT THEY COULD STILL DO THAT. IF THE SOLUTION COMES LATER, THEY COULD COME BACK AND THAT WOULD BE CHAPTER 42. THE EASIEST THING FOR THEM TO DO IS PUT IT THROUGH STREET ALL THE WAY TO, TO THE FREEWAY. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WORST, NONE OF US WANT TO HAPPEN. WORST SCENARIO. SO I CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING THAT I WANT, BUT I CAN GET PART OF IT IS WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO. AND THAT IS LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC COMING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THAT WOULD BE MY GOAL, AGAIN FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF SAFETY. SO, UM, DISCUSSION AND THEN I'LL BE READY TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, UH, IS THERE A MOTION GARZA FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION GARZA. IS THERE A SECOND? MAR SECOND? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? AYE. AYE. NAY. RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION. WE HAVE, AND I HEARD ONE ON VIDEO. WE HAVE, UM, CLARK ROBINS. WAS THERE ANYBODY VIRTUAL WHO'S VOTING? NO. ROSE ROSENBERG. ROSENBERG. OKAY. SO THE MOTION CARRIES WITH THREE NO VOTES BY COMMISSIONERS CLARK ROBBINS AND ROSENBERG. UM, WITH THAT, THANK YOU, WE MOVE ON TO ITEM 1 71. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS TAMMY WILLIAMSON. ITEM 1 71 IS OAK BERRY TRAILS GP. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON'S ETJ AND NORTHWEST HARRIS COUNTY, ALONG AND WEST OF KICKAPOO ROAD. BETWEEN WALLER, SPRING CREEK AND CASTLE ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES TO EXCEED 1400 FEET MAXIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING, ONE ALONG THE NORTHWEST GP BOUNDARY AND TWO ALONG THE NORTHERN GP. BOUNDARY STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF BOTH REQUESTS. OAK'S TRAIL GP IS A 200 ACRE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. THE WESTERN GP [02:35:01] BOUNDARY ABUTS PROPOSED BENFORD CREEK GENERAL PLAN, THIS GP RECEIVED A VARIANCE LAST YEAR TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG ITS EASTERN BOUNDARY BETWEEN ITS PROPOSED STUBB STREETS ON EITHER SIDE OF KICKAPOO CREEK OAK BERRY TRAILS. GP IS PROPOSING TO CONNECT TO TWO OF BENFORD CREEK'S, STUBB STREETS FOR THE SECOND VARIANT. THE SITE IS BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY THE FLOODPLAIN OF KICKAPOO CREEK AND IS PROPOSED TO BE DETENTION AND DRAINAGE BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THE CREEK. THE CREEK IS CROSSED BY BENFORD ROAD AND KICKAPOO ROAD. NO INTERNAL STREETS ARE PROPOSED TO CROSS THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE CROSSING OF THE CREEK WITH THE WIDTH OF 220 FEET OR MORE, NOT MORE THAN EVERY HALF MILE. IN THIS CASE, ONE CROSSING BETWEEN BENFORD AND KICKAPOO ROADS IS REQUIRED. HOWEVER, THE EXISTING LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF THE CREEK WOULD MAKE FOR A DIFFICULT CONNECTION. THE PROPOSED CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THIS GENERAL PLAN AND BENFORD CREEK GP WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE CIRCULATION AND REQUIRING ANOTHER STREET TO MEET THE INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENT WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST, THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS TO GRANT BOTH VARIANCE REQUESTS AND APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS STAFF'S NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NONE. COMMISSIONER CLARK? NO, I WAS JUST GONNA MAKE A MOTION. OKAY. UM, YEAH, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON, UH, OAK BERRY TRAILS 1 71. IF NOT, UM, IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN? MOTION? CLARK. CLARK? IS THERE A SECOND? AYE. TAHIR? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 72, ITEM 1 72 IS QUARTET DEVELOPMENT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON'S ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY BETWEEN JONES ROAD AND NORTH ELDRIDGE PARKWAY AND BETWEEN CYPRESS NORTH HOUSTON ROAD AND GRANT ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A COMMERCIAL RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE RESERVE NOT TO HAVE FRONTAGE AND ACCESS FROM A 60 FOOT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, BUT INSTEAD FROM A 60 FEET INGRESS EGRESS EASEMENT. STAFF REQUEST THAT THIS PLAT BE DEFERRED FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP AND TO COORDINATE WITH HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING FOR DRAINAGE CONCERNS. OKAY, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON 1 72? UM, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER? MOTION? SMITH? SMITH? IS THERE A SECOND? HIDES GARZA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. IT'S DEFERRED. ITEM 1 73. ITEM 1 73 IS STORY TRACKED. GP THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON'S ETJ IN NORTHWEST HARRIS COUNTY BETWEEN BECCA ROAD AND BAY ROAD, WEST OF WARREN RANCH ROAD AND BISECTED BY PROPOSED KAABOO ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED 1400 MAXIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG THE EASTERN GP BOUNDARY FROM BECCA ROAD TO THE PROPOSED PUBLIC STUB STREET STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST STORY. TRACKED GP IS A 426 AND A HALF ACRE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED IS ALONG THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE EASTERN JEEP GENERAL PLAN BOUNDARY. THE PROPOSED INTERSECTION SPACING FROM BECCA ROAD TO THE PROPOSED STUBB STREET IS 2,635. STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE ONE ADDITIONAL SUB STREET TO FUTURE CONNECTIONS. IN 2008, A GENERAL PLAN WAS APPROVED FOR THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT SITE'S EASTERN BOUNDARY, WHICH PROPOSED ONE EAST WEST THROUGH STREET. LATER THAT YEAR, ONE SECTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN WAS RECORDED FOR A DATA CENTER FACILITY. THE PROPOSED STREET SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN AT THE TIME WAS NEVER RECORDED OR OTHERWISE DEDICATED. THE THIS GENERAL PLAN STORY TRACKED IS PROPOSING A STUBB STREET JUST SOUTH OF THE EXISTING FACILITY BETWEEN THE TWO MAJOR THOROUGHFARES, BECCA ROAD AND BATH ROAD. THE TWO SHOWN STUBB STREETS WILL PROVIDE STREET PROVIDE STREET NETWORK CONNECTIONS, EASTWARD ALLOWING FOR ADEQUATE TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, AND CONNECTIVITY. PRESENTLY, THE ALIGNMENT OF MAJOR THOROUGHFARE KICKAPOO [02:40:01] ROAD AS SHOWN ON STORY TRACK GP DOES NOT MATCH THE ALIGNMENT SHOWN ON THE MOST CURRENT GENERAL PLAN SOUTH OF BATH ROAD. GRAND PRAIRIE GP. THE APPLICANTS AND DEVELOPERS OF BOTH GENERAL PLANS HAVE BEEN IN COORDINATION ABOUT THIS. FUTURE ALIGNMENT STAFF RECOMMENDS A CONDITION THAT NO SECTIONS WITHIN STORY TRACKED GP CAN BE SUBMITTED WITHOUT HAVING THE ALIGNMENT OF KICKAPOO ROAD AGREEING WITH BETWEEN THE TWO DEVELOPMENTS. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO THIS CONDITION AND WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN FOR GRAND PRAIRIE WOULD MOST LIKELY BE SUBMITTED AT SOME POINT NEXT MONTH. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST, THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN. SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS, STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UM, STAFF? NOT, UH, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED IN THE CHAT? OKAY. THEN, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT AN APPROVED BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN. UH, IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION CLERK SECOND HEINS HINES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 74, ITEM 1 74 IS TRUSS WIG BUSINESS PARK GP. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON'S ETJ IN NORTH HARRIS COUNTY NORTH AND ALONG TRUSS WIG ROAD, NORTHEAST OF BURNHAM WOOD BOULEVARD AND SOUTHWEST OF CYPRESSWOOD DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT EXTENDING NOR TERMINATING IN A CUL-DE-SAC LU LUDGATE DRIVE. STAFF REQUEST THIS ITEM BE DEFERRED FOR TWO WEEKS PER HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING'S REQUEST TO DETERMINE IF EMERGENCY ACCESS WOULD BE REQUIRED. THE STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCE PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. WILLIAMSON? WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS. UM, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER GARZA SECOND CLARK? CLARK? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. IT IS DEFERRED. WE GO TO SECTION E, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1 75. MADAM CHAIR, CAN I JUST MAKE A COMMENT REAL QUICK? YES, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER CLARK. UM, I KNOW THAT, UH, WE WORK HARD TO TRY TO GET EVERYTHING, NOT DEFERRED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BUT IN LOOKING AT JUST THIS AGENDA, AND I KNOW IT'S, IT APPLIES TO MANY OTHER AGENDAS, WE SEEM TO DEFER A LOT LIKE THIS SUBMITTAL PERIOD, 40% OF THE, UM, PUBLIC HEARINGS AND, UM, VARIANCES ARE DEFERRED. AND I KNOW THERE'S DEED RESTRICTION ISSUES AND ALL OF THAT, BUT BECAUSE WE'VE EXTENDED THE NOTIFICATION TIME, WHICH WE'VE EXTENDED IT BY 10 MORE DAYS, I JUST WANT EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND, AND I KNOW STAFF UNDERSTANDS THIS, BUT AS A DEVELOPER, WE SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A DAY DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE TYPE OF FINANCING WE'VE DONE EVERY DAY THAT WE'RE DELAYED. SO IF WE'RE DELAYING 10 DAYS ALREADY, ACTUALLY MORE THAN 10 BECAUSE WEEKENDS, BANKS AND INVESTORS DON'T CUT THAT OFF . UM, SO IT'S REALLY GONNA BE MORE LIKE 14 DAYS FOR US. AND IF YOU EVEN JUST THINK ABOUT $5,000 A DAY PER LOT, THAT ADDS UP QUICKLY. ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO, AND I KNOW I'M, I'M LOOKING AT STAFF, ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO TRY TO HELP APPLICANTS GET THINGS SUBMITTED IN A MORE TIMELY MANNER. AND I KNOW A LOT OF TIMES WE DON'T NOTIFY UNTIL FOUR O'CLOCK WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON. I'M JUST ASKING IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO HELP OUT BECAUSE OF THE EXTENDED NOTIFICATION PERIOD. IT WOULD BE REALLY APPRECIATED BY, UH, THE INDUSTRY. I'M SURE. SO, AND COMMISSIONER CLARK, JUST BECAUSE YOU, I THINK WE'RE AT THE ABSENT AT THE LAST MEETING MM-HMM . WE ARE HAVING A PARTICULAR ISSUE NOW THAT ARVA HOWARD HAS RETIRED. RIGHT. AND WE HAVE RIGHT. A, YOU KNOW, A DIFFERENT, A DIFFERENT PROCEDURE MM-HMM. FOR DEED RESTRICTIONS. THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF PUTTING ANOTHER BURDEN ON THE DEFERRALS AND THE TIME PERIOD. WE'RE WORKING VERY HARD ON THAT. RIGHT. UM, DIRECTOR MARGARET WALLACE BROWN IS, YOU KNOW, KNOW YEAH. THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. I ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND THIS. 'CAUSE THEY DO, I MEAN, SOMETIMES THEY'RE SO OLD AND THERE'S BEEN AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES AND, AND I TOTALLY GET THAT. YEAH. SO THAT, BUT THAT ADDS TO WHAT IT DOES WOULD NORMALLY BE, AND THAT, AND THAT'S NOT THE ONLY REASON YOU'RE REFERRING. RIGHT. AND IF YOU TAKE THOSE, SO I, I WAS A MATH NERD WHILE WE WERE DOING THIS, SO IF YOU TAKE THE DEED RESTRICTION, UH, ISSUES OUT STILL 22% OF EVERYTHING WE LOOKED AT IS DEFERRED. SO JUST A REQUEST. YEAH. YOU KNOW, WE HEAR YOU. OKAY. AND I KNOW THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING FOR A LOT OF OUR CUSTOMERS OUT THERE. YES. SO THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THAT TIME. SURE. OKAY, WE'RE [e. Subdivision Plats with Special Exception Requests (Devin Crittle)] ON ITEM 1 75. MADAM [02:45:01] CHAIR. I'M GONNA RECUSE FROM 1 75. OKAY. NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER HEIS WILL BE ABSTAINING ON 1 75. GO AHEAD MR. CRILE. THANK YOU. ITEM 1 75 IS BRIDGELAND MASON ROAD STREET DEDICATION, SECTION SEVEN. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN HARRIS COUNTY NORTH OF CENTRAL BRIDGELAND PARKWAY AND SOUTH OF HOUSE HALL ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO ALLOW MINIMUM, MINIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG MAJOR FAIR AIRFARE. MASON ROAD STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE MASON ROAD STREET DEDICATION IS A 100 FOOT MAJOR. FAIR FAIR LOCATED IN THE BRIDGELAND LAKELAND VILLAGE GENERAL PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION RECENTLY GRANTED THE SAME REQUEST TO ALLOW MINIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING WITH BRIDGELAND CENTRAL SECTION ONE JUSTIFICATION FOR SU JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPORTING THE VARIANCE WAS RELATED TO THE HARRIS COUNTY MUD LIFT STATION RECORDED IN 2019. THE LIFT STATION WAS APPROVED ON THE BASIS THAT ACCESS WILL COME FROM AN ACCESS EASEMENT UNTIL A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. PENNYBACK OR BRIDGE DRIVE WAS DEDICATED SINCE THEN. BRIDGELAND CENTRAL SECTION ONE REMOVED THE STREET, REMOVED THE STREET FROM THE PLAT BOUNDARY. AS A RESULT, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS REQUIRED DUE TO THE FIXED STREET LOCATION WITHIN BRIDGELAND CENTRAL SECTION THREE. THE, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ARE BOTH 2% AND SIX 16%. SLIGHT DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD HARRIS COUNTY HAS VOICED NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST. AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MR. CRILE? I DO. UM, YES. COMMISSIONER SMITH. COULD WE SEE THE, THE PICTURE THAT SHOWED THE, THE, THE LENGTH OF THE PLAT AND ADJACENT PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. I, THERE'S AUB STREET ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET THAT FACES A PRE-EXISTING SUBDIVISION AND IT'S, UH, SO IT'S APPARENTLY A, UH, PIECE OF ACREAGE OR A RESERVE. ARE THERE ANY CPC 1 0 1 CONDITIONS OR, OR COMMENTS RELATED TO THE PLATTING OF THE ADJACENT RESERVE OR THE EXTENSION OF THAT ROAD TO THE GP BOUNDARY? JOHN, CAN YOU SHOW THE SUBDIVISION PLA UH, EXHIBIT AND UM, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE, OUT THE, THE OUT TRACK, THE OUT LOT THAT'S TO THE EAST, CORRECT? THERE'S A, THERE'S A GAP BETWEEN THE STUB STREET ON MASON THAT'S WITHIN THIS PLAT AND THE GP BOUNDARY, WHICH REPRESENTS THOSE OUT TRACKS. AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THERE'S ANY REPRESENTATION OR, OR NOTE OR REQUIREMENT RELATED TO THE COMPLETION OF THAT STUB STREET TO THE GENERAL PLAN BOUNDARY? SO THIS, UH, THIS, UH, THE STREET DEDICATION, UH, ACTUALLY JOHN, JUST GO TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT IF YOU CAN. UH, THE REASON THIS WAS RESUBMITTED WAS TO EXTEND THE STUB STREET TO THE OUT TRACKED. UM, THERE'S NOT AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT THAT WE MADE, BUT THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE SUBMITTAL. THAT'S PROBABLY NOT THE BEST EXHIBIT, BUT, UH, PENNY, THE STUB STREET OF PENNYBACK ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY WAS EXTENDED A LITTLE FURTHER THAN THE PREVIOUS, UH, VARIANCE THAT WAS GRANTED A FEW MONTHS AGO. THAT'S YEAH. ADJUSTED AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING YES SIR. IT'S BEEN EXTENDED. YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. YES SIR. YES SIR. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE CHAT WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS? OKAY. UM, SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE, UH, SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND APPROVE THE PLOT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WHICH ARE ON THE SCREEN. UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION? CLARK. CLARK. IS THERE A SECOND? GARZA GARZA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM, [f. Reconsiderations of Requirement (Devin Crittle)] UH, WE'RE ON RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENTS 1 76. MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE. THE COMMISSION, WE'D LIKE TO TAKE BOTH OF THESE ITEMS TOGETHER, BUT THEY WILL NEED SEPARATE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS. OKAY. I MEAN, MOTION. EXCUSE ME. YES. 1 76 AND 1 77. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UH, ITEMS 1 76 AND 1 77 IS CEDAR HOMES AT 38TH STREET AND CEDAR HOMES AT 39TH STREET. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF 39TH STREET AND ARLINGTON STREET AND ALSO 38TH STREET AND ARLINGTON STREET AND HOUSTON CITY LIMITS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT TO NOT DEDICATE FIVE FEET ALONG ARLINGTON STREET AND 39TH STREET STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. BOTH OF THE BOTH OF THE PROPOSED SITES ARE COMPRISED OF TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS FROM THE INDEPENDENT HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, SEPARATED BY A 12 FOOT ALLEY. BOTH ARLINGTON STREET AND EAST 39TH STREET WERE PLATTED WITH 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAYS. SINCE THEN, THE NEARBY PROPERTIES HAVE REDEVELOPED INTO RELIGIOUS AND MULTIFAMILY USES THAT REQUIRE BOTH STREETS TO BE 60 FEET. THE CURRENT CONDITION OF ARLINGTON STREET HAS NOT BEEN IMPROVED AND DOES NOT PHYSICALLY MAKE A CONNECTION TO EAST 39TH STREET. [02:50:02] STAFF HAS WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH THE APPLICANT TO COME UP WITH THE BEST SOLUTION TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE LOTS, UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT SITUATION OF THE ROADWAY. THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN SHOWS ALL FOUR LOTS TAKING ACCESS FROM ARLINGTON STREET. THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO COORDINATE WITH HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE, TO A PORTION OF THE 12 FOOT ALLEY AND ARLINGTON STREET. THE RESULTS OF THEIR IMPROVEMENT WILL ALLOW VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM ARLINGTON STREET TO EAST 39TH STREET AND ALSO ALLOW FOR ALLEY ACCESS FOR THE ABUTTING LOTS. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WILL REMOVE TWO DRIVEWAYS ALONG ARLINGTON STREET AND ALLOW FOR REAR ACCESS FOR TWO OF THE FOUR PROPOSED LOTS IN THE FUTURE. WHEN THIS BLOCK REDEVELOPS, THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES HAVE THE ABILITY TO EXTEND THE ALLEY SO OTHER LOTS ON THE BLOCK CAN HAVE ALLEY ACCESS. SIMILAR TO THIS ONE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT AND APPROVE THE PLAT WITH THE CONDITION AND APPROVE THE PLAT WITH THE CONDITION TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO ARLINGTON STREET AND A PORTION OF THE ALLEY TO ALLOW REAR ACCESS FOR THE ABUTTING LOTS. MADAM CHAIR THAT COM. MADAM CHAIR, THAT COMPLETES MY, UM, MY PRESENTATION AND WE DO HAVE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. UH, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS IS THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR THAT'S DEALING WITH A ENCROACHMENT ISSUE AND WE ALSO HAVE THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER AVAILABLE AS WELL. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. OKAY. UM, I'LL GO AHEAD. THE SPEAKERS ARE SIGNED ON ITEM 1 77. BEFORE I DO THAT, ANY QUESTIONS FROM MR. CRIDDLE ON THIS? OKAY. UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL SPEAKERS. WHICH, UM, WHO IS THE APPLICANT? UM, SO, SO THE APPLICANT IS BEN JAMA AND THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT WANTS TO SPEAK IS, UH, FOIS SALAM. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE EITHER OF THOSE ON MY LIST. OKAY. SO I'M GONNA CALL THE ONES THAT I HAVE. OKAY. UM, SO CHERYL YORK, MS. YORK, YORK. HI. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS CHERYL YORK AND MADAM CHAIRPERSON AND OTHER COMMISSION MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY. I KNOW I HAVE TWO MINUTES, BUT I WANNA TELL YOU A LITTLE SOMETHING ABOUT MYSELF. I HAVE LIVED IN THE INDEPENDENCE HIKES FOR OVER 60 YEARS AND WITH A COMBINATION OF MY PARENTS AND MY GREAT-GRANDPARENTS, IT'S BEEN OVER 150 YEARS ON THAT STREET IN THE AREA. UM, MY FAMILY HAVE WATCHED THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE FROM PAVED STREETS TO DITCHES BEING DUG FROM RODS BEING MOVED TO ACCOMMODATE REBUILDING AND REPLANTING. AND THIS HAS POSED A PROBLEM. BUT HISTORIC HOME IS MY FAMILY HOME. AND NOW WITH THE MOVING OF THE RODS, WE ARE NOW ENCROACHING AS SHOWING TWO TO THREE TO FIVE FEET THIS OCCURS IS A PROBLEM FOR THE LOTS 19 AND 20. WHEN MY PARENTS PURCHASED THE HOUSE 3 21 EAST 38TH STREET, WE WERE NOT ENCROACHED. AND WHEN WE PURCHASED THE HOUSE 30 YEARS AGO, WE WERE NOT ENCROACHED ON THE PROPERTY THAT WAS SOLD FOR DELINQUENT TAXES AND WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT. AND I HAVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR THAT. THE INDEPENDENCE HIKES IS ONE OF THE FIRST COMMUNITIES WHERE BLACKS WERE ALLOWED TO BUY LAND. THE HOUSE JUST WASN'T JUST BUILT IN ANY PLACE. LIKE WE HAVE BEEN TOLD FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE, IT WAS SUBDIVIDED BY THE RIGHT LAND COMPANY. I NEED TO KNOW FROM THIS PLANNING COMMITTEE IF THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED FOR THE APPLICANT, CEDAR HOMES ON 38TH STREET. AND TON HOW I WANNA KNOW THE FOOTAGE FROM THE STREET, HOW CLOSE WILL THE HOMES BE BUILT TO 3 21 EAST 38TH STREET? AND HOW CLOSE WILL THE FENCE BE TO MY HOME? 3 21 EAST 38TH STREET WITH THE ENCROACHMENT IS SHOWING THAT OUR SWITCH, OUR WATERLINE AND THE EASEMENT THAT I THOUGHT WAS THERE IS NO LONGER THERE. PLEASE ALLOW ME THIS TIME OR SHOW ME ON YOUR SCREEN HOW WOULD THIS VARIANCE AFFECT MY HOME. ALSO, THE EXISTING HOMES ARE ALSO, THE HOMEOWNERS ARE CONCERNED. WE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE ELEVATION AND DRAINAGE. WE WANNA KNOW WILL THE EXISTING HOMES, SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED WITH FLOODING? HOW MUCH SOIL WOULD BE BROUGHT IN TO ELEVATE THE LAND OR [02:55:01] AS IT'S LEVELED AS IT SHOWED NOW ON THE PROPERTY? WOULD THAT BE IT? I'M, I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AND I WANNA KNOW HOW WOULD IT AFFECT MY HOME BECAUSE THIS ENCROACHMENT FROM MOVING THE RODS HAVE NOW THIS IS MY SISTER HOME, 3 21 EAST 38TH STREET, BUT I LIVE NEXT DOOR TO HER, WHICH IS THREE 19. AND NOW THIS HAS PLACED MY HOME ACTUALLY IN MY NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, WHICH IS 3 24. NOW A LITTLE BIT, THIS IS OFF THE SUBJECT, I WANNA THANK THIS COMMITTEE FOR SENDING A LETTER BECAUSE WE'VE HAD QUITE A BIT OF DEVELOPMENT ON THIS STREET. AND BECAUSE THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS, I WAS TOLD WHEN I CALLED FOR SINGLE PARENT HOMES BEING BUILT IS WHY WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED A LETTER. SO I DO THANK YOU. WE DID GET A LETTER, BUT WE JUST DON'T HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING HOW IT'S GOING TO AFFECT OUR WAY OF LIVING AFTER THIS POINT. WE DO HAVE CHILDREN TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND HIGH SCHOOL. SO WHEN IT'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC WITH LARGE TRUCKS AND BUILDING, THAT REALLY IS A SAFETY ISSUE FOR THE CHILDREN IN OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MS. YORK. WE UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS HERE AND WE WILL TRY TO SORT THIS OUT. I'M NOT SURE THAT WE CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS IMMEDIATELY. I'M LOOKING AT OUR, OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. YES, I DID CALL, I BELIEVE I SPOKE WITH YOU. I'M NOT, I DIDN'T QUITE SURE, BUT I DID LOOK AT MY, MY DEED ALL DEEDS, WHICH THIS PROBLEM IS CONCERNING AND I JUST NEED HELP. I WANNA BE ABLE TO REST. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS SINCE THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD. OKAY, LET US, LET US HEAR FROM OTHER SPEAKERS. THANK, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO. UM, REGINALD, REGINALD, YORK. GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SHARE TODAY. UM, I HAVE SPOKE WITH THE DEVELOPER ABOUT THAT ARLINGTON STREET ACTUALLY. UM, ARLINGTON STREET JUST CAME UP A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO THAT WAS ALWAYS AN ALLEY. AND UM, I KNOW OF NO, UM, ALLEY THAT'S BEEN DEVELOPED INTO STREET. MY DECEASED NEIGHBORS OF THE BLOCKS BLOCK EIGHT AND BLOCK NINE OF 38TH STREET DEVELOPED ARLINGTON STREET. AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS THERE WAS SOME LARGE DITCHES ON 39TH STREET AND AT THAT TIME, HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD DISTRICT CAME IN AND DUG OUT THE DITCHES. 'CAUSE WATER ALWAYS SETTLED RIGHT THERE AT 38TH AND ARLINGTON. AND MY CONCERN IS THAT WE HAVE A HISTORICAL BLACK CHURCH LESS THAN A BLOCK AWAY WHERE WATER STANDS IF IT'S JUST A SLIGHT BIT OF RAIN. AND WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHERE'S THIS WATER GONNA GO NOW, YOU KNOW, UH, WE GOT PEOPLE WHO TRAVEL NORTH MAIN AS A THROUGH FAIR THAT GOES TO AND FROM WORK THAT GETS OFF OF SIX 10. AND WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, WATER'S GONNA CEASE RIGHT THERE, PROBABLY FLOOD OUT THIS HYSTERICAL CHURCH GOING TO CREATE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. AND LIKE YOU SAW ON THE, ON THE FILM, IF YOU GO SOUTH OF 38TH STREET ON, ON WHAT'S NOW ARLINGTON, IT ENDS AT THE UTILITY EASEMENT. THERE'S NO DRAINAGE DITCHES ON THAT SIDE. IF YOU GO NORTH, THE DITCH THAT'S ON THE WEST SIDE IS ONLY LIKE TWO FEET DEEP. I TOLD THE DEVELOPER, UM, MAYBE A MONTH OR SO BACK THAT THAT WAS ONLY A ALLEY. THE PERSON WHO STAYED AT BLOCK EIGHT, WHICH IS FACING NORTH MAIN AND UM, BLOCK LIGHT EIGHT, BLOCK EIGHT STARTED DRIVING THIS TRUCK IN THERE SO HE COULD GET TO THE BACK OF HIS HOUSE BECAUSE NORTH MAIN WAS A TWO TWO LANE STREET AND HE HAD PROBLEMS GETTING IN AND OUTTA HIS YARD. LATER ON. THIS GUY WHO I WAS A PERSONAL FRIEND OF STARTED DRIVING HIS TRUCK FURTHER UP PAST THE UTILITY EASEMENT WHERE IT'S NOTHING BUT GRASS ON ARLINGTON STREET TO THE DEAD END. WHAT STREETS OF HOUSTON THAT WE HAVE THAT ARE GRASS WITH TWO INCHES, TWO FEET DEEP DITCHES. THAT IS NOT A STREET. OKAY. THEY JUST DEVELOPED MY DECEASED NEIGHBORS DEVELOPED THAT STREET. THANK YOU MR. YORK. YOUR TIME'S EXPIRED, BUT WE APPRECIATE YOUR BEING HERE TODAY. UM, TOWAR ROSS, MS. ROSS TOWAR ROSS, ROSS, AND TAZ SMITH HAS SMITH NOT PRESENT. SO DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE, MR. CRIDDLE? DO YOU, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LISTENING OR WITH US WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON [03:00:01] 1 77? OKAY. HELLO? I, I HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY. COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME PLEASE? YES, MY NAME IS, UH, PAMELA BROWN. B-R-O-W-N. OKAY, GO RIGHT AHEAD. UH, JUST A QUICK QUESTION, SINCE I, UH, ME AND MY MOM LIVE IN THE SAME AREA, JUST A QUICK QUESTION, SINCE THEY ARE TRYING TO, UH, REDO, I GUESS THEY TRYING TO MAKE A PATHWAY THROUGH ARLINGTON STREET 'CAUSE I LIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF, OF, UH, OF, UH, NORTH MAIN. AND, UH, MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT, UH, WILL ANY HAVE ANY EFFECT WHERE WE'RE LIVING AT, IF THEY'RE GONNA BE DOING ANY KIND OF EXPANSION, LIKE SURVEYING, EXPANSION? OKAY. IF YOU LIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF NORTH MAINE, I CAN, I THINK WE'RE SAFE TO SAY THERE'LL BE NO IMPACT ON YOUR, ON YOUR, ON YOUR RESIDENCE OR YOUR STREET. OH, OKAY. THAT, THAT'S ONE MAIN THING I I WANTED TO, UH, WANT TO KNOW. OKAY. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. UM, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 77 OR, OR ACTUALLY 1 76. UM, OKAY, IF NOT MR. CRIDDLE, CAN YOU, WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE PROPERTY LINE ISSUE? SURE, SURE. SO, UH, THE 38TH STREET SITE, UH, JOHN, IF YOU CAN MAYBE JUST GO TO A AERIAL. SO THE 38TH STREET SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT. UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'VE BEEN DEALING OR THERE'S BEEN A ENCROACHMENT ISSUE FOR QUITE SOME TIME. UM, THE ENCROACHMENT ISN'T WITHIN THE BUILDING LINE, SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT ACTION CAN BE TAKEN WITH THAT, BUT, UM, WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS DONE, JOHN SHO UH, SHOWED THE TWO SLIDES, UH, WITH THE PLATS BACK TO BACK. UH, THE APPLICANT HAS, UH, PROPOSED A MAYBE A THREE TO FOUR FOOT, UH, LANDSCAPING, UH, RESERVE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE LOTS. YEAH, SO THERE'S A, THERE'S A LANDSCAPING RESERVE TO TRY TO, UM, HELP THIS SITUATION IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, BUT IT MAY NOT BE, UM, THE LAST THING THEY DO TO TRY TO FIX THIS, UH, SITUATION. UM, THE OTHER COMMENTS RELATING TO THE STREET AND THE DRAINAGE, THIS IS WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND I DO HAVE APPROVED DRAINAGE PLANS FOR BOTH, UH, BOTH SITES ON 38TH AND 39TH STREET. UM, BUT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE ENCROACHMENT, UH, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN ONGOING FOR A WHILE. THE SURVEY, THE SURVEY PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT DOES SHOW THE ENCROACHMENT, BUT, UH, AS FAR AS MOVING RODS BEING MOVED OVER TIME, IT, IT'S DIFFICULT TO, TO PINPOINT, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN OR IF THE RODS MOVE. BUT WE KNOW THAT THIS APPLICANT HAS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO BUILD ON THE PROPERTY. YES, HE, THEY HAVE SUBMITTED OH COM. OKAY. COMMISSIONER? YEAH, I'M, I'M PUZZLED BY THIS AND, AND ESPECIALLY ON A LEGAL AUTHORITY BASIS. IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME. AND, AND I'D ALMOST ASK THAT Y'ALL DEFER THIS ITEM SO THAT WE CAN STUDY THE ENCROACHMENT ISSUE BECAUSE I AM WONDERING IF SHE SPOKE WITH A LAWYER IF SHE DOESN'T HAVE AN ADVERSE POSSESSION CLAIM. I SUSPECT THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME AND THAT MAY NOT BE THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. SO WE DON'T IS IS THE APPLICANT AVAILABLE TO SPEAK OR SHE YEAH, I'M, WE ASKED, I GUESS NOT. IS THE A WE TRIED TO FIND THE APPLICANT BUT NOT PRESENT OR IS THE APP IS BENJA ARE YOU AVAILABLE OR MR. FARAZ? MR. MADAM CHAIR. MADAM CHAIR. MADAM CHAIR. MADAM CHAIR. MADAM CHAIR. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. OKAY. MY, MY NAME IS F SALAM. I AM THE DEVELOPER OF THAT, UH, LOT. UH, THE, THE, UH, THE ENCROACHMENT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO US BY TWO DIFFERENT SURVEYOR COMPANIES AND WE HAVE CUT OUT THE, UM, THE, THE, UH, LANDSCAPE PRESERVED FOR THAT PURPOSE IN ORDER NOT TO DISTURB OUR NEIGHBOR NOT TO TOUCH THEIR HOUSE AND TO SAY, LET ANOTHER DAY COME AND WE'LL DEAL WITH IT. BUT AT THIS POINT, WE ARE NOT BUILDING IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM TO INFRINGE OR AFFECT HER PROPERTY. WE HAVE ACTUALLY OFFERED TO DEED TO THIS LADY, THE ENCROACHED PART, AND WE SAID, WE ARE WILLING TO GIVE IT TO YOU. AND SHE SAID, I DON'T WANT YOU TO GIVE ME ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MINE, THAT IS ALREADY MINE. AND SO THE ISSUE WITH US, IF, IF YOU CHOOSE TO DEFER US AND WE APPRECIATE THAT YOU DO NOT, IS BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN GOING ON AND ROUND AND ROUND AND [03:05:01] THERE IS NO REASON TO DEFER BASED ON HER CONSULTING A LAWYER. WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL DISCUSSION WITH MS. YORK RESPECTFULLY AND SAID TO MR. MS. YORK, WE WILL WORK WITH YOU. WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE A FAIR THING? WOULD YOU LIKE THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE ENCROACHED ON TO BECOME YOURS? SHE HAS REFUSED THAT. SHE KEEPS SAYING THAT THIS IS MINE. WELL, THAT'S WHY WE CALLED IT A, A, UH, A LANDSCAPE RESERVE. AND WE ARE STICKING BY THAT AND WE ARE, THERE IS NO NEED FOR US TO DEFER ANY FURTHER. WE HAVE BEEN PUT OFF ALREADY TWICE AND UH, FOR US IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON WITH OUR PROJECT. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I, I MEAN, I, IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS AN ISSUE BETWEEN TWO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND NOT FOR THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO, TO WEIGH IN ON, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, I MEAN, ARE YOU STILL RECOMMENDING DEFERRAL? WE WE'RE GETTING TO A MIXED MESSAGE. MY CONCERN IS THIS, UM, WHETHER OR NOT THE, THE, THE ADJACENT HOMEOWNER THINKS IT'S ALWAYS BEEN HERS, IT MAY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN HERS, BUT IF IT DOESN'T SHOW THAT ON A DEED SOMEWHERE, IT'S NOT HERS. RIGHT. AND MY CONCERN IS BUILDING THIS, THAT'S A LANDSCAPE RESERVE. THE HOMEOWNER COULD TEAR IT OUT, COULD PUT SOMETHING ELSE THERE. I I I, IT SHOWS THAT AS PART OF THIS LOT, THAT HOMEOWNER IS GONNA PAY TAXES ON IT, PAYING TAXES ON A PORTION OF HER HOUSE IT LOOKS LIKE. AND I THINK IT IS AN ISSUE, AND I GUESS I'M NOT CLEAR WHETHER OR NOT IT'S BEEN CLEARLY WHETHER IT'S BEEN ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. AND, AND THAT'S MY CONCERN. I I WOULD STILL REQUEST A DEFERRAL FOR LEGAL. SO RESPECT, RESPECTFULLY, MADAM CHAIR, RESPECTFULLY, UH, WE HAVE ASKED FOR THE FIVE FOR NOT TO DEDICATE FIVE FEET FROM ARLINGTON FOR ONE PURPOSE, WHICH IS ALSO TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ENCROACHMENT THAT IS HAPPENING ON MY PROPERTY AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS A MATTER THAT COULD BE RESOLVED IN COURT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE COMMISSION TODAY SHOULD LOOK AT IT AND DEFER IT BECAUSE THAT'S A COURT DECISION, WHETHER IT IS HERS OR MINE, THAT, THAT THE COURT WILL DECIDE. BUT FOR ME TO BE DEFERRED JUST BECAUSE MAYBE IT IS HERS, MAYBE IT IS MINE. I DON'T THINK THIS IS RIGHT. I BOUGHT THE LAND KNOWING IT IS MINE. I HAVE SURVEYS THAT SHOWS IT. I HAVE A DEED THAT PROVES IT AND THERE IS NO REASON FOR ME TO BE DEFERRED JUST BECAUSE MAYBE. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. SALAM. WE HAVE SOME COMMISSIONERS THAT WANNA MAKE COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER BARZA. SO MS. MICKELSON, MY ONLY QUESTION IS IF WE DEFER FOR TWO WEEKS, THIS FALLS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSION. I MEAN, I THINK YOU COULD GIVE US MORE INFORMATION AND SAY THIS PERSON OWNS IT, YOU KNOW, PERSON A OWNS IT OR PERSON B OWNS IT, BUT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US OR THE DECISION THAT WE MAKE HERE TODAY. IT SEEMS TO ME, I I AGREE. ABSOLUTELY. AND WITH THE APPLICANT, I AGREE IT'S ULTIMATELY A JUDICIAL DECISION, RIGHT. IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'VE TRIED TO WORK IT OUT. I'M JUST NOT SURE IT'S BEEN UNDERSTOOD. UM, YOU KNOW, AND HONESTLY IT MEANS THAT THAT'S A DIFFERENT PLAT DRAWING THAN WHAT IS SHOWN. UM, SO YOU WERE ANSWERING MY QUESTION THAT I ASKED MR. K CRIDDLE IN THE NEGATIVE CORRECT. AND THAT THAT'S THE ANSWER. CORRECT. OKAY. WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION AND I DO AGREE THAT I THINK THE, THE IDEA IS, IS WE COULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO THE ADJACENT TO THE NEXT DOOR HOMEOWNER. DOES THAT CHANGE ANYTHING ULTIMATELY, IF SHE STILL REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE DEDICATION IF THIS I RESPECT. THANKS MR. SALAM. I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE OKAY. WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING AMONGST OURSELVES HERE. WE'LL, BUT STAND BY. HOLD ON. GO AHEAD MS. NICHOLSON. YEAH, I, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, I, IT'S, YOU KNOW, TO, TO INSIST THAT AN ADJACENT HOMEOWNER MUST THEN TAKE IT TO COURT IS JUST SEEMS KIND OF ONEROUS TO ME. THAT'S JUST A, A BIAS, MAYBE NOT A LEGAL, UM, ANSWER, BUT, UH, OKAY. YEAH. IF WE HAVE A CHANCE TO WORK IT OUT, IT SEEMS BETTER TO WORK, TRY AND WORK SOMETHING OUT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER CLARK, MAYOR, ONE LAST COMMENT, MADAM. MR. SOLAN, GO AHEAD. WE'RE DELIBERATING HERE, SO I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO HOLD ON. WE'LL CALL ON YOU IF WE NEED, NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN. OKAY. GO AHEAD AND COMMISSIONER CLARK, I UNDERSTAND AND ALWAYS RESPECT EVERYTHING THAT YOU ADVISE US ON, BUT I'M JUST HAVE A HARD TIME THAT IN TWO WEEKS IT'S REALLY GONNA HELP THE DECISION FOR THIS, FOR THIS BODY TO MAKE. UM, THE EASY ANSWER IS IF HE WANTS TO GIVE IT TO HER, SHE SHOULD ACCEPT IT, DO THE DEED AND BE DONE. BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY PART OF WHAT WE DO. AND SO WE'VE GOT THE SURVEY. [03:10:01] IT APPEARS TO BE HIS PROPERTY, IT'S BETWEEN THEM. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THAT WE SHOULD GET IN THE MIDDLE OF, FRANKLY, OTHER COMMISSIONERS. OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER? MODEST. WELL, MAYBE FOR CLARIFICATION, CLARIFICATION, EDUCATION. IF IT ENDS UP BEING HER PROPERTY AND THE SURVEY NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED OR SOMETHING, DOES THE APPLICANT COME BACK AROUND TO GET A NEW PLAT? I SUSPECT IT WOULD REQUIRE A REPL. SO, SO THEN, SO HE GAMBLES ON THAT, RIGHT? IF, IF WE APPROVE IT TODAY AND THEN THEY FIND OUT LATER THAT IT'S INCORRECT, HE HAS TO COME BACK AROUND AND RIGHT. AND REPLANT IT. BUT THAT'S HIS GAMBLE. WELL, AND THE POINT IS, IS WE CANNOT FIX THIS FOR MS. YORK. THAT IS CORRECT. IT IS BEYOND OUR ABILITY TO DO THAT. SO IT'S WHETHER TO SHUT THIS DOWN, BUT IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT IN TWO WEEKS OR FOUR WEEKS IT WOULD BE. YEAH, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CLARK BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S THE APPLICANT GAMBLING THAT HE MAY HAVE TO START THE PROCESS OVER, BUT THAT'S HIS GAMBLE TO MAKE. I, I WOULD ARGUE. GOOD POINT. OKAY. MADAM CHAIR THE MATTER AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO ASK IF THE COMMISSION WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE, AND THIS IS JUST A SUGGESTION THAT IF THERE IS A, UH, IF THE, IF LEGAL DEPARTMENT LOOKS AT IT AND IT IS IN FACT, UH, THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY AND THEY WANT TO REMOVE IT, WE GENERALLY DON'T ALLOW A CHANGE OF A PLAID BOUNDARY FROM APPROVAL TO RECOMMENDATION. BUT IF YOU GUYS ARE DISCUSSING THAT, AND IF YOU WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE, UH, THEN, THEN THAT COULD BE A CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARY PRIOR TO RECOMMENDATION. UM, IF, IF YOU ALL THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO RE BECAUSE THAT MAY FURTHER THEM TO NOT WORK WITH THE, UM, NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS. SO JUST THINKING, JUST, JUST A SUGGESTION FOR YOU ALL TO DELIBERATE ON. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SMITH. I, I WOULD, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT IF IT REFLECTS A MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES AS OPPOSED TO OPPOSED TO ONE, ONE OR THE OTHER, OR THE, OR THE CITY STAFF, UH, MAKING THAT DECISION. YEAH. THAT, THAT IS THE ONLY WAY IT WOULD WORK IS IF THERE WAS A MUTUAL AGREEMENT, IF YOU ALL WANTED TO DO THAT. AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE, YEAH, BOTH PARTIES COMING TOGETHER AND SAYING, YEAH, WE'LL, WE'LL REDRAW THAT AND WITH RELATION TO WHAT THE STAFF HAS SAID, THEY'RE AVOIDING THE ADDITIONAL STEP. BUT COULD, COULD WE SEE AGAIN, THERE WAS A, UH, DRAWING THAT SHOWED THE, UH, THE HOUSE AND THE FENCE AND THE SETBACK DIMENSIONS, UH, A LITTLE MORE CLEARLY THAN THE, THE PLAT ITSELF. IT WAS ARTISTIC EXHIBIT OR, UH, NO, NOT THE ENCROACHMENT. THIS WAS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, UH, LAYOUT. THERE. WE GO. UM, I BELIEVE, YES, THAT ONE, UH, IS 38TH STREET ON THE SOUTH. UM, AND TO GOING BACK TO THE ACTUAL VARIANCE, MR. SLA HAS REQUESTED, HAS TO DO WITH THE SETBACK ON ARLINGTON, AND I BELIEVE THAT DIMENSION'S ROUGHLY 10 FEET FROM THE PLATTED PROPERTY LINE TO THE ACTUAL HOME. AND WITHIN THAT IS THE ENCROACHMENT, THE PROPOSED THREE FOOT RESERVE, ET CETERA. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. CRILE? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, REPEAT THAT ONE MORE TIME? WELL, I, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DISTANCE FROM THE PLATTED OR PROPOSED PLAT BOUNDARY TO THE HOUSE. I CAN'T READ THAT DIMENSION. YEAH, IT'S LIKE ABOUT 10 FEET. YEAH, ABOUT 10. AND MR. SALAM HAS SUGGESTED THAT WITHIN THAT HE'S WILLING TO PLAT A RESERVE MM-HMM . LANDSCAPE. UM, AND THE RESULT OF THIS IS THAT TO GET THE HOUSE AT THE WIDTH, HE NEEDS IT. HE'S REQUESTING OF US A VARIANCE ON THE ARLINGTON ARLINGTON STREET SIDE. RIGHT? ESSENTIALLY. YEAH. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WELL, THAT TO ME, THE 10 FEET SETBACK FROM THE, THE VICINITY OF THE ENCROACHMENT, WHICH IS DOCUMENTED, RIGHT. WE HAVE A DOCUMENTED ENCROACHMENT AND THE WILLINGNESS TO SHOW, UH, SOME PROPERTY THAT HE IS WILLING TO CONVEY. AND THE PROPOSAL MS. MATER MADE, I'M, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION WITH THE PROVISION THAT, UH, THE STAFF BE GIVEN. BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE RIGHT WORDS, MR. CRILE, THAT WE, UH, WOULD INCLUDE IN THE MOTION? UH, IT WOULD BE A CONDITION TO PROVIDE, UM, I BELIEVE A MUTUAL, MUTUAL USE AGREEMENT OF SOME SORT, UH, AT RECORDATION BEFORE, BEFORE RECORDATION. ALRIGHT. THAT'S MY MOTION. YES. SECOND. OKAY. WE, I'VE BEEN ANSWERED FURTHER DISCUSSION. WE HAVE A MOTION BY SMITH AND SECOND BY CLARK, FURTHER DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER GARZA, DO WE NOT NEED TO ASK MADAM, MR. SALAM IF HE WOULD BE WILLING, MADAM CHAIR TO DO, TO ADHERE TO THIS? HE MAY NOT. YES. I WANNA ASK LEGAL, WHAT WOULD IT BE A MUTUAL USE OR WOULD IT JUST, WHAT TERMINOLOGY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE? I DON'T THINK IT'D BE A MUTUAL USE. I THINK IT WOULD BE A TRANSFER OF THAT OWNERSHIP INTEREST OF WHATEVER WIDTH THAT IS, UM, TO THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. AND A, IF I UNDERSTOOD MS. MATER CORRECTLY, THAT WOULD'VE ALLOW AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE SIDE, IN THE BOUNDARY [03:15:01] SIDE LOT LINE THERE THAT WE ALSO WANNA MAKE SURE, I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION TO STAFF HERE IS ABOUT THAT, WOULD THAT AFFECT ANYTHING FROM HIS BUILDING LINE ON THE SIDE? SO HOW DOES THAT AFFECT, YOU KNOW, IF WE MOVE THE LOT LINE IN, DOES THAT AFFECT IT? SO THE BUILDING LINE ALONG THE STREETS WILL STILL REMAIN 10 FEET. THEY, THEY ARE NOT REQUESTING A VARIANCE TODAY TO REDUCE THE BUILDING LINE ALONG THE STREETS ON THE SIDE, THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY, IF IT CHANGES AND THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY MOVES THREE FEET OR FIVE FEET IN, UH, BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS WOULD STILL REMAIN THE THREE FEET FROM THE NEW PROPERTY BOUNDARY. SO, UH, THE, THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS WOULD CHANGE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY WOULD'VE CHANGED. AND NOTHING ON THE PLA IT SHOWS ANY OF THAT. SO THAT WILL BE AT BUILDING PERMIT STATE. SO PLAT WILL BE RECORDED, HOPEFULLY CORRECTLY IF THE DEED IS EXCHANGED AND THE PLAT BOUNDARY SORT OF SHOWS A JOG IF THAT HAPPENS. BUT COMMISSIONER, JUST TO COMMISSIONER GARZA'S POINT, I THINK WE SHOULD CONFIRM THE APPLICANT SAID HE MADE THAT OFFER. YEAH, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA DO THAT. OKAY. MR. SALAM, ARE YOU THERE? YES, MA'AM, I AM. OKAY. SO, UM, DOES, WOULD, ARE, WOULD YOU BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS MOTION, MA'AM? THE, UH, MADAM CHAIRMAN, IF, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED MS. YORK WITH THE SURVEY THAT THE ESTEEMED COMMISSION IS LOOKING AT. MS. YORK HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE SURVEY'S FINDINGS AND HAS TOLD ME THAT THE SURVEY IS FALSE, THAT THE SURVEY IS INCORRECT. AND THIS IS TWO SURVEYS, NOT ONLY ONE, TWO BY TWO DIFFERENT ESTEEMED COMPANIES, AND MS. YORK HAS NOT BEEN WILLING TO EVEN COME. SO TODAY, TO BE IN A POSITION FOR ME TO BE ON HOLD UNTIL WE COME TO SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT OR, UH, ACCOMMODATION, WHATEVER WE WANT TO CALL IT WITH MS. YORK, IS ONLY A WASTE OF MY TIME AT THIS POINT. I AM WILLING IN FRONT OF THIS COMMISSION TO SAY I HAVE OFFERED TO DEED 189 SQUARE FEET OF LAND TO MS. YORK TO CURE THE, THE ENCROACHMENT THAT SHE HAS ON MY PROPERTY. SHE HAS REFUSED THAT I WILL STAND BY THAT AND I ONLY THINK IT'S FAIR FOR ME TO GET MY APPROVAL GOING SO I CAN GET MY BUSINESS GOING. AND IF SHE WOULD LIKE ONE DAY TO SAY YES, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE YOUR OFFER, I WILL BE WILLING AND COMMITTED TO GIVE IT TO HER. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SMITH. I, I DON'T MEAN TO SPEAK FOR STAFF, BUT I'LL GIVE THE INTENT OF THE MOTION I MADE MR. SLO. UM, THE, THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRESENT PRESENTED PLAT AS PRESENTED BY STAFF IS WHAT YOU HAVE REQUESTED. IT, IT ALLOWS YOU TO PROCEED, UH, WITH THE PLAT AS PRESENTED. WHAT WE HAVE ADDED AS THE EXTRA ITEM IS THE EXTRA AUTHORITY FOR THE STAFF TO WORK WITH MS. YORK TO WORK WITH YOU TO MAKE SOME LEVEL OF ADJUSTMENT. IF YOU AND MS. YORK MUTUALLY AGREE TO IT, TO THE RESERVE OR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OR THE EXACT BOUNDARY THERE, THIS IS AN ADDED FLEXIBILITY. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS NOT STAND IN YOUR WAY. UH, IN FACT, YOU ARE ON SCHEDULE. WE WILL APPROVE THE PLAT TODAY. YOU CAN PROCEED TO SUBMIT RECORDATION DOCUMENTS AND DOCUMENTATION. WHAT THIS DOES IS IT BRINGS MS. YORK TO THE TABLE TO SAY, UH, THERE'S A BIT OF AN OPEN DOOR THAT WE'VE GIVEN TO WORK WITH THE STAFF AND WITH THE APPLICANT TO GET, UH, STRAIGHT THROUGH THIS PAPERWORK. UH, OTHERWISE SHE HAS TO EVALUATE WHAT HER OPTIONS ARE, WHICH MAY INVOLVE A LAWYER AND AND EXPENSE. SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD, GOOD COMPROMISE AND I HOPE, UH, HOPE YOU WOULD TAKE THIS MR. SLA AS, UH, US TRYING TO ALSO ASSIST YOU IN A COMPROMISE WAY, UH, AND, UH, GIVE MS. YORK THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT GIVEN, UH, THE OPENING WE'VE GIVEN HER. OKAY. COMMISSIONER SCH SMITH. COMMISSIONER CLARK, I JUST WANNA ADD TO THAT, IT WAS VERY WELL STATED. IT ALWAYS IS WHEN YOU WHEN YOU SPEAK. UM, BUT THE APPLICANT ALSO NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF THAT JOG HAPPENS AFTER THIS PLAT IS APPROVED, YOU GET TO GO THROUGH A REPL PROCESS. SO THAT WILL HOLD YOU UP. WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A COMPROMISE THAT MAKES THIS WORK THAT DOES NOT HOLD YOU UP ANY LONGER AND GIVES YOU AND MS. YORK, YOU KNOW, THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK TOGETHER. SO I JUST WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT. YES. MR. SALAM, DO YOU WANNA RESPOND? YES, MA'AM. I, I UNDERSTAND AND, UH, I'M WILLING TO GO AHEAD WITH THAT AND, UH, WE, WE WILL, UH, WE WILL WORK THROUGH THE STAFF AND UH, ACTUALLY IF YOU, [03:20:01] IF I'M ALLOWED ONE, UH, MAYBE 30 SECONDS, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST ADD A LITTLE STATEMENT, UH, THAT, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO, TO TODAY TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK THE PLANNING, UH, DEPARTMENT STAFF WITH WHOM REALLY WE HAVE WORKED VERY, VERY HARD AND DILIGENTLY ON THIS PROJECT AND LIKE TO COMMEND THEM FOR THE EFFORT THAT THEY HAVE PUT THROUGH THIS TO GET THIS PROJECT OFF, OFF THE GROUND. SO I, WITH THAT, I WILL LEAVE IT TO MEET WITH MR. CRIDDLE OR WHOEVER IS IN THE, UH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF AND WITH MS. YORK. AND MY OFFER ON THE TABLE IS STILL THE SAME ONE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, AND FURTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS. UM, WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND ON THE TABLE. MR. CRIDDLE, DID YOU SAY THAT WE, YOU WANT TWO SEPARATE VOTES ON THESE OR? OKAY, SO WE WILL VOTE ON, UM, ITEM 1 76. WE, OKAY, SO JUST SO IS 38TH, THE, THE NORTH IS ON THE SOUTH. 38TH IS ON THE SOUTH. OKAY, SO COMMISSIONER SMITH'S MOTION AND COMMISSIONER CLARK'S SECOND ON ITEM 1 76. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. AND THEN ON 1 77 A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? WHAT WAS IN SMITH AND CLARK AGAIN? SMITH AND CLARK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. UH, ITEM 1 78. ITEM 1 78 IS ENCLAVE AT FM 29 20 SECTION ONE. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE ETJ OF HARRIS COUNTY, EAST OF KICKAPOO ROAD NORTH OF THE GRAND PARKWAY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT TO NOT EXTEND NOR TERMINATE PINEY COVE LANE WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A 14 ACRE RESERVE INTENDED FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICE USE. THE RESERVE IS THE FIRST SECTION SUBMITTED FROM THE ENCLAVE AT FM 29 20. GENERAL PLAN ABUTTING. THE SITE IS PINEY COVE LANE, A 60 FOOT ROADWAY EASEMENT DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC FOR RIGHT OF WAY PURPOSE. THE ROADWAY CONNECTS TO FM 29 20 AND PROVIDES ACCESS TO RESIDENTIAL SUB AND PROVIDES ACCESS TO A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 15 LOTS, AVERAGING ABOUT THREE ACRES IN SIZE. THE GENERAL PLAN HAS A MARKUP TO PROVIDE A NORTH, SOUTH, AND EAST WEST STREET THROUGH THE TRACT AS THE AREA CONTINUES TO DEVELOP THE PROPOSED NORTH SOUTH STREET. AND THE GENERAL PLAN CAN BE EXTENDED TO SNOWDEN ROAD AND FUNNEL TRAFFIC BACK TO THE SURROUNDING MAJOR THOROUGHFARES ULTIMATELY, EXCUSE ME, ULTIMATELY REQUIRING THE STREET EXTENSION WOULD RESULT IN MIXING EX EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE WITH INCOMPATIBLE COMMERCIAL USE STATUTE'S. RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS. MADAM CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MR. CRILE? DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE CHAT? UM, WE HAVE, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT AND APPROVE CONDITIONS ON THE SCREEN. IS THERE A MOTION? GARZA? OH, GARZA SECOND. UH, I WILL NOTE THE RECORD THREE MENTIONS OF KICKAPOO ROAD AND ONE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AND SECOND, THE MOTION . DO WE HAVE A SECOND? JUST THREE. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION. SECOND FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THAT TAKES [Platting Activities G - I] US TO SECTIONS. GH AND I. WE HAVE FIVE MINUTES UNTIL THREE O'CLOCK. LET'S GO FOR IT HERE. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. OH, MY NAME IS PETRA SHAW. UM, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS G, H AND I AS ONE GROUP? YES, PLEASE. UM, SECTION, SECTION G EXTENSION OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 79 THROUGH 1 97. UM, SECTION H NAME CHANGES CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 98 THROUGH 200 AND SECTION I CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CONSISTS OF ITEMS 2 0 1 AND 2 0 2. UM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE, SORRY, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTIONS GH AND I. UM, NO ITEMS ARE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER PER STAFF AND NO CHANGES IN STAFF RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HEISER, YOU ABSTAINING ON AN ITEM ABSTAIN FROM 180 180 1 AND 180 2. THANK YOU. OKAY. NOTE, UH, HE ABSTAINS 180 180 1 180 2. UM, [03:25:01] ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. MOTION SECOND. OH, SORRY. AYE, SORRY. MOTION GARZA. GARZA. SECOND HERE CLARK. AGAIN, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. UH, SECTION J IS EMPTY. [k. Development Plats with Variance Requests (Ramon Jaime Leon)] SECTION K, ITEM 2 0 360 9 0 4 VAN ETTEN STREET. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS RAM JAIME. ITEM 2 0 360 9 0 4 VAN EDEN STREET. THE SITE IS, THE SITE IS LOCATED NORTH OF OLD SPANISH TRAIL AND AT THE NORTH, UH, AND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VAN EDEN STREET AND LOCKETT AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE NOT TO PROVIDE A 28 FOOT PRIVATE STREET FOR A GARDEN STYLE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT. THE STEP RECOMMENDATION IS TO DISAPPROVE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. THE LOT IS PLOTTED WITHIN THE CENTRAL CITY SUBDIVISION AND RECORDED IN 1939. THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS ONE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ADD A, AN ADDITIONAL SECOND FOR, FOR A TOTAL OF FOUR DWELLING UNITS. THE DENSITY OF THE SITE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 22 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, QUALIFYING THIS PROPERTY AS A GARDEN STYLE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH REQUIRES A 28 FOOT PRIVATE STREET. THE LEGAL, UH, LEGAL REVIEW HAS INDICATED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE DEED RESTRICTIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEREFORE, THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO DISAPPROVE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. AND MADAM CHAIR, I, IN PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH HAD SOME QUESTIONS AND I'M PREPARED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. OKAY, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SMITH, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT YOUR QUESTIONS WERE? I DON'T, BUT GIVEN THE, THE DEED RESTRICTION ITEM I'D, I'D FOREGO ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS. OKAY, . ALRIGHT. UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK? GO AHEAD AND LIST, NAME THEM. OH, RIGHT HERE. WE'VE GOT SOMEBODY COME ON. WE START TO, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION, QUICK QUESTION. OKAY. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. COMMISSIONER CLARK. UM, SO THEY'RE RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL, BUT ON THE, UM, ONLINE SHEET THAT YOU GUYS FILL OUT FOR THE STAFF REPORT, IT RECOMMENDS TO APPROVE, OH, THERE WAS SOME LAST MINUTE CHANGES IN, OKAY. I JUST KNOW THAT THIS IS POSTED, SO I JUST THOUGHT, I DON'T KNOW. IT'S ALWAYS CONFUSING TO THE PUBLIC WHEN THEY LOOK AND THEY SEE, YOU KNOW, IF SOMETHING IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL, THEN WE DISAPPROVE IT. SO IT'S JUST A COMMENT I THINK WAS LIKE A LAST MINUTE. THE LAST MINUTE? YES. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, SORRY. COME FORWARD AND IF YOU'D STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. SURE. MY NAME IS VASAN GAR OR DR. VASAN GAR. I, UH, SORRY, COULD YOU HEAR ME? HOLD ON. I CALLED ON SOMEBODY ELSE. SO HOLD THE PERSON WHO'S VIRTUAL. HOLD ON. OKAY. OKAY, GO AHEAD. OKAY. BRIDGET LIFE SD. I'M THE MANAGER OF THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER, AND WE'RE JUST REQUESTING A DEFERRAL. UM, WE JUST LITERALLY FOUND OUT ABOUT THE DISAPPROVAL LIKE AN HOUR BEFORE WE CAME OVER HERE. SO WE ARE JUST REQUESTING A DEFERRAL SO THE ATTORNEY CAN LOOK INTO THE DEED AND WE CAN FIND OUT MORE INFORMATION ON THE DEED. SO IF WE CAN JUST HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME FOR THAT. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. , I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU AND I REALIZE WE HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY, WHOEVER WHO WAS UH, SEEKING RECOGNITION? OH, MADAM CHAIR, WE HAVE SIX, UH, SIGNED UP FROM THE CHAT. OH, OKAY. AND I BELIEVE THE ONE OF VIRTUAL IS FROM THE CHAT. OKAY. CAN YOU START READING THEIR NAMES? YES. CARINA ROSALES. THAT'S RO. YES. CARINA, ROSALA ROSALES. HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. OKAY. YEAH. SO I HAVE SEVERAL OBJECTIONS TO THIS VARIANT. UH, THE FIRST AND FOREMOST IS THE ISSUE THAT THE FOUREX WOULD REALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE A LOVELY SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING, WHERE WE'RE ALSO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND THE PARKING ISSUES DUE TO THE VA AND THE NABISCO BUILDING EMPLOYEES TRAFFIC PATTERNS HAVE ALREADY BEEN INVESTIGATED BY THE CITY AND DEEMED EXCESSIVE AND SPEED BUMPS AND BARRIERS HAVE BEEN ADDED IN ATTEMPTS TO ALLEVIATE THIS ISSUE. HOWEVER, THESE CONTINUE TO BE DISREGARDED AND DRIVERS STILL CONTINUE TO SPEED THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND GO THE WRONG WAY, WHICH WILL NOT BE ALLEVIATED BY THE BUILDING OF A FOURPLEX. THE PARKING PROPOSED IN THE VARIANCE IS CROWDED AND WILL LIKELY SPILL ONTO THE STREETS WHERE PARKING IS CURRENTLY NOT ALLOWED LEADING TO THE NARROWING OF DRIVING LANES. UM, SAFETY IS ALSO ANOTHER CONCERN. WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL INCIDENTS OF THEFT AND VANDALISM IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I CANNOT IMAGINE HOW HAVING AN INFLUX OF STRANGERS TO THE COMMUNITY WILL HELP THAT ISSUE. [03:30:01] UM, MOREOVER, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS BEEN DELINQUENT IN MAINTAINING HIS PROPERTY AND HAS DONE SO. ONLY WHEN THE CITY HAS POSTED YELLOW NOTICES ON THE PROPERTY. UPON RESEARCHING SOME OF HIS OTHER PROPERTIES, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE ONE OF HIS PROPERTIES UNMAINTAINED AND OVERGROWN WITH THE WEEDS AND A YELLOW CITY NOTICE ON THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THIS ESTABLISHES A PATTERN OF NEGLIGENCE. WE ARE NOT CONFIDENT THAT THIS OWNER WILL BE RESPONSIVE IF THERE ARE ISSUES WITH THE TENANTS. UH, DUE TO THE LACK OF PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE IN THE SIDE PLAN, WE ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WILL HAVE INCREASED LOITERING ON THE PERIPHERY OF THE PROPERTY LEADING TO INCREASED, UH, LITTERING AND TRASH. AS FAR AS THE VARIANCE NOTICE, WE FEEL THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS NOT ACTED IN GOOD FAITH TO INFORM THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE PLANS. UM, FIRST THERE WAS NO VARIANCE SIGNED, POSTED 20 DAYS PRIOR TO THE LAST MEETING. UH, WE GOT THE NOTICE VERY LATE IN ORDER FOR US TO, YOU KNOW, SCRAMBLE TO OBJECT. UM, SO I DON'T THINK, UM, THAT WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT, UM, THIS PERSON IS GOING TO ABIDE BY SOME OF THE CITY CODES OR FIRE CODES. UM, AND WE ARE CONCERNED. UM, OKAY. SORRY KATRINA, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. I'M GONNA, UM, GO AHEAD AND CALL THE NEXT SPEAKER. OKAY, THANK YOU. WHO'S THE NEXT SPEAKER? THE NEXT SPEAKER IS DAN BARIENTOS. OKAY. DAN BARIENTOS? YES, I AM HERE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY? GO RIGHT AHEAD. UH, I ECHO MY NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS AND IN ADDITION, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, NOTE THE TWO ITEMS IN THE VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT WERE INACCURATE, UM, THAT, UH, FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE UNSERIOUSNESS OF THE APPLICANT. ONE, THE FACT THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS LISTED AS A HOUSE OF 1,890 SQUARE FEET AND THE FOURPLEX IS, UH, DESCRIBED AS, UH, 1,890 SQUARE FEET. FOURPLEX TWO STORY WHERE THERE IS A ONE STORY HOUSE EXISTING IN THE PROPERTY, SO EVIDENTLY INCORRECT. SECOND, THE TRAFFIC, UH, AND, AND THE SAFETY CONCERNS ARE COMPOUNDED BECAUSE OF THE FACT OF THE NARROW LANES IN THE, UH, SITE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED. THEY SHOW BOTH LOCKETT AVENUE AND VAN EATON STREETS AND AS HAVING 60 FEET WIDE, UH, RIGHT AWAY. BUT WHEN YOU MEASURE THAT, UH, THOSE STREETS, THE, THE PAVED STREETS ACTUALLY 2022 AND 22.8 FEET, EVEN IF YOU CONSIDER ALL THE WAY TO THE SIDEWALK, IS 42 FEET. SO THEY ARE VERY NARROW LANES. AND THIS COMPOUNDS THE ISSUE WITH THE LACK OF PARKING SPACES, UH, UM, DESCRIBED AS THE PROPERTY WHICH WILL EXACERBATE THE SAFETY ISSUE, ESPECIALLY FOR PEDESTRIANS, CHILDREN THAT ARE WALKING AROUND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS AS, UH, MY NEIGHBOR SAID, A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD FULL OF FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN THAT WALK AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL, UH, HAVE, UH, THEIR, THE CHARACTER, UH, SEVERELY IMPACTED AS A RESULT OF THIS, UH, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. YOU THANK YOU. WE GOT IT. OKAY, NEXT SPEAKER. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS DANIEL J GOLDBERG. DANIEL J GOLDBERG. YES. GREETINGS. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. WONDERFUL. EXCELLENT. I CANNOT TURN ON MY CAMERA, BUT I DID PUT ON A JACKET FOR Y'ALL. I WENT, I WANT THAT NOTED FOR THE RECORD. I TRIED. WE'LL NOTE THAT. EXCELLENT. VERY GOOD. I GOT ONE MINUTE AND 50 SECONDS. I'M GONNA USE IT UP PRETTY QUICKLY. I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIVICS ASSOCIATION HERE. UM, I'M REQUESTING THAT THE, THAT THIS, UH, COMMISSION NOT DEFER THE DECISION, BUT INSTEAD DISAPPROVE IT. THE COMMISSION HAS BROAD DISCRETION ON VARIANCE REQUESTS BEYOND JUST WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE DEED RESTRICTIONS, YES OR NO. LIVABLE PLACES. ACTION COMMITTEES LISTED ONLINE AS COMMITTED TO PRESERVING GREAT NEIGHBORHOODS, PUTTING IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX HERE WILL KILL THAT. SINCE THE 1930S TO THE PRESENT, THERE HAVE BEEN ONLY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON OVER HERE. AND DON'T YOU IN ANY WAY DOUBT THAT THIS ONE DEVELOPER, IF HE GETS AWAY WITH IT, WILL LEAD TO OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS THERE ARE MORE THAN JUST ONE OF THESE INVESTORS HOVERING AROUND LIKE VULTURES. IT WAS ESSENTIAL SPEECH GIVEN BY MAYOR TURNER AND MATTRESS MAC RECENTLY, UH, COMING OUT AGAINST REAL ESTATE INVESTORS THAT ARE USING THESE LOW INTEREST RATES TO SCOOP UP NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROPERTIES AWAY FROM MIDDLE CLASS INDIVIDUALS AND THEN USING IT TO THEIR OWN PROFIT. THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING ON OVER HERE. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN A SHINING EXAMPLE OF A DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOOD IN TERMS OF INCOME LEVELS AND IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL DIVERSITY OF THE PEOPLE. AND ONE OF THE GOALS HERE IN YOUR OCTOBER, 2020 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BEST PRACTICES STUDY WAS INFILL OF HOUSING AND DIVERSITY AND RESILIENCE. WE HAVE HERE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS $300,000 [03:35:01] IS THE BASE MINIMUM FOR COSTS AND LESS THAN A MILLION, A MILLION FOR THE MAXIMUM THROWING IN THESE APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN TOWN HOMES. IT'S GONNA WRECK THIS DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS MIDDLE CLASS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND CREATE YET ANOTHER RICE MILITARY WHERE YOU HAVE TOWNHOUSE AFTER TOWNHOUSE AFTER TOWNHOUSE WITH NOTHING ELSE. MY TIME IS DONE. MR. BERG, YOUR TIME'S EXPIRED. TWO MINUTES. I WOULD LOVE ANOTHER MINUTE IF THE COUNCIL'S, IF THE COMMISSION'S UP FOR IF NO, I'M SORRY. WE ARE NOT UP FOR THAT. WE'RE ABOUT TO LOSE OUR QUORUM. SO I, I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. WE HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER TO HEAR FROM AND THEN WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS A LITTLE BIT. UM, WHO IS THE NEXT SPEAKER? THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MEGAN RYAN. MEGAN RYAN. MEGAN RYAN, ARE YOU THERE? GOOD EVENING. I AM MEGAN RYAN. I'M AT 6 9 2 2 VAN ETTEN, A NEIGHBOR IN THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. I CONCUR WITH MY NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT THIS ADDS MORE CONCRETE TO A LOT THAT IS AS AN INTERSECTION WITH CONSISTENT STREET FLOODING THAT REMAINS FOR THREE TO FOUR DAYS AFTER AN ORDINARY RAIN. ADDING MORE PARKING SPACES ON A LOT THAT IS NOT DESIGNED FOR THIS WILL ADD TO THE EXISTING FLOODING PROBLEMS. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? OKAY, GO AHEAD. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ALONZO GONZALEZ. ALONZO GONZALEZ. MR. GONZALEZ. OKAY. DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. WHO'S NEXT? THE NEXT SPEAKER IS VASANT GAR. YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SPELL THAT FOR ME. UH, FIRST NAME V-A-S-A-N-T. LAST NAME GARG. OKAY. VASAN. GAR, YEAH. YES, I'M HERE. THANK YOU. GO RIGHT AHEAD. SO MADAM COUNSEL, SO I LIVE AT, UH, TWO NINE OR 2 9 1 1, UH, PAYSON, OR 2 9 4 4 PAYON. AND I SHARE THE SAME SENTIMENT AS MY COLLEAGUES, UM, IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. IT JUST, THIS IS GONNA CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE'S BEEN, UM, SINCE, UH, ORIGINALLY PURCHASED THE LOT, HAS NEVER BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. I WOULDN'T ASSUME THAT THE CURRENT OWNER IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROPERTY WHEN HE DEVELOPS IT AND HAS, UH, NEW INHABITANTS AGAIN. IT FLOODS. THERE'S GONNA BE INGRESS AND , UH, FOR FIRE TRUCKS AT THE PROPERTY. THERE WAS, AS DANIEL MENTIONED, IT WAS LISTED AS BEING 1,890 SQUARE FEET. UM, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE GOING FROM A ONE STORY TO A TWO STORY WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR PERMITTING FOR THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, CHILDREN, EVERYONE HAS ANIMALS. UH, YOU KNOW, MY WIFE'S A VET IS THE SCENERY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IF I CAN, I WOULD HAPPY TO DEFER MY REMAINING TIME TO, UH, TO, TO GOLDBERG. UH, I'M SORRY WE DON'T ALLOW THAT UNDER OUR RULES, SO, UH, BUT THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL ON, WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE SPEAKERS. GO AHEAD. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS RUSSELL LARSON. RUSSELL LARSON. THANK YOU. I'D JUST LIKE TO, UM, SAY THAT I AGREE WITH ALL OF THE POINTS THAT MY NEIGHBORS HAVE MADE AND THAT I DO BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD BE DISAPPROVED NOT ONLY ON THE DEED, BUT ALSO ON THE SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS AND THE FACT THAT IF YOU'LL NOTICE THE PICTURE THAT'S UP NOW, THAT IT'S A FAIRLY BLIND CORNER WHERE THEY'RE COMING AROUND AND THAT THE PARKING AND TRAFFIC WOULD BE SORT OF ADDING TO THE HAZARDS THAT ALREADY EXIST. UM, AND SO WITH THAT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. GREAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BREVITY. UH, WHO'S NEXT? THE FINAL SPEAKER IS JENNIFER WILLIAMS. OKAY. JENNIFER WILLIAMS. HELLO, THIS IS, UH, BEN SCOTT AND JENNIFER WILLIAMS. AND I CONCUR WITH MY NEIGHBORS AND DEFINITELY, UH, REQUEST THAT IT'S DISAPPROVED AND IT WOULD DEFINITELY SET A PRECEDENT AS WELL BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY SPOKEN WITH ANOTHER INVESTOR WHO, UH, HAS A PROPERTY ON LOCK IT WHO WANTS TO PUT IN A BIG COMMERCIAL SET UP. HE OWNS THREE LOTS THERE. SO THIS WILL DEFINITELY CHANGE THE SCOPE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CHARACTER. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? YES, WE HAVE ALONZO GONZALEZ. OKAY. ALONZO GONZALEZ? YES. ARE YOU THERE? YES. MADAM CHAIR. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, GO AHEAD. OKAY. I'M SORRY ABOUT THE FIRST TIME. NO PROBLEM. I WAS A LITTLE SLOW. I'M A NE I'M A NEIGHBOR. I LIVE NEXT DOOR TO THIS PROPERTY. I'M ALONE TO GONZALEZ, ALSO A LONGTIME RESIDENT. AND I CONCUR THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED, PERIOD. THE, THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY WHO I KNOW A PORTION, UH, MOST OF THEM AGREE WITH THIS. THE PRIMARY CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE OVER PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SAFETY WAS ADDRESSED. [03:40:01] IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE, UH, THE PICTURES THAT YOU HAD BEFORE, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE CITY OF HOUSTON HAS ALREADY DONE A LOT TO, TO MINIMIZE TRAFFIC IN THIS CORNER. THERE ARE NO PARKING SIGNS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. THERE'S NO LEFT TURN SIGNS ONTO LOCK IT THERE. DO NOT ENTER SIGNS INTO, UH, THE ONE WAY STREET UNLOCK IT. IT'S ALL RIGHT THERE IN THAT, THAT CORNER RIGHT THERE ON, JUST IN THIS SIDE. SO THE STREET AT LOCK IT IN BENTON, RIGHT AT THAT INTERSECTION. YOU CANNOT SEE IT RIGHT NOW. IT'S ACTUALLY A ONE WAY STREET. AND THAT HAS NEVER BEEN BROUGHT UP IN THE DISCUSSION HERE. SO NOW, UH, ADDING MORE PEOPLE, UH, MORE CARS, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST SEVEN AND PLUS WHATEVER BEFORE WE HAVE, IT'S GONNA MINI, MINI MINIMIZE THE EFFORTS THE CITY HAS DONE TO HELP US WITH TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AT THIS LOCATION. AND, AND LASTLY, THE TENANT AND, UH, THE COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIP THAT WE HAVE WITH THE, UH, THE DEVELOPER HAVE REALLY BEEN BAD BECAUSE WE HAVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. FOR THE MOST PART, THEY WANT FOURPLEX. AND THE OWNER HAS BEEN NOT TRUSTWORTHY IN THAT WE HAVE MANY 9 1 1 CALLS BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T CUT THE GRASS. THEY'VE BEEN TRASHED, THEY'VE BEEN HOMELESS. DON'T, DON'T TAKE MY WORD. JUST FOLLOW UP ON THAT. SO THERE IS NO GOOD WILL HERE THAT IF WE BUILD, UH, FOUR, YOU AUTHORIZE FOR MORE UNITS THERE, THAT THE, THE, UH, LANDLORDS ARE GOING TO MANAGE THE COMMUNITY ISSUES THAT WE TREASURE SO MUCH. THANK YOU MR. GONZALEZ. YOU WELCOME. YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED, BUT THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US. UM, OKAY. LAST CALL. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? ANYONE HERE? OKAY. UM, COMMISSION. OUR LEGAL COUNSEL HAS ADVISED THAT THIS VIOLATES DEED RESTRICTIONS, UM, THAT IS WHO WE ARE BEHOLDEN TO LISTEN TO. THAT'S CORRECT. UM, AND UH, I'LL JUST ASK WHAT YOUR, WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO DISAPPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IF IT GOES AGAINST RESTRICTIONS. SECOND CLARK. OKAY. WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION. DISCUSSION. OKAY. I THINK, OH, GO AHEAD. SMITH WAS FIRST I, I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS, UH, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO DEFERRAL. UM, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN DEFERRED IN APPLICANT'S REQUEST. UM, AND I'LL STATE, UH, THE HOA REPRESENTATIVE MADE A VERY, YOU KNOW, STRONG CASE IN SOME WAYS FOR, FOR NOT GRANTING THE DEFERRAL, SUGGESTING IN, IN HIS VIEW IT WOULD SEND A, UH, A, A MESSAGE OF FINALITY TO PERHAPS OTHERS WHO ARE DOING THIS. I, I COULD ARGUE THE OPPOSITE. THAT FURTHER REVIEW DEFERRAL WITH THIS APPLICANT, WITH OUR LEGAL STAFF TO REVIEW THE POINTS THAT ARE LEADING TO THE RECOMMENDATION IS, IS AN EQUALLY PERSUASIVE CASE TO ME. AND SO WHEN IT'S RELATIVELY EQUAL AND WE HAVE A APPLICANT WHO WAS ADVISED QUITE LATE OF THIS CHANGE, I, I WOULD, UH, BE VOTING AGAINST, UH, THE, UH, DISAPPROVAL BUT IN FAVOR OF, UH, DEFERRAL. IF, IF THAT'S THE WILL THE COMMISSION. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ROBBINS? I WAS GONNA ASK WHEN WE CHANGED THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHEN DID WE CHANGE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? IT WAS LAST MINUTE CHANGES DUE TO THE, SORRY. WHEN, WHEN WAS THAT? LIKE, UH, TODAY? IT, YES, IT WAS ABOUT 1:00 PM TODAY WHEN WE GOT AN ADDITIONAL UPDATE FROM COUNSEL LOOKING AT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS YESTERDAY. OKAY. AND WAS THE APPLICANT NOTIFIED AT THAT TIME? I TALKED WITH STAFF AND I. OKAY. DID YOU NOTIFY, NOTIFIED THE APPLICANT? UH, PROBABLY AN HOUR TOWARDS BEFORE. SORRY, I'M SORRY. CAN YOU AND NOTIFY THE APPLICANT AROUND AN HOUR OR TWO HOURS BEFORE, BEFORE THE COMMISSION? NO, BEFORE, YES, BEFORE THE COMMISSION. OKAY. MADAM CHAIR? YES. I'M GONNA WITHDRAW MY MOTION. OKAY. ONE 30. GONNA WITHDRAW. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION? MOTION TO DEFER? WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER. SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. HA. UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY, ANY OPPOSITION? THE MOTION CARRIES. AND ITEM 2 0 3 IS DEFERRED. AND WE, UH, SPEAKERS, WE WELCOME YOU BACK NEXT TIME FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. UM, [III. Establish a public hearing date of July 21, 2022 ] OKAY. THAT WILL TAKE US TO ROMAN NUMERAL THREE, WHICH IS TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JULY 21ST, 2022 FOR THE FOLLOWING. CHAPMAN COVE REPL NUMBER ONE CLAREMONT PLACE, SECTION ONE PARTIAL REPL. NUMBER NINE, CLAREMONT PLACE, SECTION ONE PARTIAL REPL. NUMBER 10, EDGEWOOD SECTION 10 PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE, GAME CREEK RESERVE, LONG POINT ACRES PARTIAL REPL NUMBER 10. UM, MELODY OAKS [03:45:01] PARTIAL REPL. NUMBER 17 AND EXTENSION PARTIAL REPL. NUMBER THREE, NOIAN MANOR PARTIAL REPL. NUMBER 27 RIVERSIDE TERRACE, SECTION SIX, PARTIAL REPL. NUMBER THREE, ROBINETTE. REPL NUMBER ONE, ROSEDALE GARDENS PARTIAL REPL. NUMBER ONE, WASHINGTON TERRACE, PARTIAL REPL. NUMBER 10, WHISPERING PINES ESTATES PARTIAL REPL NUMBER 12. MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY, I THINK YOU CONFLATED G AND H MELODY OAKS AND WENT RIGHT TO SECTION TWO REPL. SO COULD YOU READ G AND H AGAIN? OKAY. MELODY OAKS PARTIAL REPL NUMBER 17, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE AND MEMORIAL GREEN SECTION TWO, REPL AND EXTENSION PARTIAL REPL NUMBER THREE. IS THAT IT? YEP. OKAY. I'M LOSING MY TOUCH. . UM, . OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION TO SET? JULY 21ST, 2020 22. GARZA, GARZA, SECOND CLARK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. WE DO NOT NEED TO ACT ON ROMAN FOUR. SINCE COMMISSIONER ROSEBURG IS HERE, UH, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? UH, THEN WITH THAT, UM, A MOTION TO ADJOURN WOULD BE IN ORDER. MOTION CLARK GARZA, ROSENBERG GARZA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.