[Call to Order]
[00:00:04]
IT IS NOW TWO 30 ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 4TH, 2022.TODAY'S MEETING OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION'S CALL TO ORDER.
I AM PLANNING COMMISSION VICE CHAIR, SUNNY GARZA, AND I WILL BE CHAIRING TODAY'S MEETING.
TO ESTABLISH WE HAVE A QUORUM OF 11, 11 MEMBERS, I WILL CALL THE ROW COMMISSIONERS.
IF YOU'RE OF VIDEO ONLINE, PLEASE, UH, UNMUTE YOURSELF.
UH, MARTY STEIN, WHO IS NOT PRESENT.
SUNNY GARZA, VICE-CHAIR IS PRESENT.
MAGGIE DALTON PRESENT VIRTUALLY.
MAGGIE DALTON IS PRESENT VIRTUALLY.
DIRECTOR MARGARET WALLACE BROWN.
WE HAVE 15 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT IN PERSON AND VIA VIDEO.
ALRIGHT, WE WILL NOW CONTINUE.
OUR MEETING FORMAT ALLOWS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO PARTICIPATE EITHER IN PERSON OR VIRTUALLY ON MICROSOFT TEAMS. TO COMPLY WITH TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS LAW, THE CHAIR, ACTING CHAIR MUST BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT.
ALL COMMISSIONERS PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY MUST BE BOTH AUDIBLE AND VISIBLE.
AND COLLECTIVELY WE MUST MAINTAIN A QUORUM COMMISSIONERS.
IF YOU'RE WITH US ON TEAMS, PLEASE REMEMBER TO KEEP YOUR CAMERA ON SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO COUNT YOU FOR QUORUM.
AND IF ANY, COMMISSIONER NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING, WHETHER YOU ARE HERE PHYSICALLY OR, OR VIRTUAL, PLEASE ANNOUNCE FOR THE RECORD THAT YOU'RE LEAVING.
AND AGAIN, WHEN YOU RETURN, DO EVERYONE ELSE JOINING TODAY? WELCOME.
IF YOU ARE HERE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A SPECIFIC ITEM, YOU CAN FIND THE FINAL AGENDA WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE.
ALL ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED BY NOON YESTERDAY ARE INCLUDED WITH THE FINAL AGENDA TODAY.
WE ASK THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE CONNECTED BY PHONE OR COMPUTER TO PLEASE KEEP YOUR DEVICE MUTED UNTIL YOU ARE CALLED ON TO SPEAK.
ALSO, OUR VIDEO QUALITY WILL BE BETTER IF YOU KEEP YOUR CAMERA OFF UNTIL YOU ARE SPEAKING.
ALRIGHT, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN TODAY.
GIVE ME A MOMENT WHILE I GO THROUGH MY LIST.
STAFF CONFIRM FOR ME IN CASE I MISS ONE.
AS BEING WITHDRAWN, I WILL ASSUME WE HAVE CONFIRMATION CORRECT.
SO, UM, WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE
[Director’s Report]
ON TO THE FIRST SIDE OF A BUSINESS, WHICH IS THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.UH, DIRECTOR MARGARET WALLACE BROWN.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS MARGARET WALLACE BROWN AND I'M SECRETARY TO THIS COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
THE NEXT MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND FREEWAY PLAN MEETING IS THE RECOMMENDATION MEETING ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1ST.
IT WILL TAKE PLACE DURING THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU ALL TO ATTEND, PLEASE.
I ALSO WANNA RECOGNIZE SOME TURNOVER IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF.
OUR PLANNER, TAMARA FU UM, IS LEAVING US TODAY IS HER LAST COMMISSION MEETING AND THAT I ALSO WANNA RECOGNIZE OUR INTERN NISH, UM, WHO HAS BEEN HELPING US MOST OF THE SUMMER AND TODAY IS HIS LAST DAY.
SO WE THANK THEM BOTH AND WISH THEM BOTH, UM, THE BEST FOR THEIR FUTURE.
THIS CONCLUDES MY DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
[Approval of the July 21, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes]
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF THE JULY 21ST, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.COMMISSIONERS, THEY WERE IN YOUR PACKET.
IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGE, ARE THERE ANY CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS? HEARING NONE.
IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? MOTION CLARK AND JONES.
[00:05:01]
HEARING NONE.[I. July 2022 Semiannual Report of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee on Water and Wasterwater Impact Fees (Pratistha Pradhan)]
NOW MOVE ON TO ROMAN ONE, THE JULY, 2022 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES.ARE WE GETTING A, UM, VIRTUAL PRESENTATION? UH, YES.
UH, I'M THE NEW ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, UH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR, UM, INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AND I'M GONNA PRESENT YOU, UM, THE, UM, WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT, FEE AND FEE TODAY.
DO YOU SEE MY, UM, PRESENTATION RIGHT NOW? WE DO.
UM, IMPACT FEE, UH, BASED ON THE JULY, 2022 REPORT.
AND, UM, I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT THIS.
I'M NOT GO THROUGH ALL THIS, UM, ORDINANCE AND THE MOTIONS BASED ON WHICH, UH, WE ARE WORKING ON HERE.
AND, UM, AS, UM, AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, I'M PRESENTING, UH, THIS IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.
UH, SO HERE'S THE REPORT, JULY 22, 2, UH, 22.
I THINK YOU ALL HAVE GOT THIS REPORT, BUT I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT, UM, HIGHLIGHTS ON THE REPORT TODAY.
UH, SO THIS, THE IMPACT FEE FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER IS BASED ON LAND USE ASSUMPTION.
WE HAVE, UH, TWO DIFFERENT METHODS OF, UM, CALCULATION.
ONE IS POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT BASED, AND ANOTHER IS SERVICE UNIT BASED.
AND BASED ON THAT, UH, FIRST SERVICE, UH, UNIT OF WASTEWATER, UM, HERE IN THIS GRAPH YOU CAN SEE TWO LINES.
THE DOTTED LINE IS OUR PRORATED PROJECTION, UH, FROM 2020, UH, JULY, 2021, SORRY, JULY, 2022 TO JULY, UH, 30.
SO BETWEEN THAT, THIS NUMBER IS, UH, EQUALLY PROJECTED.
AND THE GREEN LINE THAT YOU SEE HERE, THIS IS BASED ON THE, UM, ACTUAL CALCULA ACTUAL IMPACT FEE COLLECTED.
SO BASED ON THE JANUARY, 2021 REPORT, WE HAVE COLLECTED 4,911, AND THESE ARE THE CUMULATIVE NUMBERS.
AND CURRENTLY WE ARE AT 25 4 21, UM, IN JULY, UH, 2022.
THIS IS THE JULY, 2022 BASED REPORT, WHICH INCLUDES, UH, THE TIMEFRAME, UM, UP UP TO THE APRIL, UM, FROM NOVEMBER TO APRIL.
SO THIS IS A SIX MONTHS, UH, REPORT.
AND THIS IS THE CUMULATIVE NUMBER, 25, 4 21 FOR WASTEWATER AND FOR WATER.
UH, SIMILAR, THE NUMBER IS 32 IN, UM, CURRENT CUMULATIVE NUMBER, UH, FROM UM, 2020 JULY.
SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ON THIS, UM, I WILL GO FORWARD.
SO THE, THE DOTTED LINE ARE THE PROJECTION AND THE, UM, ORANGE DOTS AND THE GREEN LINE IS THE ACTUAL NUMBERS HERE RIGHT NOW.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? ALRIGHT THEN IS THERE A MOTION TO FORWARD, UM, A MOTION THAT WE, UM, YES.
SO, UM, FOR THE IMPACT FEE, UH, CURRENTLY THE IMPACT FEE ADOPTED FOR WASTEWATER IS 1,621.
AND FOR, UH, FOR WATER IT IS 1618.11.
THE TOTAL IMPACT FEE PER EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNIT WOULD BE 32, 39 0.74, WHICH IS 29% 0.17, SORRY, 29.1% OF THE CALCULATED MAXIMUM.
AND, UM, AS PER APRIL 30TH, 2022 CTS AC, UH, ACCUR TOTAL OF 542, UH, MILLION 329,980 28.36.
AND UM, WE HAVE ALREADY DEPOSITED 517, 779, 613 0.55.
THIS HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT, UH, THAT WE NEED TO TRANSFER IS 24,000,550, UH, 314.81.
SO, UH, THE, THE CURRENT, UH, FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION, UM, IS SUMMARIZED HERE.
SO WE HAVE 752 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS THAT HAS BEEN EXEMPTED WITHIN LAST SIX MONTHS.
THE SAME NUMBER, UH, IN THE PREVIOUS SIX MONTHS WAS 874.
AND, UM, THE TOTAL OF, OF 29,562 HAS BEEN EXEMPTED, UM, SINCE, UH, THIS WAS ADOPTED IN 1990, UH, 97.
SO THE TOTAL OF 24,000,500, UH, 50314.81 IS THE GENERATED REVENUE FROM WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE, UH, THAT IS AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW FOR THE, UH, TRANSFER TO DEV SERVICE
[00:10:01]
FUND FROM THE WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE.DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION? UH, THIS CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER.
UH, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS ONE AND THEN WE'LL BEGIN IN EARLY.
SO, UH, STAFF, BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD, I WANNA MAKE A NOTE, UM, JUST, UH, VIRTUALLY THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER HINES AND SMITH, UH, ARRIVED AT, UH, 2 38.
ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE JUST HEARD, UH, ROMAN ONE, JULY, 2022, IAN REPORT OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS? THAT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION.
I'M GLAD WE ALL HAVE THAT IN OUR PACKET.
RIGHT? UM, ALRIGHT, COMMENTS AND IF NOT, IS THERE MOTION I MOVE TO MOTION BY BALDWIN? IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.
VICTOR, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.
[II. July 2022 Semiannual Report of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee on Drainage Impact Fees (Pratistha Pradhan)]
ON TO ROMAN TWO, THE JULY, 2022 SEMIAL SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DRAINAGE IMPACT FEES.GO AHEAD, PLEASE, MR. CHAIR, THIS IS COMMISSIONER POR PERLE.
UM, I'M ABOUT TO LOSE MY INTERNET.
I WILL RECONNECT IN JUST A FEW MOMENTS.
ALRIGHT, SO EVERYONE, UH, THIS IS THE IMPACT FEE FOR DRAINAGE, UH, BASED ON THE JULY, 2022 REPORT.
AND, UH, THE TABLE LIST, UH, HERE IS THE IMPACT FEE FOR THE DRAINAGE, UM, FOR SERVICE UNIT, WHICH IS THE THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT OF IMPERVIOUS ACRE, UM, IMPERVIOUS AREA.
AND, UM, SO, UM, THIS IS JUST THE HIGHLIGHT OF, UM, THE REVENUE COLLECTED ARE DEPOSITED IN FUND 2, 3, 4 4, AND TRANSFERRED TO FUND 4 0 4 4 TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CAPITAL PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE IMPACT FEE CAPITAL PLAN.
UM, SO HERE IS THE FEE THAT HAS BEEN COLLECTED FROM NOVEMBER, 2021 TO APRIL, 2022.
UH, AND THE TOTAL COLLECTION IN ALL OF THE, UH, WATERSHEDS ARE 370,592.
AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF, UH, 4,000,554 TO 38.38 IS, UM, AVAILABLE SINCE THE, I MEAN, HAS BEEN COLLECTED SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE PROGRAM AND AVAILABLE, UH, TO BE DEPOSITED.
DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION? YES.
ALRIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE ON, ON ROMAN TWO, THE SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF DRAINAGE IMPACT FEES.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? HEARING NONE.
IS THERE A MOTION MOTIONS, SIGLER.
UM, I THOUGHT YOU WERE THANKING ME IN ADVANCE.
HE DOES THIS EVERY YEAR AND HAS DONE THIS EVERY YEAR, TWICE A YEAR FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.
I'M JUST GOING TO READ WHAT HE ALWAYS LIKES TO SAY.
HE ALWAYS WANTS TO EXPRESS HIS APPRECIATION TO EVERYONE CONCERNED FOR, FOR, UH, THESE TWO, UH, AREAS.
UM, HE ALWAYS SAYS THIS PROCESS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND THE CITY AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE COST OF PROVIDING UTILITIES NEEDED TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT WHILE MAINTAINING A ROBUST BUILDING ECONOMY.
AND I COULD HAVE QUOTED IT ANOTHER WAY IN MY OWN WORDS, BUT HE ALWAYS SAYS IT'S SO LOVELY.
SO THAT'S ON BEHALF OF COMMISSIONER NELSON AND I THANK EVERYONE INVOLVED.
[Platting Activities A & B]
WITH THAT WE'LL MOVE ON TO ROMAN THREE, PLANNING ACTIVITY.GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
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 ONE 14 SECTION A.
CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 60 AND SECTION B REPLANT ITEMS ARE NUMBER 61 THROUGH ONE 14.
NO ITEMS NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MR. CHAIR, IF THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS SIGN 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.
COMMISSIONERS ITEMS FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION.
[00:15:01]
HE OKAY? OH, I THOUGHT, OH, NO, NO, NO.YOURS ARE, YOU HAVE SOME, BUT THEY'RE LATER ON THE AGENDA.
AND, UH, COMMISSIONER DALTON? YES.
ITEMS 1421 AND 27, 14 21 AND 27.
AT THIS POINT I SHOW 14, 21, 27, AND 34 THROUGH 37.
ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS ON ITEMS ONE THROUGH ONE 14? I SHOW TWO NAMES AT THIS POINT.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE ON A SEPARATE ITEM OTHER THAN 33? ALRIGHT THEN, SO AS OF TODAY WE'RE GONNA TAKE ITEMS, UH, WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON ITEMS ONE THROUGH ONE 14, SAVE AND ACCEPT.
14, 21, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, AND 37.
ALRIGHT, IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION? MARK CLARK, SECOND ROBIN ROBINS QUESTIONS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
MR. CHAIR, ARE WE TAKING A VOTE BEFORE WE HEAR FROM NUMBER 33? SPEAKER? YES, WE'RE GONNA TAKE THE VOTE ON EVERYTHING, BUT THEN THEY'LL COME UP TO SPEAK.
SO NAYS, HEARING NONE THE MOTION PASSES.
NOW WE'LL VOTE SEPARATELY ON ITEM 14, 21, 27, UH, 34 THROUGH 37, LEAVING 33 FOR OUR SPEAKERS.
IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION? AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.
WILL NOW AHEAD OF PRESENTATION TO HEAR FROM SPEAKERS FOR NUMBER 33.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CO-CHAIR, UH, MEMBERS OF THE PLAN COMMISSION.
HECTOR RODRIGUEZ, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UM, ITEM ONE, I MEAN 33 IS, UH, MARRE HEIGHTS.
THIS IS, UH, THIS IS WAS A VARIANCE AT THE LA AT THE JUNE 23RD PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT WAS APPROVED, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE A, THAT'S THAT'S THE OVERALL SITE PLAN.
THEY HAD VARIAL VARIOUS, UH, VARIANCES, UM, PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED IT SUBJECT TO A CUL-DE-SAC.
IF WE CAN GO TO THAT DRAWING GOING THROUGH.
THAT'S, THAT WAS THE FINAL APPROVAL BY THE PLAN COMMISSION AND I THINK WE HAVE SEVERAL SPEAKERS.
QUESTIONS BEFORE WE CALL SPEAKERS? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.
WE'LL NOW GO TO PATRICIA WILLIAMS. MS. WILLIAMS, ARE YOU HERE? YES.
VICE CHAIR GOMEZ AND THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HEARING US ONCE AGAIN.
UH, MY NAME IS PATRICIA WILLIAMS. I AM A 50 YEAR RESIDENT OF SHEPHERD FOREST AND I'M ALSO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SHEPHERD FOREST CIVIC CLUB.
UM, WE ARE REQUESTING A, UH, DEFERRAL FOR A 33, WHICH IS NEY HEIGHTS, THE PLAT, SO THAT WE CAN EX UH, EXPLORE OTHER ALTERNATIVES.
WE'RE STILL WORKING ON TRYING TO GET THE SIX 10, UH, FEEDER STREET.
THERE'S A, UM, DRIVEWAY THAT GOES RIGHT TO REALLY MERIDIAN HEIGHTS, AND THE MERIDIAN HEIGHTS OWNER OWNS THAT ONE.
UH, HOWEVER, THE BUSINESS PARK HAS BEEN USING THAT FOR SOME TIME, AND SO THERE'S A CONTRACT WITH THE BUSINESS PARK.
AND SO WE WANTED TO HAVE THIS, UH, POSSIBLY DEFERRED SO THAT WE COULD GO AHEAD AND, UH, WORK WITH THE BUSINESS PARK AND SEE IF THAT WOULD BE A BETTER ALTERNATIVE.
I THINK LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, WE, UH, HEARD FROM SEVERAL OF THE COMMISSIONERS THINKING THAT THAT WOULD BE A BETTER ALTERNATIVE THAN HAVING A CUL-DE-SAC.
WHEN WE, UH, LOOKED AT THE 1969 TRAFFIC STUDY WITH BURY AND OAK FOREST DRIVE, UH, WE DISCOVERED THAT THERE WERE 1,290 CARS PER DAY GOING THROUGH THERE OR VEHICLES, AS YOU WILL.
UM, IT SUGGESTED THAT WE'D PROBABLY HAVE 400 TO 500 MORE VEHICLES GOING THROUGH, UH, IF WE HAVE THESE, THEY HAVE THE MARIGNY HEIGHTS UNITS, AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO DEFER THE PLAT UNTIL WE CAN WORK MAYBE, UH, WITH THE, UH, BUSINESS PARK AND SEE IF WE COULD POSSIBLY USE THAT.
THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME TIME.
THE ONE MINUTE FOR CONSENT HAS CONCLUDED.
THANK YOU MS. WILLIAMS. IT WAS FAST.
QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER COMMISSIONERS.
QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER, MS. WILLIAMS? NO, THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DELINDA HOLLAND.
MY NAME IS DELINDA HOLLAND AND I'M HERE TODAY AS A 44 YEAR RESIDENT OF SHEPHERD FOREST.
WE'RE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DEFER A VOTE ON AGENDA ITEM A 33.
IT'S HARD TO FOLLOW WHY THE CITY WOULD CONTINUE TO APPROVE THESE PLANS WHEN BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE BOTH STATED THEY DON'T WANT IT.
ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE AND IT PUTS THE SINGLE ENTRY TO A DUPLEX RENTAL PROJECT IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ALREADY TRAFFIC
[00:20:01]
CONGESTED NEIGHBORHOOD.AT THE JUNE 23RD, PLANNING, COMMISSION HEARING ON THE PROJECT, EVEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS EXPRESSED THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE DANGEROUS AND DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS THIS PROJECT WOULD HAVE ON SHEPHERD FOREST.
OUR RESIDENTS CONTINUE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT ADDING HUNDREDS OF VEHICLES TO THE DAILY 1300 CARS ALREADY PASSING THROUGH, WHICH WOULD CREATE A MORE DIRE SITUATION FOR OUR PEDESTRIAN.
TRAFFIC PARKING ISSUES WOULD WORSEN MAKING IT EVEN MORE DIFFICULT FOR, UH, MORE DIFFICULT FOR CITY DESIGNATED EMERGENCY THOROUGHFARE VEHICLES.
THE SHEPHERD FOREST CIVIC CLUB IS ACTIVELY WORKING ON ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR YOU TO CONSIDER, BUT WE NEED MORE TIME FOR THAT REASON.
WE ARE AGAIN, REQUESTING THAT YOU DEFER THIS AGENDA ITEM TODAY.
COMMISSIONER, UM, MS. HOLLAND.
HOW MR. ROBINS, HOW MUCH MORE TIME DO YOU NEED REALISTICALLY, BECAUSE THERE WAS THAT ISSUE WITH THE ROAD AND THE BUILDING BUILDINGS THAT WE'RE USING IT.
IS IT SOMETHING, IS IT, I WOULD SAY A WEEK.
TWO WEEKS PROBABLY MAX'S, BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GONNA GET AN ANSWER PRETTY FAST AND WHETHER IT'S GONNA WORK OR NOT, I, I DON'T WOULDN'T ASK YOU TO SPEAK FOR THE DEVELOPER, BUT I REMEMBER THE DEVELOPER DIDN'T LIKE THIS PLAN, BUT IT WAS SORT OF THE BEST AVAILABLE.
DID HE, DID YOU TALK TO HIM ABOUT COMING DOWN AND ASKING FOR THE DEFERRAL AS WELL? UH, WE DID NOT TALK TO HIM ABOUT COMING DOWN AND ASKING ABOUT THAT BECAUSE WE ONLY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT LAST NIGHT AT NINE O'CLOCK.
SO WE'VE QUICKLY TRIED TO PUT, YOU KNOW, THINGS TOGETHER, BUT HE WAS STILL VERY UNHAPPY WITH THE SITUATION.
IT'S GONNA COST THEM A LOT MORE MONEY TO PUT THE CUL-DE-SAC IN.
THEY'RE GONNA LOSE THEIR TOWNHOUSES AND THEY'RE NOT HAPPY WITH THE PLAN, BUT, YOU KNOW.
THEY'RE, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, YEAH, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHY IS THIS BACK BEFORE US, MR. HECTOR, IF YOU WOULD, WHY IS THIS BACK BEFORE US AGAIN? I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION AGAIN? COMMISSIONER AGAIN? WHY IS IT BACK BEFORE US? IT WAS NOT DEFERRED.
SO IT'S UP TO DISCRETION TO DEFERRED.
IF, IF YOU GUYS, WHY IS IT BACK UP AGAIN? I BELIEVE ON JUNE 23RD YOU VOTED, MAY I PLEASE APPROVE THE VARIANCE? YOU, YOU APPROVED THE VARIANCE ON JUNE 23RD, CORRECT? THIS, THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT, CORRECT? THE FI NO, NO, THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT COMING.
SO THIS IS A CONSENT ITEM, THAT'S WHY WE'RE SAYING CONSENT.
IT'S NO, IT'S NEVER BEEN DEFERRED.
AND IT'S NOT RE THEY'RE NOT REQUESTING A VARIANCE.
THIS IS A SHALL APPROVE, THIS IS SHALL PROOF.
SO FRANKLY, UNFORTUNATELY, EVEN IF WE DON'T LIKE THE PLAN OR WE THINK THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO DO IT, WE'RE BOUND BY LAW TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT BECAUSE IT DOES MEET THE ORDINANCE.
NOW, I WILL THROW OUT DIRECTOR, IF I, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT IS HOWEVER THERE ARE DEFERRALS AVAILABLE.
SHOULD THE COMMISSION DECIDE THEY WANT TO DEFER THIS FOR TWO WEEKS? SO IT IS A SHALL APPROVE, BUT IF THERE'S MORE INFORMATION THAT COULD BE HAD OR A POTENTIAL CHANGE THAT STILL COMPLIES WITH CHAPTER 42, OBVIOUSLY.
THAT'S, WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE A LOOK THAT THAT WILL BE UP TO YOU.
CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION? MR. CLARK? HECTOR, HOW MANY TIMES WAS THIS DEFERRED PREVIOUSLY? YOU MEAN ON THE CLASS TWO? YES.
I BELIEVE IT WAS DEFERRED TWICE.
SO THAT DEVELOPER'S ALREADY LOST FOUR EXTRA WEEKS JUST IN THAT PROCESS HAS COME DONE.
A SHALL APPROVE MEETS THE ORDINANCE, AND IF WE DEFER AGAIN, THAT'LL PUT HIM SIX WEEKS.
HECTOR, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID, HAS THE DEVELOPER ASKED FOR A DEFERRAL? THEY, UH, WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE DEVELOPER.
SO LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'LL LEAVE THIS CONUNDRUM UP TO ALL OF YOU.
SO, UM, YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION BEFORE YOU, LET'S OPEN THE FLOOR FOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MR. CHAIR? THERE ARE FOUR MORE PUBLICS IN THE CHAT.
I DIDN'T HAVE THEM SIGNED UP HERE.
I DIDN'T HAVE THEM SIGNED UP HERE.
WHO'S OUR FIRST SPEAKER? THE FIRST SPEAKER IS WENDY BURMA.
MS. BURMA, ARE YOU THERE? YES, SIR, I'M HERE.
WE CAN HEAR YOU GO RIGHT AHEAD.
I AM A RESIDENT OF SHEPHERD FOREST AND, AND LIVE ON THE FIRST CUL-DE-SAC OF VANS BERRY DRIVE.
UM, I I I REALIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS KIND OF HAVE YOUR HANDS TIED, BUT YOU KNOW, WE JUST REALLY WANNA VOICE OUR FRUSTRATION THAT, YOU KNOW, THE MEMBERS AND THE DEVELOPER WILL NOT ONLY APPROVE THIS PROJECT PLAT MAP THAT WILL POTENTIALLY PUT THE SHEPHERD FOREST RESIDENTS AND OUR CHILDREN IN DANGER DUE TO THIS INCREASED TRAFFIC WITHOUT THE PROPER INFRASTRUCTURE PUT IN PLACE.
I GUESS THIS QUESTION CONTINUES IS WHY WOULD ANYONE PUT THE SAFETY OF OUR RESIDENCE IN DANGER WHEN THERE IS THE IDEAL OPTION TO OPEN UP THE SIX 10 FEETER ROAD? UM, THAT'S JUST BEEN ON MY MIND, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER, KEITH BURHMASTER.
[00:25:01]
I AM.I'M WITH THE HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT.
UM, I, I AM A SHEPHERD FOREST RESIDENT AS WELL.
UM, I JUST LIKE THEY'VE ALREADY REQUESTED THE DEFERRAL JUST FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ON THIS, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CORRECT RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE.
UH, WE BELIEVE THERE'S A BETTER OPTION AND IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO GET A DEFERRAL AND GET SOME BETTER ANSWERS BEFORE THIS CONTINUES, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE, TO HAVE DONE.
UM, ALSO WE JUST REQUEST AT LEAST A TRAFFIC PLAN OR SOME SORT OF, UH, SOMETHING COMING FROM I GUESS THE, UH, DEVELOPER OR THE CITY SAYING THAT THE, THE CORRECT RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE THEY PULL THE TRIGGER ON THIS.
SO I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S TIME AND YOU HAVE GOOD DAY.
MR. ER, UH, NICK, SPEAKER ERIC ALLEN.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? COMMISSION? YES SIR.
FIRST I WANNA THANK Y'ALL FOR LETTING ME SPEAK.
I'M A 15 PLUS YEAR RESIDENT OF SHE FOREST, UH, A FATHER OF TWO CHILDREN, UH, FIVE YEARS OLD.
AND I BELIEVE WE REQUEST A DEFERRAL FOR 8 33 ON THE MARGIN HILL HEIGHTS.
UH, ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS, LIKE MANY OTHER RESIDENTS HAVE ALREADY SAID IS THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT WE ALREADY HAVE GOING THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, TO CUT THROUGH TO DIFFERENT STREETS AND WHATNOT.
AND AS WELL AS THIS WILL BRING ONLY MORE CARS INTO OUR ALREADY CONGESTED STREETS WHERE OUR CHILDREN DO PLAY.
AND I HOPE THE COMMISSION REALLY THINKS ABOUT THIS AND THE IDEA OF KIDS NOT BEING SAFE IN THEIR OWN STREETS, AT THEIR OWN HOMES AND REALLY TAKE THAT IN CONSIDERATION WHEN VOTING.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER, THE FINAL REQUEST IS PHIL KUNZLER.
MR. KUNZLER, ARE YOU THERE? PHIL KLER.
ALRIGHT, NOT GETTING A RESPONSE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ITEM 33? ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.
MR. CHAIR? YES, MR. COMMISSIONER POR I HAVE JOINED THE MEETING.
MR. PORS? PER HAS JOINED THE MEETING AT, UH, I'VE GOT 2 58.
UM, I GUESS GENERAL COMMENTS, I GUESS GENERAL COMMENTS.
SO ALTHOUGH I APPRECIATE ALTERNATIVE ATE, THOSE ALTERNATIVES ARE BEING LOOKED AT, I BELIEVE MR. COUNCILOR HAS ATTEMPTED TO SPEAK.
I, SIR, ARE YOU THERE? HELLO? MR. KALER, ARE YOU THERE SIR? GO AHEAD AND MUTE HIM TEMPORARILY AND I'LL, I'LL CALL, WE'LL CALL HIM AGAIN IN A MOMENT.
UM, COMMISSIONER? NO, JUST THAT, ALTHOUGH I APPRECIATE THE OTHER OPTIONS ARE BEING LOOKED AT, AT THE END OF THE DAY WE CAN ONLY, UM, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO US AND THIS IS THE OPTION THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO US.
BUT MY QUESTION MAY BE FOR STAFF IS SHOULD THIS BE A SHALL PROOF TODAY? WHICH I MEAN IT IS.
UM, AND THE COMMUNITY PRESENTS SOMETHING ELSE TO THE DEVELOPER, THE DEVELOPER LIKES WOULD, WOULD, LIKE, IF, IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES TO THE APPROVED PLAN, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT A PRELIMINARY PLAN AND GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN THROUGH PRELIMINARY.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT COULD OR COULD NOT CHOOSE TO DO MM-HMM
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, ALL, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OPTIONS THAT MIGHT BE FLOATING OUT THERE, ALL WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US TODAY IS THIS OPTION.
THE FINAL, ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER, FOLLOWING UP ON THAT MR. RODRIGUEZ, IF, IF WE WERE TO VOTE FOR THIS TODAY, THE RESIDENTS CONTINUE WITH THEIR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE, UH, OFFICE PARK AND THE DEVELOPER, THAT SAME SCHEDULE THAT MS. MORRIS, UH, PROPOSED OR, OR ASKED ABOUT, WOULD BE THE SAME PATH.
IF, IF THEY FIND A SOLUTION AND, AND DETERMINE THROUGH CONVERSATION WITH STAFF IT'S A VIABLE ONE, THEY'D BE ON THE SAME PATH TO RESUBMIT THAT MM-HMM
UH, TO VOID THIS ACTION TODAY.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT A NEW SUBDIVISION PLA CLASS ONE, UH, CLASS THREE PRELIMINARY.
SO IF I'M THINKING OF THIS AS, AS AN APPROVAL TODAY, UM, SETS SOME PATH THAT THE, THE MOTION OF, UH, THE PLAT THAT WAS STARTED MM-HMM
BY OUR PRIOR ACTION, BUT DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE POTENTIAL FOR SUCCESS.
IT'S, IT'S KIND OF SIX ONE HALF DOZEN ANOTHER.
IS IT NOT, I MEAN, IN TERMS OF TIME? YEAH, THAT, THAT'S CORRECT.
ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER, I THINK THERE MAY BE ANOTHER OPTION HERE.
I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR THE DEVELOPER, BUT IF I AM HEARING CORRECTLY THAT THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T LIKE THE PLAN, THAT THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T LIKE THAT THE PLAN, I WOULD THINK THE APPLICANT COULD WITHDRAW IT RATHER THAN OF US GO THROUGH STEPS
[00:30:01]
THROUGH THE PROCESS OF VOTING.I'LL JUST KIND OF LEAD THAT ON THE TABLE.
I ASKED, I ASKED FOR THAT BACK IN THE LAST
I DID ASK THAT QUESTION 'CAUSE THAT MADE SENSE TO ME TO WITHDRAW WORK THROUGH IT AND THEN COME BACK.
SO THE DEVELOPER'S NOT HERE UNFORTUNATELY, AND I RECALL, HI, HIS POSITION WAS THAT THIS WAS BETTER THAN NOTHING AND HE WAS TIRED OF BEING IN THIS PROCESS.
SO TO COMMISSIONER SMITH POINT, IF THIS IS APPROVED AND HE DOESN'T LIKE THIS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD FINDS A BETTER SOLUTION IN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO, HE WILL NOT HAVE SPENT MORE TIME OR MONEY.
AND IF THEY FIND A BETTER SOLUTION, HE SEEMED THAT IS WHAT HE WANTED TO DO INITIALLY.
I THINK THAT'S THE PATH I WILL BE VOTING FOR.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY MORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? JUST, JUST A COMMENT.
I, THE COMMISSIONER, A COUPLE, COUPLE OF THE SPEAKERS, UM, MENTIONED THE COMMISSIONER'S, UM, INTEREST IN, IN, IN AVOIDING WHAT'S BEFORE US NOW.
AND, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I WAS ONE OF THE SPEAKERS, BUT THAT WAS ON MY MIND.
UM, MR. RODRIGUEZ, I WOULD, I WOULD MAKE THE REQUEST THAT, UH, REPRESENTATIVE PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING BE AVAILABLE FOR THAT DISCUSSION.
AS I RECALL THE, THE STICKING POINT FOR US ON THE COMMISSION WAS CHAPTER 40 TWO'S PROHIBITION AGAINST A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT SERVING COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR CONFIGURATION.
UM, I BRING UP THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THE PREFERRED ROUTE THAT THE RESIDENTS FAVOR AND THE DEVELOPER INITIALLY FAVORED AS FAR AS A ROUTE, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY FULLY EXPLORED ALL OPTIONS FOR THAT BEING A PUBLIC STREET.
IN OTHER WORDS, THAT BEING DEDICATED AS RIGHT AWAY CONSTRUCTED TO PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS WITH SOME SORT OF CONNECTION TO A CONTINUATION OF THE PRIVATE.
DO YOU FOLLOW MY LOGIC THERE? WHERE SOME OPTION TO DEDICATE WHAT IS NOW A PAE TO A PUBLIC STREET, PERHAPS WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC IN A SIMILAR LOCATION? YOU, YOU MEAN FROM SIX 10 LOOP OFF OF ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO OAK FOREST? THAT MAY BE THE TECHNICAL SIDE OF IT.
I DON'T MEAN TO DESIGN IT FOR 'EM, BUT, BUT, UH, THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE FULLY BEEN COOKED AS, AS A POSSIBLE MEETING POINT BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
ANY, ANYTHING ELSE? QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? SHOULD WE TRY FOR OUR SPEAKER AGAIN? I BELIEVE HE IS READY.
MR. KUNZLER? I'M HERE AND READY.
WE HEAR YOU GO RIGHT AHEAD, SIR.
THANK YOU FOR THE TIME AND CONSIDERATION TODAY.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, YES, I'M POLITELY ASKING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DEFER THE VOTE ON THIS AGENDA ITEM MAY 33.
UM, ALSO A, A MEMBER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE DANGEROUS AND DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS IT'LL HAVE.
UM, WE LIVE, UH, RIGHT HERE OFF OF VANS BURY, WHICH WE CURRENTLY CAN'T EVEN HAVE SPEED BUMPS PUT ON BECAUSE IT CONNECTS TO MAJOR INTER AFFAIRS.
UM, AND THIS CONGESTION AND, AND, UH, ADDED TRAFFIC IS, IS, IS REALLY, REALLY GONNA BE DANGEROUS.
UM, I WAS ALSO PRESENT ON THE JUNE 23RD HEARING.
THERE WAS CLEAR CONCERN FROM MULTIPLE OF THE COMMISSIONERS REGARDING DETRIMENTAL AND DANGEROUS IMPACT.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT, UH, WHERE WE LANDED WAS, WAS BASICALLY OUR HANDS ARE TIED.
THIS IS THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS WE'RE CONCERNED, WE'RE SCARED, UM, AND, AND WE'RE WORKING HARD WITH THE DEVELOPER TO TRY TO CONSIDER THIS ADDITIONAL PLAN.
BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR, FOR A LITTLE MORE TIME, UM, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE KNOWINGLY AND OPENLY MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, THAT WE STRONGLY BELIEVE WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO COMPUTE TO THE COMMUNITY, DANGEROUS TO OUR CHILDREN, WE ASK FOR MORE TIME.
I'M THE PARENT OF A FOUR AND A HALF AND A TWO YEAR, TWO AND A HALF YEAR OLD CHILD.
UM, AND I HAVE WITH, I HAVE NO DOUBT THIS WILL CREATE UNSAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR THEM TO USE SIDEWALKS TO TRAVERSE NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET AROUND, WE'LL ESSENTIALLY BE LANDLOCKED.
UM, I'M ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER PROVIDING US THIS MORE TIME, UM, TO DEAL WITH THIS AND TO, TO TRY TO HELP COME TO, TO, TO SOME CONCLUSION.
UM, AND, AND I THINK WE PUT THAT OVER THE DEVELOPER'S TIME.
ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WANTING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM OF MAY 33? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.
SO AGAIN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS A CONSENT ITEM AND IS A SHALL APPROVE.
UM, WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE RECOMMENDATION, MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
UM, MOTION FOR STOP RECOMMENDATION.
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.
THANK YOU LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR COMING TODAY.
[C-Public Hearings Requiring Notification]
NOW MOVE ON TO SECTION C REPL REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH NOTIFICATION.GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE PLOT NUMBER ONE, THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY
[00:35:02]
SOUTH OF WAFER WARD AND WEST OF GOLING ROAD.THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLA IS TO CREATE 38 SINGLE FAMILY LODGE AND THREE RESERVES.
NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
AND ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS WERE MET.
REVIEW BY, IN REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATED THAT THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE DEBT RESTRICTED BUILDING LINE ON THE PLA NOTATION, CITING THIS RESTRICTION WILL BE PROVIDED ON FACE OF THE PLAT.
WITH THIS PLAT NOTE, THE PROPOSED WE PLA WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTION ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OF THOSE FILES.
SEPARATELY, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CCP C 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
AND TO THE PLAT NOTE, MR. CHAIR, IT'S TO PLEASE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM.
AT THIS TIME, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CONTINUED ON ITEM ONE 15, COTTON OAKS ESTATES REPLAT NUMBER ONE, I HAVE A SPEAKER, UH, SARAH YEAGER.
MS. YEAGER, COME FORWARD PLEASE.
IT'S GOOD TO HAVE YOU MS. YEAGER.
WE GOTTA STOP MEETING LIKE THIS.
I KNOW THIS IS THREE WEEKS IN A, OR THREE TIMES IN A ROW.
I LIVE IN THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY AND THERE ARE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THERE ARE VARIANCES THAT WE'VE, UH, APPROVED FROM THE ORIGINAL DEED RESTRICTIONS AND HAVE FILED WITH THE COUNTY.
THIS INFORMATION WAS GIVEN TO KIMBERLY MICKELSON TWO WEEKS AGO.
THE NUMBERS WHERE SHE NEEDED TO LOOK UP THESE THINGS.
HE IS, THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT HE HAS UP THERE IS IN VIOLATION OF A COUPLE OF THINGS.
SO I'VE BROUGHT THAT UP THREE TIMES IN A ROW NOW, NOT TO MENTION TWO YEARS AGO WHEN WE SAW EACH OTHER
ALRIGHT, SO MS. YEAGER, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE IN VIOLATION OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
LEGAL, SO BOTH MYSELF, EXCUSE ME, KIM MICKELSON FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND BOTH MYSELF AND OUTSIDE COUNSEL HAVE REVIEWED THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
I DID MAKE SURE WE HAD ALL OF THE DOCUMENTATION THAT MS. YEAGER PROVIDED.
THEY IN, IN OUR OPINION, THEY ARE NOT VIOLATING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, INCLUDING THE VARIANCE, REQUIRE A BUILDING SETBACK, NOT ANY KIND OF A PROPERTY LINE SETBACK.
AND THEY APPEAR TO BE ABLE TO MEET THAT WITH POTENTIALLY ONE POSSIBLE THEY MIGHT LOSE LOT PER EIGHT, CORRECT? YEAH, IT'S ONE LOT, BUT WE HAVE SIZE.
I DID ASK MS. RODRIGUEZ TO MAKE SURE THAT THE, UM, APPLICANT KNEW THAT, THAT WE FELT THAT THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS WITH THE VARIANCE BECAUSE SOME OF THE ORIGINAL ONES WERE MUCH LARGER.
UM, BUT ALONG EACH OF THOSE PROPERTY SIDES, THEY WILL BE SUBJECT TO BUILDING LINE SETBACKS, WHICH MAY MAKE BUILDING ON SOME OF THE SMALLER LOTS ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE DIFFICULT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT'S A 50 FOOT SETBACK ON THE SOUTH BUILDING.
SO PUSHES THE BUILDING CLOSER TO THE FRONT.
UM, ON THE, THE EAST, IT'S RETENTION.
THEY HAVE A 25 FOOT SETBACK, BUT THEN ON THE WEST AND NORTH IT IS AN 80 AND 50 FOOT RESPECTIVELY BUILDING SETBACK.
SO WE THINK WE THEY CAN MEET THAT ON THE, ON THE TOP, ON THE NORTH SIDE EASILY.
AGAIN, THE WEST SIDE QUESTION ON LOT 38 IS, IS MAYBE ONE THEY'LL LOSE, BUT WE, WE CONCLUDED THEY WERE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THOSE.
SO THEY'RE NOT DEED RESTRICTION BOOBOOS, THEY'RE BUILDING LINE SETBACK BOOBOOS THAT HE'S, I MEAN HE, THERE'S NO WAY HE CAN BUILD A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I MEAN A HOUSE ON LOT 38, HE, HE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO.
SO HE'S NOT BREAKING ANY RULES BECAUSE HE HASN'T BUILT ANYTHING YET.
AND THAT'S, AND THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF PUTTING THE NOTATION ON THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THESE RESTRICTIONS.
AND WE, AND I HELPED MS. RODRIGUEZ WRITE THAT LANGUAGE AND WE'VE REFERRED TO IT BY THE FILING NUMBER SO THAT, UM, AND HE'LL BE NOTIFIED THAT Y'ALL ARE WATCHING HIM.
IT'S, I IT WILL SHOW UP ON THE PLAT DOWN.
THIS IS IN THE COUNTY, I BELIEVE.
SO WHO GETS OUT THERE AND MEASURES ON THE DAY, HE PUTS DOWN THAT FIRST STAKE IN LOT 38 AND MAKES SURE THAT HE'S 80 FEET.
IS THAT YOUR JOB? UH, YES MA'AM.
IN PART, I'M, I'M HERE TODAY AS, UH, AS AN APPOINTED COUNT, UH, COMMISSIONER.
UH, BUT MY DAY JOB AS ASSISTANT COUNTY ENGINEER AT HARRIS COUNTY, UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, WILL HAVE A FURTHER ACTION TO RECORD THIS PLAT, UH, AFTER AN APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER'S COURT.
[00:40:01]
UM, WE WILL ALSO VERIFY THAT THE, THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE IS ON THE PLAT, UM, AFTER THE CITY'S REVIEW.YOU HAVE WHEN A HOME BUILDER SEEKS TO DO CONSTRUCTION, UH, WE RECEIVE A, A LAYOUT OF THE LOT THAT INCLUDES, UH, BRINGING THE INFORMATION FROM THE PLAT ONTO THAT.
SO WE WILL SEE A LAYOUT OF THE HOUSE SLAB LOCATION, UH, AT SOME POINT A DRIVEWAY APPLICATION AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE HOUSE'S PLACEMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING LINES YOU'VE JUST HEARD ABOUT.
UM, HE'S, HE'S HOPING I DIE BEFORE HE GETS TO LOT 38.
ALRIGHT, WE ARE AT A PUBLIC HEARING.
ARE THERE, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 15? IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON, UH, COTTON OAKS ESTATES? REPL NUMBER ONE, HEARING NONE.
THE UH, PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, QUESTIONS OF THE COMMISSION QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF.
IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION? CLARK CLARK.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM ONE 16 ALBERTA VILLA.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM ONE 16 IS ALBERTA VILLAS.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF RED BUDGE STREET AND ALBERTA STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL VIOLATE SEPARATELY FILED RESTRICTIONS PERTAINING TO THE LOT SIZE AND THE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRING THE PLAT FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW TIME TO COORDINATE WITH THE APPLICANT REGARDING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
MR. CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
AND STAFF WOULD LIKE TO NOTE, WE HAVE RECEIVED VANCE COMMENTS AND OPPOSITION AND YOU DO HAVE SPEAKERS, UH, THAT HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM ONE 16 ALBERTA VILLA IS NOW OPEN.
I HAVE, UM, TWO PEOPLE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
THE FIRST BEING RONALD ROBERTS.
MR. ROBERTS, COME FORWARD PLEASE.
UH, GOOD MORNING COUNCIL, UH, COMMISSION.
UM, I AM, UH, A MEMBER OF THE, UH, BROOKHAVEN CIVIC CLUB, BROOKHAVEN EDITION CIVIC CLUB.
AND OUR DEEP RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN, UH, IN EXISTENCE FOR, UH, UH, SINCE 1939.
SO ON THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, IT SAYS THAT, UH, THERE WILL BE NO REPL AND, UH, THE, UH, THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE RESIDENCE, ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE PER PLAT.
UH, AND, UH, THERE ARE, UM, UH, THE DISTANCE FOR BUILDING THE, THE FRONT OF A, A PROPERTY OR A HOME.
IT WAS INDICATED IN OUR, UH, RESTRICTIONS ALSO.
AND IN DIVIDING UP, UH, THE PROPERTY FOR FOUR INDIVIDUAL, UH, RESIDENTS WOULD, UH, UH, WOULD VIOLATE THOSE RESTRICTIONS.
SO, UH, THAT'S WHAT, AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS, UH, THAT DOESN'T HAVE VERY BIG STREETS.
SO ADDITIONAL, UH, RESIDENTS, UH, WOULD, UH, VEHICLES, UH, AND THINGS LIKE THAT WOULD, UH, IT WOULD, IT, IT WOULD IMPACT OUR, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO, UM, WE ARE ASKING THE COMMISSION TO NOT APPROVE THIS, UH, REPRE PLATTING AND TO, UH, UH, AND TO HONOR OUR, UH, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS.
MR. ROBERTS, JUST SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, UM, WE SHOW THAT THEY'RE IN VIOLATION OF THE JURISDICTION AND THEY'VE ASKED FOR A DEFERRAL TO SEE IF THEY CAN COME INTO COMPLIANCE.
SO IF WE APPROVE THE DEFERRAL TODAY, IT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE THROWING OUT DEED RESTRICTIONS OR ANYTHING.
THOSE ARE GOING TO STICK, THEY'RE SACROSANCT HERE, SO THEY WILL HAVE TO COME BACK AND REDRAW, RES, REAPPLY, WHATEVER THEY NEED TO DO TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE.
ALRIGHT, MR. ANY QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS, UH, BERNICE DAVIS.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TODAY AND THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.
[00:45:01]
I AM THE VICE PRESIDENT OF BRICK HAVENS CIVIC CLUB AND I AM HERE BECAUSE, UM, IT'S REALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO EVEN COME BACK AND REDIVIDE THE PROPERTY IN ANY TYPE OF WAY AND STILL NOT VIOLATE ID RESTRICTIONS.ID RESTRICTIONS, UH, SAY THAT THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY WHEN YOU DIVIDE IT, EACH LOT HAS TO BE AT LEAST 67 FEET WIDE.
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT WITH THE WIDTH OF OUR PROPERTIES.
AND EVEN IF YOU TRY TO TURN IT TO THE SIDE STREET, YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE 7,800 SQUARE FEET.
ID RESTRICTIONS ALSO SAY THAT, UM, ALL, ALL REPLANTED PROPERTY HAS TO FACE THE FRONTAGE, WHICH IS THE SHORTEST DISTANCE OF THE LOT.
THE ADDRESS HAS TO FACE THE FRONTAGE ROAD, WHICH IS THE SHORTEST DISTANCE.
IT ALSO SAYS THAT EACH PROPERTY HAS TO BE AT LEAST 130 FEET DEEP ONCE YOU REPL IT.
AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THAT PROPERTY TO CONFORM TO ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
ON TOP OF THAT, ID RESTRICTION SAYS THAT ONLY ONE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOME PER LOT.
AND SO, UH, NO MATTER HOW THEY TRY TO TWIST AND TURN THAT THEY'RE GONNA STILL VIOLATE ID RESTRICTIONS TIME.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. DAVIS? THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR INSIGHT MS. DAVIS.
ALRIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I SHOW NO OTHER SPEAKERS OR IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM? ALRIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'VE GOT A RECOMMENDATION FOR A DEFERRAL ON ITEM ONE 16 ALBERTA VILLA.
NO, I'M NOT CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE'RE GONNA GET A DEFERRAL, WE'LL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I, I TAKE WHEN YOU DO THIS TWICE A YEAR, YOU MAKE MISTAKES.
ALRIGHT, SO LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'VE GOT A RECOMMENDATION FOR DEFERRAL.
IS THERE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NONE, IS THERE A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL IN CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION? OUS PERLE JONES AND OUS PERLE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED? THE ITEM IS APPROVED AND THIS ITEM IS DEFERRED.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO, UH, ONE 17 FOSTER PLACE, PARTIAL REPL.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS WEST ALONG ENGLAND STREET NORTH OF YELLOWSTONE BOULEVARD AND EAST OF SCOTT STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE TWO NARROW FRONT LOADING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MR. 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 ON THIS ITEM.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM ONE 17, FOSTER PLACE PARTIAL REPL NUMBER 30 IS NOW OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF YOU TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION BALDWIN FOLLOWED BY CLARK? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM ONE 18, JACKSON MUSE REPL NUMBER TWO, JACKSON MUSE REPL.
NUMBER TWO, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST ALONG JACKSON STREET, NORTH OF SOUTHMORE BOULEVARD AND WEST OF ALAMEDA ROAD.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE TWO FRONT LOADING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MR. 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.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN ON ITEM ONE 18, JACKSON MUSE REPL NUMBER TWO.
WE HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? NO ONE UNDER THE CHAT.
ALRIGHT THEN WITH THAT I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS, HEARING NONE.
IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? MADS
[00:50:01]
SECOND VICTOR.ALL THOSE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM ONE 19, MAYFLOWER LANDING, MAYFLOWER LANDING.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY, CITY LIMITS SOUTH ALONG MAYFLOWER STREET, WEST OF CULLEN BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF INTERSTATE SIX 10.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE TWO NARROW FRONT LOADING RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
BILINGUAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MR. 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.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM ONE 19 MAYFLOWER LANDING IS NOW OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE OR ONLINE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? HEARING NONE.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE ON ONE 19 MAYFLOWER LANDING.
WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM APPROVAL FROM STAFF.
IS THERE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? HEARING NONE.
IS THERE A MOTION? CLARK SECOND SIGLER.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.
MELODY OAKS PARTIAL REPL NUMBER 25 AND EXTENSION ITEM ONE 20.
THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION PER COUNCIL MEMBER PECK REQUEST.
UM, IT HAS BEEN DEFERRED TWICE SO IT CANNOT BE DEFERRED ANYMORE.
THIS SET IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF LONG POINT ROAD AND EAST OF ON POINT DRIVE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLA IS TO CREATE 23 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND FULL RESERVE WITH PRIVATE STREET.
NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS WERE MET.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTION ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILES SEPARATELY THAT WE SEE MULTIPLE PUBLIC COMMENT IN EVENT VOICING CONCERN ON DENSITY TRAFFIC AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
MR. CHAIR, IF YOU PLEASE THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CONTINUED ON ITEM ONE 20.
MELODY OAKS, OUR COUNCIL MEMBER IS HERE, BUT BEFORE WE BEGIN, COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, IT IS TRADITION HERE THAT WE OPEN UP WITH THE APPLICANT AND ALLOW THEM TO CLOSE.
SO THE APPLICANT IS DARREN MARTIN, IF YOU WOULD.
SIR, DID YOU WANNA ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AS AN OPENING STATEMENT? COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE EXCUSE MY ATTIRE.
I'VE BEEN ON, UH, THE FIELD ALL DAY WITH, UH, CENTER POINT.
UM, THE FERAL FOR, UH, THE, THE TWO TIMES THE FERAL WAS, UH, AT THE, UH, REQUEST OF, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER PECK.
UM, AND THAT WAS TO MEET WITH THE RESIDENTS TO, UH, TO FIND OUT WHAT THE ISSUES ARE WITH THE AREA AND TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO TRY TO APPEASE ALL THE, ALL THE RESIDENTS.
WE HAD A, UH, A MEETING WITH THE RESIDENTS, UM, OVER 50 RESIDENTS.
WE MET WITH THEM, TOOK ON BOARD.
UM, SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS AND THEIR CONCERNS ARE ACTUALLY MORE OUT WITH THE, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT THAT, THAT WE ARE UH, PROPOSING HERE.
UM, BUT BY THE END OF THE MEETING WE MADE SOME MODIFICATIONS, UM, TO THE, UH, TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
NOT BECAUSE IT WAS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATIONS OR REQUIREMENTS, BUT MERELY TO, TO ASSIST WITH, UH, MAKING EVERYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAPPY.
WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING, UH, HOMES THAT ARE NOTHING BUT, UM, UH, INCREASING THE VALUE OF, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO BY THE END OF THE MEETING, IT, EVERYONE WAS, UH, WAS EXTREMELY PLEASED.
ALL THE RESIDENTS WHO ATTENDED WERE EXTREMELY PLEASED WITH OUR PROPOSAL.
UM, I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE, UH, FROM THE DEVELOPER OF, OF N ONE IF ANYONE HAS ANY CONCERNS.
I I WILL CALL ON YOU AGAIN AT THE END.
IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CLOSING COMMENTS.
UM, COUNCIL MEMBER PECK, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR WAITING.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR INDULGENCE.
UM, FIRST I WANNA THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GRANTING OUR REQUEST TO DEFER THIS TWICE.
UM, IT DID GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH DARREN AND TO
[00:55:01]
ALSO HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING.AND LIKE HE SAID, WE DID HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE ATTEND THIS MEETING AND HE GRACIOUSLY MADE SOME CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT, THE ADDITIONAL ENTRANCE EXIT ON JACQUELINE.
AND HE'S ALSO LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOTS RIGHT ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY, UM, ALONG JACQUELINE TO TRY TO KIND OF FOCUS THE PARKING ON THAT SECTION.
AND WE ARE ALSO ASSISTING THE RESIDENTS WITH, UM, SPEED CUSHIONS AND WE'RE LOOKING AT SIDEWALKS IF THAT'S FEASIBLE ALONG JANET.
BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR THAT TO BE EVALUATED.
SO I THINK MOST PEOPLE LEFT THE MEETING, UM, PRETTY HAPPY WITH THOSE CHANGES.
AND SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALLOWING US THAT OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT MEETING AND HAVE THE UM, THOSE ISSUES BE ADDRESSED.
COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBER.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER AND I APOLOGIZE, I'M AN OLD GUY AND THIS WAS REALLY TINY PARENT, SO IT LOOKS LIKE TIM TOLL, T-O-A-L-E, TIM TOLL, RIGHT? WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE.
ALRIGHT, I WILL GO BACK TO THOSE NAMES.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE CHAT? ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO HAS NOT SIGNED UP, WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ITEM ONE 20? MELODY OAKS PARTIAL REPL NUMBER 25 IN EXTENSION, RIGHT? THEN I'LL GO BACK TO THE LIST REALLY QUICKLY.
ALRIGHT, I GUESS THEY WON'T BE JOINING US TODAY.
THAT IS ALL OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS.
WITH THAT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? HEARING NONE.
IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? ROBINS AND BALD BALDWIN ROBINS, BALDWIN.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED THE MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU AGAIN COUNCIL MEMBER.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY.
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 1 21.
CAN, CAN WE ALSO SAY THANK YOU TO THE DEVELOPER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? OH, UH, FOR WORKING TOGETHER.
UM, WE KNOW IT, IT PUTS EVERYONE OUT TO KEEP COMING BACK DOWN HERE TO HAVE ALL THESE MEETINGS.
BUT WE APPRECIATE YOUR COOPERATION MR. MARTIN.
I SAID I WOULD CALL ON YOU AT THE END AND I COMPLETELY FORGOT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, MAKE A COMMENT AT ALL? THANK YOU SIR.
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION IS, MY NAME IS JOHN PHILLIPS CILLO.
ITEM 1 21 IS NEW AND MANOR PARTIAL REPL NUMBER 28.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS WEST ALONG BLADELOCK ROAD NORTH OF HAMMERLY BOULEVARD.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE 13 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO PARKING RESERVES ALONG A SHARED DRIVEWAY.
THERE ARE NO BRAINER REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE PLAT AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE COMMENT FOR THE APPLICATION.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS, MR. CHAIR FOR PLEASE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU MR. CILLO, THE PUBLIC HERE ON ITEM ITEM 1 21.
NEW AND MANOR PARTIAL REPL NUMBER 28 IS NOW OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE OR ONLINE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? HEARING NONE.
YOU HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION BEFORE YOU WHICH TO UH, APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IS THERE QUESTION OR COMMENT? IS THERE A MOTION? CLARK AND MADS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED HEARING NONE.
ITEM 1 22 AND 1 23 HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 1 24, PROVIDENCE RESERVE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CITY AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF JENSEN DRIVE AND PROVIDENCE STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REPL IS TO CREATE ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND THERE ARE NO VARIANCES
[01:00:01]
REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED.
SEPARATELY, WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE PLAT STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
UH, MR. CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 1 24, PROVIDENCE RESERVE IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? THERE IS NO ONE IN THE CHAT.
WITH THAT, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE ARE ON ITEM 1 24, PROVIDENCE RESERVE.
IS THERE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION JONES SECOND ISH.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.
ITEM 1 25, TIMMERMAN PLACE, PARTIAL REPLANT.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CITY EAST ALONG ARVIN STREET, SOUTH OF TIDWELL AND WEST OF MESA DRIVE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REPLANT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
UH, THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED.
SEPARATELY, WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE PLAT STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT FOR FOR MEETING OF, UM, IS TO APPROVE THE PLAN SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
UH, MR. CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES TO THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 1 25, TIMMERMAN PLACE, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER TWO IS NOW OPEN.
WE HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? THERE'S NO ONE IN THE CHAT.
WITH THAT, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED.
IS THERE A MOTION, VICTOR, SECOND CLERK? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.
[D-Variances]
ON TO SECTION D VARIANCES, MR. BUTLER.MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON GOOD JOB
ITEM 1 26 IS ARLET INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, AND THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT SOUTH OF TIDWELL AND EAST OF HOMESTEAD ROADS.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESERVE RESTRICTED TO COMMERCIAL USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING A WAREHOUSE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO TERMINATE ALBERT STREET AT THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY WITHOUT PROVIDING A CUL-DE-SAC.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF SHREVEPORT ROAD TO THE WEST OF A UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD LINE.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A CUL-DE-SAC AT THE EXISTING SHREVEPORT DEAD END FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS.
THIS WILL ALLOW FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE TRAFFIC GENERATED TO FLOW ALONG THE PERIPHERY OF THE ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY RATHER THAN ITS INTERIOR.
IN ADDITION, THE STUB PORT PORTION OF ELBERT STREET IS UNIMPROVED IN ONLY ONE LOT DEEP, REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO BUILD THIS SEGMENT AND EXTEND IT INTO THEIR PROPERTY WOULD NOT BENEFIT TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN THE AREA, NOR WOULD IT IMPROVE ACCESS TO THE SITE.
STAFF FINDS THIS REQUEST TO BE A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE TO STRICT INTERPRETATION 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.
THIS ITEM, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY, SO.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. BUTNER.
I DO HAVE, UM, JOYCE OWENS, WHO IS THE APPLICANT, SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
MS. OWENS, ARE YOU THERE? GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.
I AM AVAILABLE FOR, UH, COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU MS. OWENS COMMISSION QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? THANK YOU MS. OWENS.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR YOU RIGHT NOW, SO WE'LL JUST MOVE ON.
ALRIGHT, WE'RE ON ITEM 1 26, UH, ARROW BLITZ INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.
WE'VE GOT A RECOMMENDATION TO, UH, TO APPROVE.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IS THERE A MOTION SOMEONE FROM THE PUBLIC IS HERE? IS THERE SOMEONE HERE WHO WANTED TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? I'M SORRY.
THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I DIDN'T CALL OH, RIGHT.
COME YOU MISSPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
UM, I'M SHARON BROWN AND I LIVE WHERE, UH, WHERE JEFF IS TALKING ABOUT, UH, PUTTING THE WAREHOUSE VILLE, UH, A LOT OF, UH, THE NEIGHBORS WHO, WHO ARE REQUESTING OR WANT TO KNOW WHY WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S BUSINESS,
[01:05:01]
BUT DID YOU KNOW IT'S A CEMETERY BACK THERE?SO WHAT ARE THEY GONNA DO ABOUT THE CEMETERY? WELL, THAT IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION, MS. BROWN.
NOW I, LET ME, AND, AND MR. BUTLER'S DEFENSE, OH, HEY, GO AHEAD.
I, I WILL SAY THAT ALL WE KNOW IS WHAT WE'RE PRESENTED WITH, LIKE WE DON'T, SO THE APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT UP THE CEMETERY.
I BELIEVE THERE'S ACCESS FOR IT ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PLAT AND THAT THAT SHOULD ACTUALLY BE SHOWN ON THE PLAT.
AND, ALRIGHT, MS. OWENS, ARE YOU STILL THERE? YES.
ADDRESS MS. BROWN ON THAT? I, UH, ON THAT ISSUE? YES.
UM, UH, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS? YES, WE ARE AWARE THAT THERE IS A CEMETERY THAT RUNS ALONG THE EASTERN PLA BOUNDARY.
UM, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE, UM, CEMETERY.
UM, WE ARE PLANNING, WE'RE PROPOSING TO PUT, OF COURSE, A WOOD FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY AND A LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
BUT WE ARE AWARE AND THE OWNER IS AWARE BEFORE THEY PURCHASE THE PROPERTY, AND IT IS NOT THE, THE CEMETERY IS NOT WITHIN THE PLAT BOUNDARY.
ALL RIGHT, MS. OWENS, I SEE THAT MS. BROWN, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE SAYING? I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.
BUT I MEAN, UH, HE PUT, THEY'RE PUTTING A MAINTENANCE, A MAIN, A TRAIN, MAINTENANCE PLANT BEHIND THE HOUSES.
UH, HOW IS THAT GONNA AFFECT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE? ARE WE GOING TO, SINCE IT'S DEALING WITH THE TRAIN, ARE WE GONNA BE IN A SITUATION LIKE LIBERTY ROAD AND CASHIER GARDENS? THAT'S NOT A QUESTION.
DEALING WITH CANCER, YEAH, THAT'S NOT A QUESTION WE CAN ANSWER FOR YOU.
ARE WE GOING END UP BEING LIKE THAT? WELL, WE ALREADY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE TRAINS COMING THROUGH.
WE ALREADY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE TRAINS.
WE, WE GOT USED TO THE NOISE AND THEY DON'T BLOW THEIR HORNS, SO WE KINDA GOOD.
BUT THEN WHEN, WHEN ABIL COME, WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER, THE NOISE? THEY GONNA HAVE NOISE? YES, MS. BROWN.
I, I, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE THING THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO REALIZE HERE IS WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE PLAT.
WE DON'T ADDRESS ALL THOSE OTHER ISSUES.
THE RAILROAD, THE NOISE THAT'S FALLS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION.
RIGHT? THERE ARE OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT DO TALK ABOUT THAT, THAT YOU COULD PERHAPS TALK TO, BUT THIS WOULD BE THE WRONG BODY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH.
I UNDERSTAND THAT ABOUT THE RAIL, ABOUT THE TRAINS.
THAT'S JUST, AND I WANNA KNOW HOW YOU GOT 'EM TO BE QUIET.
THEY'RE NOT QUIET IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY'RE STILL BLOWING AT 2:00 AM WELL, THEY'RE NOT QUIET.
EVERYBODY KNOWS THE TRAINS MAKE NOISE.
YOU NEED TO COME TO MY HOUSE AND WE JUST, WE JUST DEAL WITH IT.
UH, MY PARENTS BOUGHT THIS, UH, HOUSE 50 YEARS AGO, SO IT'S PRETTY QUIET BACK THERE.
SO IS IT GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE QUIET? I DON'T KNOW.
IS IT GONNA BRING A LOT OF EXTRA TRAFFIC? EXCUSE ME, MR. MR. CHAIR? YES, MS. OWENS, GO RIGHT AHEAD.
UH, WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER.
I HAVE SPOKEN WITH ONE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS GET YOUR INFORMATION AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN, UH, WORK AND COORDINATE WITH THE, THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S OFFICE AND HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING.
UH, THERE IS A DETENTION POND THAT'S, THAT'S GOING TO BE LOCATED, UH, ALONG THE, UM, EASTERN PLAT BOUNDARY AND ALSO A GREEN SPACE.
SO THE WHOLE AREA IS NOT GONNA BE COVERED.
UM, ARROW BL UH, IS PROPOSING FURTHER IN THE FUTURE TO USE THE RAIL, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY, UM, WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE SHIPPING IS, IS DRY GOODS, LUMBER, THINGS LIKE THAT.
THERE WON'T BE ANYTHING THAT'S HAZARDOUS, NOT, THERE'LL BE NON-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
UM, ALSO THEY WILL FOLLOW OSHA REGULATIONS, BUT I WOULD FOR THE, I PUT MY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAT ON.
I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, PROBABLY CONTINUE TO COORDINATE WITH THE, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER JACKSON'S OFFICE AND SEE IF WE CAN COORDINATE A COMMUNITY MEETING TO BETTIS.
IS THAT THEY'RE STILL ON GROUND ZERO.
SO AS WE GO FURTHER ALONG SO THAT THE COMMUNITY IS AWARE OF WHAT'S COMING AND WHEN IT RIGHT.
THANK IF THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
BUT THAT'S ONE THING WE ARE PLANNING TO DO.
SO MS. BROWN, DO, UH, DO, UM, DO YOU HAVE A CARD OR CAN YOU GIVE YOUR INFORMATION TO MR. BUTLER? WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT MS. OWENS GETS IT AND FORWARDS AN TO YOU.
I HAVE HER NUMBER I CAN CALL YOU.
OKAY, WELL THEN YOU GO RIGHT AHEAD THEN WE WON'T GET IN THE MIDDLE.
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
MS. OWEN, WE, WE HAVE A COLORFUL, UH, STREET OR A COLORFUL SITE PLAN HERE THAT SHOWS A TRUCK, UH, UH, MOVING IN THE SITE.
IT APPEARS THAT THE TRUCK TRAFFIC WILL BE CLOSE TO A ROW OF HOUSES ALONG THE SOUTHERN PERIMETER.
HAS, HAS YOUR CLIENT MADE A DECISION ON, ON FENCING OR, OR BUFFERING OF ANY KIND ALONG THAT BORDER? YES.
OUR VARIANCE INCLUDED A WOOD FENCE ALONG THE PERIMETER
[01:10:01]
OF THE PROPERTY THAT ABUTS THE SUBDIVISION AND GOING TO THE NORTH AS WELL AS WE SEE THE GREEN AREAS THERE.BUT YOU CAN SEE THOSE LITTLE GREEN DOTS OF TREES.
SO WHAT WE DID IS WE DID A CALCULATION AS IF THOSE WERE COMMERCIAL STREETS OR STREET TREES.
SO THEY HAVE, WE ARE DOING A WHOLE COMMER, UH, I THINK IT'S LIKE A FIVE FOOT WALL, FIVE FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH TREES AND SHRUBS.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
AND THERE WILL BE AT LEAST THREE INCH CALIPER TREES ALONG THAT AREA.
YES, AND WE DID TAKE THAT TO, INTO CONSIDERATION.
UM, THEY'RE STILL ON GROUND ZERO, BUT THEY ARE PROPOSING LIGHTING RIGHT NOW.
SO, UM, AND THEY'RE CONCERNED ALSO ABOUT SAFETY.
SO THEY'RE PROPOSING ELECTRIC, UH, GATE AT THE ENTRANCE ON SHREVEPORT AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE, UM, AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. OWENS? ALRIGHT THEN.
UH, AGAIN, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THAT COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM? 1 26.
ANYONE IN THE CHAT? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.
UH, WITH THAT WE'VE GOT A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED.
I HAD A MOTION BY BALDWIN COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, ARE YOU STICKING WITH THAT? IS THERE A SECOND? CLARK.
CLARK, BECAUSE ALL OF, YOU'RE SO QUIET AND I JUST KICKED HER ONTO THE TABLE.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL, ALL THOSE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 1 27 EAST RIVER, SECTION ONE PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE CHAIR.
DID YOU MAKE A NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER HEISS WILL BE ABSTAINING? I ALSO WILL BE COMMISSIONER SIGLER WILL ALSO BE ABSTAINING.
I HAVE THAT IN MY NOTES SOMEWHERE.
THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON CITY LIMIT NORTH OF BUFFALO BAYOU, SOUTH OF US 59 AND EAST OF JENSEN DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO RESERVE AND REQUESTING A VARIANT TO ALLOW A REDUCED BORDERLINE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET ALONG RIVER BAY DRIVE FOR A PROPOSED SKYBRIDGE.
AND ALL KNEES STOP IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
RIVER GP IS RIVER GP GRANTED A SPECIAL RECEPTION IN 2019 TO ALLOW 50 FEET RIGHT, RIGHT AWAY WITH A PURPOSE TO DEVELOP PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY, MAKE USE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN WALKABLE SMALL KALE BLOCKS AS PART OF THE EAST RIVER GP.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE TWO BUILDINGS, ONE PARKING WITH RETAIL ON THE GROUND AND AN OFFICE BUILDING WITH RETAIL ON THE GROUND CONNECTED WITH THE SKY BRIDGE ALONG RIVER BY ROAD.
OWNING WITHIN THE 10 FEET BUILDING LINE IS ALSO BEING PROPOSED TO PROVIDE SHADE STRUCTURES WITHIN THE PEDESTRIAN REALM.
THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE SKYPE BRIDGE.
THE SKYPE BRIDGE HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS.
THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANT WOULD NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.
THE PROPOSED SKYBRIDGE AND AING WILL NOT OBSTRUCT ANY PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICLE TRAFFIC.
ALSO, THE APPLICANT WILL IMPROVE THE PEDESTRIAN BOMB, WHICH WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PEDESTRIAN BOMB DESIGN APPROVED WITH THE EAST RIVER DP MEETING.
THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE, THE PEDESTRIAN WALL WILL BE 16 FEET WIDE WITH 10 FEET CLEAR SIDEWALK AND SIX FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH AP PARALLEL PARKING ON BOTH SIDES.
SO STA RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBSTITUTE THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
I HAVE ONE SPEAKER, THE APPLICANT, GERALD GRISHAM.
MR. GRISHAM, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY.
QUESTIONS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
LOOKS LIKE A VERY INTERESTING PROJECT.
IT'S VERY, YEAH, IT'S, IT'S WONDERFUL.
ANYONE FOR STAFF MORE THAN HIM, BUT GO AHEAD.
DOES IT MEET THE WALK WALL PLACES STANDARD AND IS PART OF THE TRANSPARENCY OF THE BUILDING A PORTION OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST THAT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT IN WALKABLE PLACES FOR THE FIRST FLOOR RETAIL.
UNDERSTAND SO THAT THEY DON'T BOARD BOARD IT UP AND MAKEAND IT.
THEY WILL HAVE RETAIL, IT'LL MEET ALL OF YOUR YES.
AND SO THE TRANSPARENCY IS A PART OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
THAT MEETS THE WALKABLE PLACES CRITERIA.
I DON'T DIRECTOR WALLACE BROWN.
WELL, I DON'T, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, I DON'T THINK THE TRANSPARENCY IS PART OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST, BUT IT IS NOT WITH THE TRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION.
WE ARE, WE ARE WORKING, WE ARE WORKING WITH
[01:15:01]
THE DEVELOPER ON WALKABLE PLACES STANDARDS, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL MEET THE STANDARDS WITH THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT.BUT IT'S NOT PART OF THIS REQUEST.
COULD WE MAKE IT SUCH I DON'T, THEY HAVEN'T ASKED FOR IT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVEN'T ASKED FOR IT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE RELATED.
YEAH, I DON'T, UM, UM, WE CAN MAKE TRANSPARENCY A PART OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
WE'VE DONE ART AT HEB SELF-CLOSING TRASH CANS AND LIGHT DIRECTIONS AND BUILD THE BUILDINGS ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
ARE THERE, IS IT TRANSPARENT ON THE FIRST FLOOR? YES, SIR.
THE RENDER, AS YOU SEE ON THE RENDERINGS THERE THAT I, I'LL RENDER, I LET IT GO.
BUT THE TRANSPARENCY IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF YES, AND WE AGREE WITH THAT.
AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM ON THAT.
THE, THE, THE DEVELOPMENT, THE ENTIRE 150 ACRES WILL BE, UH, WILL MEET ALL OF YOUR PEDESTRIAN ROME NEEDS.
THAT'S THE WHOLE FOCUS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. GRISHAM OR FOR STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? I DID HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE, UH, COMMISSIONER TRANSPARENCY.
UH, IS IT RELATIVE TO, UM, UM, THE, A PERCENTAGE OF THE FACADE AT GRADE THAT FACES THE STREET OR, OR IS IT THE ENTIRE FACADE AT GRADE ALL FOUR? THERE'S, UH, BELIEVE IT'S A 50% OF THE FACADE.
UH, I BELIEVE THE CRITERIA IS 50% OF THE FACADE MUST BE, UH, TRANSPARENT, UH, FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN AND AND THE PLANS, IT'LL BE GREATER THAN 50%.
THE ENTIRE BOTTOM FLOOR OF THE, UM, BUILDING C, WHICH IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RIVER BY, UH, IS ALL RETAIL AND SAFE FOR THE LOBBY, FOR THE OFFICE BUILDING TO GO UP.
UH, AND THEN ON THE GARAGE SIDE, THE EVERYTHING FACING RIVER BY THERE'S 11,000 SQUARE FEET THERE THAT WILL BE FRONTING RIVER BY.
AND THAT WILL, UM, BE, MAJORITY OF IT WILL BE TRANSPARENT.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTION FOR MR. GRISHAM? THANK YOU, SIR.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM 1 27 EAST RIVER SECTION ONE PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT CONDITIONS.
IS THERE A MOTION? BALDWIN AND MAD? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED THE MOTION PASSES.
ITEM 1 28 IS GENERATION PARK EAST WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A 7.6 ACRE PROPERTY IN HARRIS COUNTY.
EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION NORTH OF LAKE HOUSTON PARKWAY AND EAST OF SAM HOUSTON TOLLWAY.
AND THE PROPOSED TIMBER FOREST DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A LARGE RESERVE TO BE RESTRICTED TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN USE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AEVIDENCE TO TAKE ACCESS VIA AN ACCESS EASEMENT IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED, UH, ACCESS VIA PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE PLA WAS DEFERRED INITIALLY AS AN APPLICATION WITHIN AN EXPIRED GP.
UH, GENERAL PLAN, A NEW GENERAL PLAN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND APPROVED, UH, GENERATION PARK EAST GP.
THE PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN WOULD BE SERVICING BOTH THE GENERATION PARK EAST AND GENERATION PARK SOUTH GENERAL PLANS BOTH PROPOSING LARGE SCALE INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE USE.
THE PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT WOULD BE 60 FEET WIDE AND WOULD UTILIZE A 12 FOOT WIDE DIRT ROAD FOR OVER HALF A DISTANCE SHOWN IN YELLOW.
AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ADDITIONAL 12 FOOT WIDE, UH, ALL WEATHER ACCESS ROAD IN COMPLIANCE WITH TCE REQUIREMENTS SHOWN IN PINK TO EXTEND THE REQUIRED ACCESS, THE PROPOSED RESERVE WOULD BE GRANTED ACCESS IN PERPETUITY AND WILL BE GRANTED MORE DIRECT ACCESS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, TIMBER CROSSROAD, UH, AND THE ACCESS EASEMENT CAN POTENTIALLY BE FULLY REPLACED WITH THE, WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, UH, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, PROVIDING THAT DIRECT ACCESS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICATION AND COUNTY ENGINEER HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE ON ITEM 1 28 GENERATION PARK EAST WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE CHAT? IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? RIGHT? THEN WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.
WE'VE GOT A RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED.
IS THERE A DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER? I, I'D JUST LIKE TO CONGRATULATE THE COMMISSION.
THIS MAY BE THE LAST TIME THIS TYPE OF VARIANCE COMES BEFORE US.
YOU'LL RECALL WE PASSED A, UH, RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO, UM, TAKE THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF VARIANCE OUT BY THE, UH,
JUSTIN, I'M, WOULD YOU START OVER PLEASE? COMMISSION MAY.
THE LAST TIME WE SEE THIS TYPE OF VARIANCE DUE TO THE, UH, ACTION WE TOOK SEVERAL WEEKS BACK TO FORWARD COUNSEL, A
[01:20:01]
MODIFICATION OF CHAPTER 42 THAT WOULD CODIFY THIS TYPE OF THING.ANYONE ELSE? I WAS JUST GONNA SAY HOPEFULLY, YEAH, I'M SURE.
ALRIGHT, WITH THAT, UH, WE'VE GOT, UH, A RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT THE REQUEST A VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLAT.
IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION? SMITH? SMITH.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.
THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HARRIS COUNTY ETJ, ALONG GOSLING ROAD, NORTH OF WEST RAYFORD AND SOUTH OF CREEKSIDE FOREST DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SUBDIVISION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND DETENTION RESERVES ALONG PRIVATE STREETS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG GOSLING BY NOT EXTENDING PINE CREEK GROVE DRIVE THROUGH THE SITE AS A PUBLIC STREET.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW AND FOR THE APPLICANT TO SURVIVE SUBMIT REVISED MATERIALS.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENT.
THIS ITEM, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
UM, I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE WANTING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM? WE'RE ON ITEM 1 29.
THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW.
IS THERE QUESTION OR COMMENT? HEARING NONE.
IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION SIGLER SIGLER SECOND MAD.
GP CHAIR GARZA, UH, I WILL BE ABSTAINING AND I'LL STEP OUT.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A 927 PLUS ACRE PROPERTY IN THE HARRIS COUNTY, EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WEST ALONG HUFFMAN, CLEVELAND ROAD AND NORTH OF KINGWOOD DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A GENERAL PLAN TO BE USED LARGELY FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND A PROPOSED NATURE WETLANDS PRESERVE AND IS REQUESTING FOUR VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, UH, VARIANCE.
ONE IS TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING ANY EAST WEST STREETS THROUGH THE WESTERN BOUNDARY.
VARIANCE TWO IS TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING ANY NORTH SOUTH STREETS THROUGH THE SOUTHERN AND NORTHWESTERN BOUNDARY VARIANCE.
NUMBER THREE IS TO PRO NOT PROVIDE AN EAST, WEST STREET AND TO EXCEED INTER MAXIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING.
MEASUREMENT FOR A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 3,393 FEET AND BEARING FORWARD TO NOT, UH, PROVIDE ANY EAST WEST STREETS, UH, AND EXCEED THE MAXIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING FOR A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 2,440 FEET.
AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS TO NOT PROVIDE A NORTH SOUTH STREET AND TO EXCEED MAXIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING, UH, FOR A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 1,623 FEET.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTS.
THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN IS BORDERED ON THE WEST BY SAN CENTRAL RIVER AND THE LAKE HOUSTON WILDERNESS PARK, WHILE BEING BORDERED TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH BY UNRECORDED ESTATE.
LOT SUBDIVISIONS, MA MAJOR THOROUGH, UH, THOROUGH FAIR HUFFMAN CLEVELAND ROAD LINES THE EASTERN BOUNDARY AND PROVIDES THE PRIMARY POINTS OF ACCESS AS THE WEST IS LINED WITH THE EAST FORK OF THE SAN JASO RIVER.
AND UNRECORDED, LARGELY UNDEVELOPED, OH, SORRY, LARGELY DEVELOPED TWO AND A HALF TO FIVE ACRES OF STATE LOTS THEN THE GRANTING OF VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE INJURIES TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
THE, UH, THE NORTHWESTERN BOUNDARY IS BORDERED BY UNRECORDED LOTS, UH, RECORDED ESTATE LOTS DEVELOPMENT, AND PROVIDES A SIGN, A SINGULAR STUB TO THE SOUTH DAVIDSON LANE SHOWN WITH THE YELLOW ARROW DAVIDSON.
UH, THEN THAT WOULD PROVIDE A MUCH NEEDED SECOND POINT OF ACCESS AND STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT OF WAY CONNECTIVITY, UH, OF THE SUBDIVISION AND THE FLOODPLAIN AS IT CURRENTLY ONLY HAS ONE POINT OF ACCESS, SORRY, AS IT CURRENTLY ONLY HAS ONE POINT OF ACCESS THROUGH WHICH THE GP IS ALSO TAKING ITS ACCESS.
SHOWN WITH THE ORANGE ARROW TO THE NORTH.
THE 8,745 FOOT LONG SOUTHERN BOUNDARY IS BORDERED, UH, UH, BY ANOTHER UNRECORDED, PARTIALLY DEVELOPED SUBDIVISION OF ONE TO THREE ACRE IN SIZE LOTS GIVEN THE LENGTH OF THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY AND THE SIX STUBS CON REQUIRED, SORRY, SIX CONNECTIONS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 42, A SENIOR CONNECTION WOULD SERVE THE PROPOSED SINGLE FOUNDING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE GB AS A POINT OF ACCESS THAT WOULD NOW REQUIRE THE CROSSING OF THE PROPOSED WETLANDS, UH, NATURE AND WETLANDS RESERVE, SORRY.
UH, AND PROVIDING MUCH NEEDED CONNECTION TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE SOUTHWEST GRANTING VARIANCE TO, WHILE REQUIRING THE EXTENSION OF DAVIDSON LANE AND THE SINGULAR CONNECTION TO THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY, WOULD NOT BE INJURIOUS
[01:25:01]
TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY GRANTING VARIANCES THREE AND FOUR WOULD NOT BE INJURIOUS TO HEALTH, UH, OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE AND WOULD NOT PLACE UNDUE BURDEN ON THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY NETWORK.THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS REQUESTING A 16% DEVIATION FROM THE CHAPTER 42 REQUIREMENTS.
THE APPROVAL OF VARIANCES THREE, FOUR, AND THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD BE CONTINGENT UPON THE PROPOSED LAND USE OF THE NATURE WETLANDS PRESERVED, AND ANY CHANGES IN THAT LAND USE WOULD REQUIRE THE VARIANCES TO BE READDRESSED.
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICATION AND THE COUNTY IS IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO APPROVE THE, UH, IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST VARIANCES AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND TO APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS REQUIRING THAT THERE BE AN EXTENSION OF DAVIDSON LANE AND A SINGULAR CONNECTION THROUGH THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
ALRIGHT, I DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER, MR. LANG.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS ANDREW LANG WITH BGE.
WE ARE THE APPLICANT FOR LH RANCH.
GP LH RANCH IS A UNIQUE PIECE OF PROPERTY IN NORTHEAST TERRA COUNTY THAT HAS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOGRAPHIC ENCUMBRANCES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE EAST OF EAST FORK OF, UH, SAN JACINTO RIVER THAT FEEDS INTO LAKE HOUSTON, WHICH CREATES SIGNIFICANTLY LARGE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS WITHIN THE PROPERTY.
ADDITIONALLY, THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE EXPERIENCES SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN ELEVATION FROM FN 2100 ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY TO THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
THE DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION BETWEEN THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE SITE AND THE LOWEST POINT IS APPROXIMATELY 32 FEET IN ELEVATION.
DUE TO THE RADICAL CHANGE IN ELEVATION ACROSS THE SITE, WHICH GENERALLY MOVES FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROJECT TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROJECT WHERE THE DETENTION IS LOCATED AND THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROJECT TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROJECT.
THE DETENTION AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM MUST CONVEY AND PROVIDE STORAGE FOR RUNOFF IN A SIMILAR PATTERN.
NORTHWOOD COUNTRY ESTATES, WHICH IS AN UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY, CONTAINS DAVIDSON LANE, WHICH IS AN UNRECORDED STREET AND IS NOT MAINTAINED BY HARRIS COUNTY FOR A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 445 FEET SOUTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH THOMAS LANE.
THE LOWEST POINTS OF THE SITE ARE LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF DAVIDSON LANE.
THAT STAFF IS REQUESTING TO BE EXTENDED.
THESE CHANGES IN ELEVATIONS WILL DIRECT RUNOFF FROM THE EAST AND NORTHEAST PORTIONS OF THE SITE, WHICH WILL NATURALLY FALL INTO THE LOW LOWEST PORTION OF THE SITE AND WILL NEED TO BE CONVEYED OUT TO THE SAN JACINTO.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED 555, SORRY, 550 FOOT WIDE DETENTION POND WILL BE RECEIVING OFFSITE FLOW SHEET FLOW FROM DAVIDSON LANE THAT MUST BE CONVEYED, UH, TO THE WEST AND SOUTHWEST AS INDICATED BY THE ARROWS IN OUR EXHIBIT.
UH, WE HAVE AGREED TO PROVIDE A STUB STREET ALONG OUR SOUTHERN BOUNDARY ACROSS AN EXISTING PIPELINE TO THE CYPRESS POINT UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH AT STAFF'S REQUEST, HOWEVER, WE ARE UNABLE TO CREATE THE CONNECTION TO THE NORTH THAT STAFF IS REQUESTING DUE TO THE EXISTING PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE.
WE ARE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AS SUBMITTED, SAVE AND ACCEPT PROVIDING ONE STUB TO THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND NOT REQUIRE DAVIDSON LANE TO BE EXTENDED INTO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT NOR TERMINATED WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC.
ALL RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, QUESTIONS FOR MR. LANG HERE.
COULD COULD WE GO BACK TO THE, UH, THE, THE PREVIOUS SLIDE THAT WAS UP THAT, THAT SHOWED THE VARIANCES IN A COLORED ARROW FORMAT? BACK TO SLIDES PLEASE.
SO THE, THE PRESENTER WAS, WAS QUITE EFFICIENT IN THIS, I WANNA BE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
THERE IS A PROPOSAL TO CONNECT, UH, A SINGLE STREET, UH, DOWN WHERE VARIANCE ONE IS IN BLUE AT THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY, CORRECT? UH, YES.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE AGREEING TO PROVIDE ONE STUB, UM, APPROXIMATELY THE LOCATION OF SF 10 AND SF 11, SOMEWHERE AROUND THAT DIVISION.
UM, BUT OUR REQUEST SPECIFICALLY IS TO NOT EXTEND DAVIDSON LANE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THAT'S THE BLUE LINE ON THE, UH, WESTERN PART OF THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY THERE? YES, SIR.
AND YOU GAVE THE REASONS BEING THAT DRAINAGE FEATURE, UH, AND THE COMPLICATIONS THAT EXPENSE INVOLVED THERE.
MY, MY QUESTION REALLY, UM, AND, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHERE I'M COMING FROM, IT'S SCHOOL BUS CIRCULATION MM-HMM
UM, THIS IS A LARGE ENOUGH DEVELOPMENT THAT IT'S GONNA GENERATE SCHOOL TRAFFIC OF, OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE.
UM, THE VARIANCE ONE ON THE NORTH SOUTH BORDER, UH, ABOVE, UM, THE INNER CORNER THERE MM-HMM
UM, IS NOT PROPOSED TO HAVE A STUB.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND, AND WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE REASONING BEHIND THAT? UH, WE DIDN'T WANNA STUB INTO THE
[01:30:01]
EXISTING, INTO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE TO THE WEST THERE.WHAT, WHAT, WHAT SORT OF, OF TRACK CHARACTERISTICS ARE THERE? ARE THESE, ARE THESE DIVIDED UP INTO SMALL LOTS, LARGE LOTS, UH, UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION, IT'S LARGE LOT UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION.
SO THE LACK OF ANY SUB STREET FROM THE WEST IN THAT UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION WAS PART OF IT AS WELL.
AND THERE ARE PROPOSED STUBS AT THE FARTHER NORTHERN BORDER, UH, THAT DO MEET CHAP.
THERE'S NO VARIANCE REQUESTED THERE.
AND YOU HAVE LOOKS LIKE TWO ARROWS AND TWO STUBS TO THE NORTH.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE ALSO GOING TO PROPOSE, UH, INTERNAL CIRCULATION, OBVIOUSLY MEETING OUR POINTS OF ACCESS REQUIREMENTS AND, UH, ANY INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENTS ALONG THE, THE EASTERN BOUNDARY ALONG 2100 AND THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY.
SO THAT, THAT HELPS ME UNDERSTAND THERE, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF SCHOOL BUS, UH, CIRCULATION OR DELIVERY TRUCK CIRCULATION FROM SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY THROUGH THE PROPERTY TO NORTH OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, YOU'RE MORE FAMILIAR WITH DAVIDSON LANE AND THOMAS LANE.
THESE ARE, THESE ARE VERY LIGHTLY POPULATED, UH, STREETS, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, YES SIR.
AND, AND ACTUALLY THE, UH, THE INTERSECTION OF, OF DAVIDSON AND THOMAS, UM, THERE IS NO IMPROVEMENT, UH, SOUTH OF THAT, THAT L CORNER, IF YOU WILL, WHERE THE STUB IS.
IT'S, IT'S JUST A DIRT DRIVEWAY ESSENTIALLY.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A, THAT'S A BIT UNIQUE AS WELL.
COMMISSIONER CLARK, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I DO MAYBE MORE FOR STAFF.
UM, THE ROAD THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING, UH, BE, UM, DONE DAVIS, IS THAT WEST ROAD, WHAT'S THE PURPOSE TO GO INTO SAN JACINTO? WHAT ARE WE TRYING, WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO DO THERE OTHER THAN MAYBE CAUSE SOME WATER ISSUES? THIS IS MORE FOR STAFF ANSWER.
MR. IL, ARE YOU THERE? CORRECT.
SO YOU'RE ASKING WHY TO EXTEND DAVIDSON TOWARD THE SOUTH? YES.
UH, ONE THERE THAT THE UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION IS, IS STANDING AND LARGELY DEVELOPED, UM, WITH THAT STUB.
WE, UH, CURRENTLY THAT UNRECORDED, THAT SUBDIVISION ONLY HAS ONE POINT OF ACCESS.
AND THAT BEING THAT RIGHT OF WAY ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY WHERE YOU SEE THOSE TWO ARROWS BEING PROPOSED.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT SUBDIVISION IS LARGELY WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN WITH ANY ACCESS FOR THEM.
IN ORDER TO GO SOUTH, THEY'D HAVE TO GO FURTHER UP NORTH ACROSS THE EAST AND GO TO, UM, HUFFMAN CLEVELAND ALSO 2100.
UH, FOR THE SAKE OF ONE SAFETY CONSIDERATION FOR CONNECTIVITY, THEY COULD EXTEND THAT ROAD.
WE HAD PROPOSED THAT THERE BE AN EAST WEST STREET CONNECTING THE END OF THAT STUB INTO WHAT IS SF, UH, SHOWN AS SF FIVE.
UM, KIND OF JUST SHOWING WHERE IT WOULD JUST CORRECTLY JUST DIRECTLY BE CONNECTED HERE TO SOME POINT WITH THAT, UH, SO SECTION, UM, AND WOULD MEET REQUIREMENTS.
UH, BUT THAT WAS, UM, REFUTED BY THE APPLICANT.
UM, IT IS MORE OF A SAFETY AND, AND CONNECTIVITY AND HAVING A, A, A VALID, UH, A STRONG NETWORK OF CONNECTIVITY FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND, AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THE STRONG NET NETWORK OF CONNECTIVITY, BUT I ALSO KNOW THIS AREA WELL PROBABLY NOT AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER SMITH, UM, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME WE MIGHT BE CAUSING SOME ISSUES WITH WATER HERE.
SO IS THAT NOT A, A SAFETY CONCERN AS WELL? WELL, GRANTED, BUT THIS PART OF THE, THE APPLICATION ITSELF IS NOT WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN WHILE THE REST OF THE OTHER SUBDIVISION IS THE LAKE DETENTION THERE IS ONLY PROPOSED IT IS NONEXISTING.
UM, SO I DON'T SEE THAT AS A, AS A, AS A IMPOSITION.
WELL, IT, IT DEPENDS ON HOW THE WATER FLOWS AND I, I AM NOT AN ENGINEER OR A DRAINAGE EXPERT, SO I CAN'T REALLY BE THE PERSON TO SAY THAT, BUT TYPICALLY WHEN THEY DO THESE, THEY FOLLOW THE FLOW OF THE WATER.
AND SO IF WE'RE FORCE, I'M JUST WORRIED WE'RE FORCING SOMETHING.
UH, MR. CA MOMENT, MR. LYON, GO AHEAD.
COMMISSIONER CLARK, IF I MAY, IF YOU, IF YOU DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE EXHIBIT WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY IN THE HANDOUTS AT, AT SF ONE, SF TWO AND SF EIGHT, THOSE ARE THE HIGHEST POINTS OF THE SITE.
AND THEN JUST SOUTH OF DAVIDSON LANE.
UM, SO IN SF ONE THAT, THAT ELEVATION IS ABOUT 102 FEET AT, UM, JUST SOUTH OF DAVIDSON LANE, THERE'S A 70 FOOT ELEVATION DRAW THAT ESSENTIALLY TRAVELS, UH, SOUTHWEST TO NORTHEAST TERMINATING ALMOST EXACTLY WHERE THE STUB WOULD BE EXTENDED.
AND, UH, THEN ON THE EAST SIDE OF IT IS ABOUT A 10 FOOT ELEVATION CHANGE, AND THEN THE WEST SIDE IS A 16 FOOT ELEVATION CHANGE.
SO THERE'S, THERE'S SOME SIGNIFICANT CONSIDERATIONS TO, TO DEAL WITH, BUT JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT FOR CLARITY.
I WORKED ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT
UM, AND AGAIN, I'M NOT THE WATER EXPERT.
[01:35:01]
I'M NOT, I'M NOT A DRAINAGE PERSON, BUT I KNOW ENOUGH THAT I THINK THAT THIS COULD CAUSE A LITTLE BIT OF PROBLEM OR A LOT OF PROBLEM.COMMISSIONER SMITH, THANK YOU.
UH, MR. LANGE, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT DAVIDSON AND THOMAS, UH, MR. CILLO STATED THEY HAVE A SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS.
IT'S, IT'S, UH, I'M UNABLE TO TELL FROM THE MAPS IN FRONT OF ME WHERE THAT SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS IS.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE IT? UH, YES, SIR.
SO GENERALLY, UM, THOMAS TRAVELING EAST WEST, UH, PARALLEL TO OUR BOUNDARY LINE DAVIDSON TRAVELING NORTH SOUTH, UH, ALONG OUR BOUNDARY LINE, THEN IT, IT MAKES A, UM, NORTHEASTERLY CONNECTION TO NORTHWOOD COUNTRY ESTATES LANE, WHERE THE, THE TWO STUBS, UH, THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ALONG OUR NORTHERN BOUNDARY IS, AND THEN OUT TO 2100 FROM THERE.
SO THE, THE MAP CURRENTLY ON THE SCREEN SHOWING THE, UH, YEAR IN THE 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN WOULD SUGGEST THAT AREA IN QUESTION, UH, IS OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN, DAVISON AND THOMAS AND, AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, HAS A ROUTE THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN BACK TO HIGH GROUND TO THE, TO THE EAST.
AND, AND THAT'S PART OF, DIDN'T STATE IT, BUT THAT THAT'S ESSENTIALLY ANOTHER FACTOR INVOLVED WITH THE WAY THE WATER FLOWS AWAY FROM THAT FLOODPLAIN IN AN ODD WAY TO THE SOUTH.
IT'S, IT'S COMING ACROSS OUR, OUR SITE NORTHEAST, SOUTHWEST AND, AND WEST AND, AND STRAIGHT OUT WHERE, UM, DAVISON LANE BENDS, UH, EASTWARD AT, AT SORT OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SF THREE.
IT IS IN THAT A HUNDRED YEAR, RIGHT? IT, IT DOES TOUCH THE 500 YEAR, RIGHT? THE FOOT PLANE.
THAT EAST WEST STREET IS MOSTLY WITHIN THE 500 YEAR AND DOES TOUCH THE 100.
WELL, UH, MR. LANG, UH, THE TOPOGRAPHY IS SIGNIFICANT HERE.
I, I, I JUST FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD SAY THAT THE CONNECTION AS AN EXTENSION OF DAVIDSON IS A SIGNIFICANT ENGINEERING UN UNDERTAKING, UM, GIVEN THE FLOW OF WATER AND THE, AND THE, UH, COMPLEXITIES OF KEEPING A, A, UH, A STREET ABOVE THAT WATER IN AN AREA WHERE THE TOPOGRAPHY IS THERE.
THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT ENGINEERING CHALLENGE AND A, AND A SIGNIFICANT COST TO YOUR CLIENT WHERE YOU, YOU'VE MADE A A, AN INTERESTING, AND, AND I, A DIFFICULT POINT IS WE HAVE A SOMEWHAT ISOLATED POINT OF, UH, EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS WITH A SINGULAR POINT OF ACCESS THAT, UM, WHILE, WHILE SATISFACTORY IS MARGINAL, AS YOU SAID, IT TOUCHES THE FLOODPLAIN AND, AND, UH, FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES.
AND, AND COULD YOU STATE AGAIN, UH, OTHER THAN THE IMPRACTICALITY OR THE, THE WEIGHT THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN EXTENDING A STUB, UH, REPRESENTED BY THAT NORTH SOUTH VARIANCE, I, IS THAT NOT AN OPTION FOR, FOR YOU AND YOUR CLIENT TO, TO HAVE A SUB STREET OUT OF SF THREE OR SF FIVE, UH, TOWARD DAVIDSON LINE LANE FOR SOME FUTURE CONSIDERATION OF AN EXTENSION? SHOULD CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE IT BY OTHERS? I'M, I'M SURE AN EXTENSION FROM SF THREE OR SF FIVE WOULD BE PREFERABLE TO, TO THE DAVIDSON LANE EXTENSION.
IS THAT AN OFFER? UH, YES, SIR.
I, I, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION AMENDING, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO, UH, SUBSTITUTE AN EXTENSION OF DOON LANE FOR A, A STUB DISAPPROVAL OF VARIANCE ONE AS IT APPLIES TO THAT.
WELL, I GUESS IT'S STILL A VARIANCE.
IT WOULD BE A VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS RATHER THAN NO POINT OF ACCESS ON THAT NORTHERLY PART OF VARIANCE ONE.
IS THAT ACCURATE WAY TO STATE IT? UH, YES SIR.
COULD WE, COULD WE HEAR FROM, UM, FROM STAFF? ABSOLUTELY.
BEFORE WE, WE GO THERE, MR. CILLO, ARE YOU THERE? YES.
SO, UH, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT COMMISSIONER SMITH IS ASKING FOR? YES.
IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED CONNECT, UH, EXTENSION OF DAVIDSON TO INSTEAD INCORPORATE A STUB STREET TOWARD, UH, IN INCLUSION OF, SORRY, ANCE ONE ALONG THAT, UH, WESTERN NORTHERN BOUNDARY, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND, AND TO USE PLANNING PARLANCE, ARE YOU COOL WITH THAT? UH, I THINK IT'LL BE ACCEPTABLE.
UH, I THINK BELIEVE THIS WAS KIND OF INITIALLY AVOIDED BECAUSE MOST OF THOSE LOTS WHILE SIZABLE, ARE LARGELY DEVELOPED ALREADY AND WOULD BE HARD TO CREATE A CONNECTION THROUGH.
UH, BUT I'D RATHER TAKE THAT THAN NOTHING MR. LANG? YES.
SO SEEING AS THAT'S THE SAME, SAME CONCESSION WE'VE MADE ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY, I, I THINK THAT'S PREFERABLE.
LEGAL, ANY QUESTIONS? ANY ADDITIONS? WE'RE GOOD TO GO.
ALRIGHT, SO THERESA, THERESA, WE HAVE A MOTION.
[01:40:01]
CLARK SECOND BY CLARK.QUESTIONS, UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH, DO YOU WANT TO REPEAT YOUR MOTION AS BEST YOU CAN? UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDED, UH, GRANTING VARIANCES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A DAVIDSON ROAD EXTENSION.
UH, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MY PROPOSAL IS THAT THE DAVIDSON ROAD VARIANCE, UH, OR THE DAVIDSON ROAD EXTENSION NOT BE PART OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION.
IN LIEU OF THAT, A SINGLE STU STREET, UH, ALONG THE WESTERN, THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE WESTERN BOUNDARY, UH, BE PROVIDED IN FUTURE PLATS FOR THE AREAS MARKED SF THREE AND SF FIVE.
ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? HEARING NONE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? HEARING NONE.
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 1 31.
I, UM, STEP WOULD LIKE TO TAKE 1 31 AND 1 32.
AND, UM, BEFORE STARTING, UM, STAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MODIFICATION TO THE LINER FOR ITEM 1 32 OLYMPIAN FALLS, SECTION FOUR.
THE RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE APPROVED AND NOT WITHDRAW.
UH, I DID ANNOUNCE THAT IT WAS WITHDRAWN AT THE BEGINNING.
AT, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, SINCE ANYONE WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN HERE TO SPEAK ON IT MIGHT HAVE LEFT OR, WELL, THE IAN IS ONLY IN 1 32.
NO, 1 31 AND 1 32 IS A STATUTE THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BE DEPENDING ON THE ACTION ON 1 31.
SO IF THEY'RE HERE TO SPEAK, THEY'LL SPEAK ON 1 31.
ALSO, I, I NEED SOME HELP ON THAT.
I, I, I THINK THE FACT THAT WE PUBLISHED THE FACT THAT IT WAS WITHDRAWN IS GOING TO, AND THEN AGAIN, I, WE GO BUT IT WASN'T WITHDRAWN.
WE JUST PUBLISHED THAT IT WAS WITHDRAWN.
AND WHICH MEANS, AND WHICH I, I THINK WE CAN'T DISCUSS IT.
SO BECAUSE WE ANNOUNCED THAT IT WAS WITHDRAWN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, YOU ANNOUNCED IT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
SO I THINK YOU CANNOT DISCUSS IT FURTHER.
IT'S BEEN ANNOUNCED AS WITHDRAWN, SO KEEP IT UP.
ALRIGHT, SO WAIT, ARE WE ALL COOL? WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS 1 31.
WE'RE NOT GONNA DISCUSS 1 32 BECAUSE IT WAS OFFICIALLY WITHDRAWN AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING.
WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS.
OKAY, SO ITEM 1 31 IS OLYMPIA PARK RESERVE.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN FORT BEND COUNTY NORTH OF LAKE OLYMPIA PARKWAY AND EAST OF FORT BEND HALLWAY.
THE APPLICANT REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED 1400 INTERSECTION PACING, BUT NOT PROVIDING AN EAST WAS PUBLISHED STREET THROUGH THE SITE.
STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SUBSIST SITE IS PART OF OLYMPIA FALLS.
GP AND MULTIPLE RESERVE ARE BEING PROPOSED FOR DETENTION POND, DUAL SITE, WATER PLANT, AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
THE DISTANCE BETWEEN LAKE OLYMPIA BOULEVARD AND THE AMELIA FAIR IS ABOUT 4,800 FEET ONE.
CHAPTER 42, THE APPLICANT REQUIRES TO PROVIDE AN E WEST POP STREET, BUT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING NOT TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED STREET GRANTING OF THE VARIANT WOULD ESTABLISH AN EXCESSIVE INTERSECTION FACING UP ABOUT 4,800 FEET NOT MEETING THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE.
THE VARIANT REQUEST IS SELF-IMPOSED.
IN 2019, THE FIRST OLYMPIA FALL GP WAS SUBMITTED AND APPROVED WITH A CONDITION TO PROVIDE AN EWE PUBLISHED STREET.
AT THAT TIME, THE PROPERTY WAS VACANT AND GREENFIELD AND NO DETENTION POND WAS ON THE GROUND WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE MARKUP WITH THE STREET CONNECTION.
IN 2020, CONSTRUCTION PLAN WHERE DETENTION POND WERE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED AND THE ASSISTANT POND WAS BUILT, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, HOWEVER, PER THE STIPEND, THERE'S STILL ROOM TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUIRED STREET BETWEEN THE ASSISTING AND FUTURE DETENTION POND.
AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN WITH YELLOW ARROW.
WHENEVER THE ADJACENT AREA TO THE E REDEVELOPS,
[01:45:01]
THE REQUIRED PUBLISHED STREET CAN BE EXTENDED TO MAJOR THERAPIST CHIMNEY WALK PROVIDING ADEQUATE INTERNAL STREET CONNECTIVITY AND ENSURE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION WITHIN THE AREA.IF THE, IF THE VARIANT IS GRANTED, THE LIKELIHOOD TO PROVIDE A VITAL IS WHAT PUBLISH STREET CONNECTION, UM, WILL BE LOST DUE TO THE LOCATION MUST AND CREEK NORTH.
OVERALL, THE APPLICANT FAILED TO PROVIDE A JUSTIFICATION TO SUPPORT THE VAN, REQUEST.
THE ARGUMENT TO NOT PROVIDE AN E WAS PUBLISHED STREET WITH ING AND LOSS OF DETENTION CAPACITY CAN BE RESOLVED BY REDESIGNING THE FUTURE POND OR PLACING SOME JOINING CAPACITY IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE GP FOR BEND COUNTY ENGINEER IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST, BUT STAFF RECOMMENDS DENYING THE VAN REQUEST AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBSTITUTE THE REQUIRED WEST STREET COLLECTION AND CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
THE FIRST IS THE APPLICANT, SEAN MCCOY.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE ARE, WE ARE THE APPLICANT AND WE ARE ALSO THE ENGINEER FOR, UH, OLYMPIA FALLS RESERVES.
AND I'D LIKE TO SAY, UH, OLYMPIA FALLS IS ACTUALLY, UH, A TWO PHASE PROJECT.
UH, CURRENTLY THERE THERE'S A POND, WHICH IS PHASE ONE, AND WE'VE DONE A LOT OF COORDINATION WITH THE COUNTY.
UM, THE COUNTY HAS A LOT OF CONCERNS, ESPECIALLY WITH, UM, WITH, UH, MUSTANG BAYOU TO THE NORTH.
AND SO THIS DETENTION IS ALSO ADDRESSING A LOT OF THAT.
AND SO, UM, CURRENTLY, UH, THE POND IS PART OF PHASE ONE.
PHASE TWO IS ACTUALLY, UH, THERE'S COMMENTS WE'RE WORKING THROUGH PHASE TWO CURRENTLY, AND THE POND WILL ACTUALLY BE EXTENDED COMPLETELY TO THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY.
AND THIS IS TO, UH, REALLY TO ADDRESS A LOT OF THE, UH, THE DETENTION AND DRAINAGE FOR THE AREA.
AND SO, UH, REALLY A STREET EXTENDING THROUGH THERE WOULD, WOULD, YOU KNOW, CUT OFF A LOT OF THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE MUSTANG IS SUPPOSED TO MITIGATE A LOT OF THAT DRAINAGE.
SO I, I WOULD SAY WE ALSO, WE'VE CREATED A, A DRAINAGE IMPACT ANALYSIS WHICH WE PROVIDED TO STAFF.
UH, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF COORDINATION.
UH, FORT BEND COUNTY IS IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE.
UH, WE BELIEVE OUR HARDSHIP, UM, YOU KNOW, OUR HARDSHIP BY, YOU KNOW, BY NOT PROVIDING THE STREET, I THINK IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL.
YOU KNOW, I I I THINK IT'D BE, UH, IT WOULDN'T BE GOOD FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF MUSTANG.
YOU, UM, YOU KNOW, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU RECONSIDER THE DENIAL AND APPROVE THE, UH, THE VARIANCE, UH, TO NOT PROVIDE IN EAST, WEST STREET.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. MCCOY? SO THIS IS COMMISSIONER DALTON.
UM, REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF THE DETENTION POND, CAN YOU CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT AN AGREEMENT HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE FOR BETWEEN THE MUD AND FORT BEND COUNTY REGARDING THE EXPANSION OF LAKE OLYMPIA PARKWAY? I'D ACTUALLY HAVE TO DEFER TO THE ENGINEER ON THAT.
HI, UH, JASON KELLY WITH LJ, UH, THE ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT.
UH, WE HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR DETENTION FOR THE EXPANSION OF LAKE OLYMPIA PARKWAY IN OUR, IN OUR SYSTEM.
SO WE ARE ACCOUNTING FOR, WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE COUNTY, UH, TO PROVIDE DETENTION FOR THEIR BENEFIT.
SO THE PURPOSE OF THAT AGREEMENT IS TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY DETENTION FOR THE ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT'S BEING PUT IN WITH THAT ROAD, AS WELL AS PROVIDE DETENTION FOR OLYMPIA FALLS, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND ALSO TO CLARIFY ONE COMMENT THAT MR. MCCOY MADE REGARDING MUSTANG BAYOU.
THE, THE ISSUE AT, AT PLAY THERE IS WITH THE CHANGE IN CRITERIA FOR ATLAS 14, THE, THE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION ON MUSTER AND CREEK HAVE INCREASED BY ABOUT A FOOT.
UH, WE ARE ACCOUNTING FOR OVERFLOW FROM MUSTANG BAYOU.
THERE'S AN INNER BASIN TRANSFER FROM MUSTANG BAYOU INTO ONE POINT CREEK.
PART OF OUR DRAINAGE SYSTEM IS ACCOUNTING FOR THAT, THAT OVERFLOW SO THAT IT'S NOT IMPEDED, UH, IN THAT AREA.
SO A STREET WOULD PRESENT AN IS IT WOULD PRESENT SOME, AN ISSUE WITH, UH, WITH THAT SYSTEM THAT WE'VE SET UP.
[01:50:01]
THANK YOU SIR.ALRIGHT, OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RENEE RODRIGUEZ.
DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT SIR? NO, SIR.
YOU KNOW, I GOTTA ASK
IT'S NOT THE BEST THING TO DO TO GRANT THE VARIANCE.
RODRIGUEZ, ANY COMMENTARY? NO, NO COMMENTS.
UM, I GUESS, WELL, I GUESS I HAVE A, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE, THERE ARE OPTIONS TO THAT THOUGH, RIGHT? LIKE IF THE ROAD WENT IN, THEY COULD STILL PUT BOX CULVERTS UNDER THE ROAD OR CONNECT THOSE TWO.
IN OTHER WORDS, MAYBE BOTH COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED AT A COST, NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, NOT SAYING THAT IT WOULDN'T BE, BUT THERE MIGHT BE OPTIONS TO, UM, ACCOMPLISH BOTH.
AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT THOSE BOX CULVERTS UNDER A ROAD MAY NOT MATCH THE FLOW THAT THEY NEED.
AND SINCE, SINCE THEY'VE ALL ALL BEEN WORKING TOGETHER, I WOULD ASSUME ALL OF THAT WAS KIND OF THOUGHT THROUGH.
I I UNDERSTAND YOUR, UM, COMMENT.
UM, WHEN THAT WAS REVIEWING THE EVENT REQUEST, WE WERE LOOKING AT THAT BECAUSE OF THE MOUNTAIN CREEK TO THE NORTH AND THE OVERFLOW.
UM, IF WE GRANT THE VARIANCE, THERE WILL BE NO EWE CONNECTION IN THE OVER AREA.
SO WE HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE INTERSECTION FACING BEING ALMOST 5,000 FEET.
SO WE ARE LIMITING THE SUBDIVISION JUST ACCESS TO THE MAY THOROUGHFARE, WHICH IS TO THE SOUTH OF
AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE ARE NOT IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST.
AND UM, AND WE, AND WE KNOW WE, THEY HAVE BEEN COORDINATED INTENTLY, BUT THE COMMENT TO ADDRESS INTER INTERSECTION PATIENT HAD BEEN THERE SINCE THE BEGINNING, WHICH KIND OF WERE KIND OF NOT IGNORED, I DON'T WANNA SAY IGNORED, BUT IT WASN'T ADDRESSED PROPERLY.
AND UM, I STAFF FEEL THAT THE ANALYSIS WOULD MAY HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF THE STREET CONNECTION HAD BEEN CONSIDERED THAT THAT'S A VALID POINT.
UM, I GUESS TOO IT MAY HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT PUTTING WORDS IN ANYBODY'S MOUTH, BUT WE DO NEED TO UNDERSTAND TOO, 'CAUSE I WAS INVOLVED IN THE CHANGES WHEN WITH ATLAS 14 IN THE COUNTY DRAINAGE PROGRAM.
AND SO A LOT OF THAT REQUIRES SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THEIR DETENTION.
AND THAT MAY BE A REASON, I GUESS I'M JUST ASKING, HAS ALL OF IT BEEN VETTED OUT BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, THE CITY AND THE COUNTY? DO WE FULLY UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE NOT SUPPORTING PUTTING THIS ROAD IN AND THEY'RE SUPPORTING THE VARIANCE TO NOT PUT IT IN? I MEAN, WAS IT JUST A SIMPLE COMMENT OR WAS IT A FULL DISCUSSION? NO, THAT STAFF COORDINATED WITH PORT BEND COUNTY AND PORT BEND COUNTY.
UM, THEY PROVIDED A RESPONSE THAT THEY'RE NOT, THEY, THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
I DON'T WANNA SPEAK ON BEHALF COUNTY, BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM, THEY DON'T CONSIDER CITY STEP COMMENT WHEN ALL THIS HERMAN HAS BEEN ISSUED A DETENTION POND.
AND, UM, I THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE THAT THE DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION FROM COUNTY AND CITY.
YEAH, COMMISSIONER SAMANTHA, GO RIGHT AHEAD.
COULD, COULD WE GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT SHOWED A YELLOW ARROW SHOWING STREET CONNECTION? MS. RODRIGUEZ, MY QUESTION'S GOING TO BE AT THE WESTERN END OR THE, THE LEFT END OF THIS MM-HMM
UM, IN, IN OUR EXHIBITS, THE, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL AREA THERE IS LABELED SECTION FOUR.
IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT THAT YELLOW ARROW AT ITS AT ITS LEFT END OR WESTERN CONNECTION IS, IS TYING INTO A, UH, AN ACTUAL STREET STUB.
HAS SECTION FOUR BEEN APPROVED AND, AND, UH, BY THE COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY OR IS THAT A FUTURE? UH, SECTION FOUR HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
OH, THAT'S THE ONE WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT.
YEAH, WELL I, UH, YOU YOU CAN TALK ABOUT IT.
WELL BE THAT WOULD, THESE ARE THE, I I GUESS, I GUESS I'M, I'M BEGINNING TO FEEL THESE ARE TWO VERY RELATED ISSUES IS THERE'S A, THERE'S A PLA BEFORE THE COMMISSION THAT THROUGH CIRCUMSTANCES WE CAN'T CONSIDER THAT HAS A SUBS STREET THAT'S VERY MATERIAL TO THE DECISION ON THIS ONE.
[01:55:01]
TO TAKE THEM IN ISOLATION AND BECAUSE I HAVEN'T BE HONEST, I HAVEN'T COMPLETELY FIGURED OUT WHAT OUR ACTION TODAY DOES TO COMMIT US.WE'RE AT A SECOND DEFERRAL THOUGH, SO WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTION TODAY.
OH, THIS ONE HAS TO TAKE ACTION.
ALRIGHT, SO, SO LET ME UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS.
IF WE, IF WE AGREE WITH STAFF AND, UH, DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST, ESSENTIALLY WE WILL BE IMPOSING A STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR A SUB STREET TO BE ADDED TO THE SECTION FLOOR PLAT AS A NEW CONDITION MUST HAVE COME BACK AGAIN.
AND IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT FOR THE COMMISSION TO SUPPORT THAT VARIANCE REQUEST WHEN WE'VE APPROVED THIS ONE.
BECAUSE THEN WE'VE SAID WE NEED A CONNECTION AND THEN WE WOULD BE SAYING WE DON'T NEED A CONNECTION.
WE HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT BETWEEN THE TWO.
SO SECTION FOUR, UM, WE DON'T, WE CANNOT SPEAK ON SECTION FOUR, RIGHT? SO IF WE MAKE A CONNE, IF WE MAKE, IF, IF THE VARIANT GOT DENIED AND WE MAKE A CONNECTION SECTION FOUR, WHEN IT COME IN WITH THE NEW SUBMITTAL, THEY WILL HAVE TO MAKE A, A CONNECTION WITH THIS REQUIRE HISTORY, CORRECT? I MEAN, UL ULTIMATELY THE COMMISSION WANTS TO BE PRESENTED, SO THAT'S CONSISTENT.
I HAVE, I HAVE ENOUGH FACTS TO MY DECISION.
ANYONE ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, I, I HAVE A FEW COMMENTS.
YEAH, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER AHEAD.
UH, I JUST WANNA REITERATE THAT YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE MOBILITY GROUP AS WELL AS WITH
WE HAVE SEVERAL DEVELOPMENTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY THAT ARE REMOVING THESE BOX CULVERT TYPE STREET CONNECTIONS IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW REQUIRED ATLAS 14 DETENTION.
AND SO WHILE YES, THAT IS A POTENTIAL OPTION, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND REOPEN THE DRAINAGE STUDY THAT THEY'VE ALREADY COMPLETED WITH THE COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT.
AND, UM, WHILE YES, THE STUB STREET IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO ADDRESS CHAPTER 42, UM, THE EAST WEST STREET, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE FLOODPLAIN MAP, IS DIRECTING RESIDENTS TO ANOTHER FLOODPLAIN.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARILY BENEFICIAL TO THE RESIDENTS THAT WILL BE LIVING HERE, WHEREAS THEY COULD JUST GO TO LAKE OLYMPIA PARKWAY WHERE THEY ALREADY HAVE TWO CONNECTIONS IN AN AREA THAT IS NOT IN, UH, IN THE FLOODPLAIN.
UM, BASED ON ALL OF THIS AND THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE CONSIDERING THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE AND THE POND HAS BEEN DUG FOR OVER TWO YEARS NOW, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, UH, AND THE PLAT.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER DALTON FOR APPROVAL, SECOND SMITH FOR THE SECOND FROM SMITH.
QUESTIONS? MR. MCCOY, DID YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION WHILE DURING WE HAVE QUESTIONS? WELL, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE POINT THAT THIS HAS ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY.
UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE A POINT THAT THIS HAS ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH CITY OF HOUSTON DRAINAGE REVIEW FOR PHASE ONE AND IT WILL GO THROUGH ALSO FOR PHASE TWO.
I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S ACTUALLY GONE, BUT I KNOW FOR PHASE ONE IT'S GONE THROUGH, SO THERE HAS BEEN SOME COORDINATION WITH CITY OF HOUSTON DRAINAGE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT.
SO COMMISSION AGAIN QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR, UM, THE APPLICANT.
OKAY, I I I JUST HAVE ONE, UH, COMMISSIONER HINES.
UH, AND MAYBE YOU GUYS SAID IT AND DIDN'T, UH, I KNOW STAFF DIDN'T WANNA USE THE WORD IGNORE, BUT IF THE INTERSECTION SPACING IS, I THINK IT'S 4,800, UM, 4,800 FEET, YOU SAID ALMOST 5,000? YES.
MM-HMM
UM, WHEN YOU USE THE WORD IGNORE, THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT JUST WASN'T RATIONALIZED OR COORDINATED WITH, UH, CITY STAFF.
UM, WHY HAS IT GONE THIS LONG WITHOUT AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO COME TO US TO MAKE A DECISION.
LIKE WASN'T THERE ANY ACTION COORDINATION BETWEEN THE ENTITIES TO SAY THIS IS, THIS CAN'T WORK BECAUSE OF THIS REASON, UH, THEREFORE WE'LL OFFER UP SOMETHING ELSE.
WAS WAS, WERE THERE DISCUSSIONS? NO.
UM, SO WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THE GP IN BACK IN 2019, WE REVIEW IT AND WE MARK IT UP BASED ON WHAT IS REQUIRED PER CHAPTER 42.
THEN UM, IN 20 AFTER THAT, UM, THE BILLING REQUEST IS BEING SUBMITTED TODAY, WHICH IS 2022.
[02:00:01]
NOW.THE DETENTION POND CONSTRUCTION PLAN YET IS BEING COORDINATED AND APPROVED BY PORTMAN COUNTY AND HOUSTON PUBLIC WORK BECAUSE IT'S NOT A BUILDING PERMIT, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO TO PLANET DEPARTMENT.
SO THERE WON'T BE NO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE COMMENT THAT WE HAVE IN THE GP.
SO IT WILL BE THE APPLICANT RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS CHAPTER 42 REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT? 'CAUSE HERE WE ARE, RIGHT? YEAH.
UH, SO THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A COURTESY CALL MM-HMM
ANYTHING ELSE? YES, YOU KNOW, I HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THE COURTESY CALL AND I LIKE COORDINATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTIES, SO I'LL STATE THAT CLEARLY, BUT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER ARE WE GONNA, ARE WE GONNA PUNISH THE ENTIRE AREA BECAUSE THAT EXACT COORDINATION, WHILE I THINK THE COUNTY AND THE DEVELOPER THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING THE RIGHT THING IN THE MUD AND THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT AND PUBLIC WORKS JUST CAUTION US TO PUNISH PEOPLE FOR MAYBE NOT MAKING A PHONE CALL AND SAYING, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
'CAUSE THEY DID IT IN GOOD FAITH, IN MY OPINION.
ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
DALTON, DALTON AND SMITH ON ITEM 1 31 OLYMPIA.
IT'S BEEN SO LONG I LITERALLY WROTE IT DOWN.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR OUR APPROVAL ON 1 31.
WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING 1 32 AND WE HAVE A MOTION FROM DALTON AND SMITH.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED ONE IN OPPOSITION MA.
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO E SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WHERE WE HAVE NO ITEMS AND THEN F
[F-Reconsideration of Requirements]
RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENTS.THIS COMMISSIONER DALTON, I'LL BE ABSTAINING FROM 1 33.
SIGLER WILL ALSO RECUSE HERSELF.
ITEM 1 33 IS CANDELA SOUTH GP.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE FORT BEND COUNTY ETJ, ALONG FM 3 59 SOUTH OF SIG GAS RANCH.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A GENERAL PLAN OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND RESERVES.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE A SECOND NORTH SOUTH STREET ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE STUDIES ARE LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERN ETJ BOUNDARY IN FORT BEND COUNTY.
THE AREA CONSISTS OF MOSTLY AGRICULTURAL TRACKS, LOW DENSITY COMMERCIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON LARGE LOTS.
STRICT INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 42 REQUIRES TWO PUBLIC STREET CONNECTIONS ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY DUE TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED STREET CONNECTION AND THE EASTERN GP BOUNDARY.
WHEN FULLY DEVELOPED, THE PROPOSED GP WILL FEATURE PUBLIC STREET CONNECTIONS ON ALL FOUR SIDES OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THIS WILL ALLOW FOR SUFFICIENT TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION AND ACCESS CONSIDERING THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC NEEDS OF THE AREA.
IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A LARGE DRAINAGE AREA IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT NEAR AN EXISTING UTILITY CORRIDOR ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY.
GRANT, THE REQUEST TO NOT PROVIDE A SECOND STREET HERE WILL ALLOW FOR THESE SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED WITH MINIMAL INTERRUPTION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND APPROVING THE GP PER THE CPC ONE ONE FORM CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE ON ITEM 1 33, CANDELA SOUTH GP.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
ALRIGHT, UM, MAKE A NOTATION IF YOU WOULD, THAT DALTON AND SIGLER ARE RECUSING THEMSELVES.
FROM THIS ITEM, WE'VE GOT A RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT CONDITIONS LISTED.
IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION CLARK? PARDON ME? OH, I'M SORRY.
I DID IT'S RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT.
RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT.
UH, ALL RIGHT, SO CLARK MADE A MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND? JONES? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED HEARING NONE.
[Platting Activities G - I]
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO SECTIONS G, H AND I.MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS.
ALRIGHT, THE PARTY STARTED LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, GO RIGHT AHEAD.
UM, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS, GH AND I AS ONE GROUP.
SECTION G EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 34 THROUGH 1 41 SECTION H.
NAME CHANGES CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 42 AND 1 43
[02:05:01]
AND SECTION I.CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 44 THROUGH 1 48.
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTIONS GHI.
NO ITEMS ARE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER PER STAFF AND NO CHANGES IN STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
I'M GONNA ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS ONE 40 AND 1 41.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON GH AND I BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? HEARING NONE.
IS THERE A MOTION? SIGLER SECOND.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED HEARING NONE.
NOW MOVE ON TO WHERE ARE WE? THERE'S NOTHING JAY, ADMINISTRATIVE.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO K DEVELOPMENT PLOT WITH VARIANCE REQUEST WHERE WE AGAIN HAVE NOTHING.
I WAS GONNA TRY AND GET US OUTTA HERE FOR COCKTAILS EARLY, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY HAPPENING SO WE WILL NOW WE FINISH ROMAN THREE.
[IV. Establish a public hearing date of September 1, 2022]
ON TO ROMAN FOUR, WHICH IS ESTABLISHED A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2022 FOR THE FOLLOWING.AZU HOMES, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER TWO, BOUDREAUX PLAZA REPL NUMBER ONE CLAREMONT PLACE, SECTION ONE REPL.
NUMBER NINE, CORINNE PLACE AT ROSEWOOD FOSTER PLACE PARTIAL REPL NUMBER 31 KENT SHIRE PLACE, SECTION TWO PARTIAL REPL.
NUMBER ONE LAURA SQUARE AT ROSEWOOD.
MARJORIE SQUARE AT ROSEWOOD MEMORIAL ASSISTANT MINISTRIES REPL NUMBER ONE AND EXTENSION NEW IN MANNER.
REPL NUMBER 29, PARK PLACE, REPL NUMBER, PARK PLACE, PARTIAL REPL.
NUMBER SIX, PARK PLACE PARTIAL REPL.
NUMBER SEVEN, PARK GLEN WEST, SECTION TWO PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE, PEACHTREE VILLAS.
ROSEWOOD ESTATES SECTION TWO PARTIAL REPL.
NUMBER FIVE, RUTH STREET ESTATES RIVERSIDE TERRACE, SECTION ONE, PARTIAL REPL.
NUMBER EIGHT, RIVERSIDE TERRACE.
SECTION SIX, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER THREE.
SPRING BRANCH ESTATES NUMBER TWO, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER 15 AND TRINITY AT SPRING HILL.
IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION? VICTOR SECOND CLARK.
[V. Excuse the absences of Commissioner Abraham]
IS TO EXCUSE THE ABSENCE OF COMMISSIONER ABRAHAM WHO IS NOT PRESENT AND YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T DONE THIS IN SO LONG, DO WE, WE TAKE A MOTION TO EXCUSE HIS ABSENCE? YES.WE'RE EXCUSING THE ABSENCE OF COMMISSIONER ABRAHAM.
TYPICALLY WE ALL SHOW UP FOR THAT MEETING, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO.
BUT ANYWAY, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE, TO EXCUSE HIS ABSENCE? SMITH? THANK YOU SECOND HEES TO HEAR ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED HEARING NONE.
COMMISSIONER ABRAHAM, UH, IS EXCUSED AND, UM, THAT IS THE END OF MY AGENDA.
DON'T WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT? YEAH.
OKAY, SO IT'S ON THE, IT'S ON THE BACK OF THE, OH, THERE IT IS.
[VI. Public Comment]
IS PUBLIC COMMENT.I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC COMMENT.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? NO ONE IN THE CHAT.
IS THERE SOMEONE? NO, WE DON'T GET TO S TALKING TO ME.
WE DON'T GET TO SING HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ANYBODY OR ANYTHING.
WITH THAT,
UM, WELL I JUST WANNA SAY THANK YOU, UM, TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, FOR MY TIME AT THE CITY.
I'VE LEARNED A LOT AND I HOPE TO TAKE THAT WITH ME AT MY NEW, UM, JOB.
MANY CONGRATULATIONS AND BEST OF LUCK TO YOU.
AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO SHOUT OUT TO DEVIN, WHOSE BIRTHDAY WAS TWO DAYS AGO.
WITH THAT, CAN, CAN WE KEEP THE MEETING GOING FOR FOUR MORE MINUTES? YES.
SO I DON'T HAVE TO BRING BREAKFAST TOMORROW.
WE GONNA TO ADJOURN, YOU KNOW, HAPPY BIRTHDAYS ONLY 20 SECONDS.
RO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN FROM ROB AND ZAIR.
ALRIGHT, IT'S GONNA BE A VERY SLOW VOTE.
[02:10:01]