* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. IT [Call to Order] IS TWO 30 ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15TH, 2022. THIS MEETING OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION IS CALLED TO ORDER. I'M THE CHAIR, MARTY STEIN. UM, I'M GONNA CALL THE ROLE TO VERIFY OUR QUORUM. THE CHAIR IS PRESENT. VICE CHAIR GARZA IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ABRAHAM IS NOT PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ALLMAN. PRESENT. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CLARK IS NOT PRESENT. COMMISSIONER, HE PRESENT. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER HEINZ, I THINK WILL BE ABSENT TODAY. UM, COMMISSIONER JONES. PRESENT IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MODEST, PRESENT. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER NELSON WILL BE ABSENT. COMMISSIONER POROUS PERLE. PRESENT IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ROBBINS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG WILL BE ABSENT. COMMISSIONER SIGLER. COMMISSIONER TAHIR IS NOT PRESENT. UH, COMMISSIONER VICTOR IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER KANE, ARE YOU WITH US VIRTUALLY DO NOT THINK HE IS HERE. UM, COMMISSIONER DALTON WILL BE ABSENT. COMMISSIONER SMITH PRESENT IS PRESENT. AND DIRECTOR MARGARET WALLACE BROWN PRESENT. THANK YOU. WE'VE GOT 13 MEMBERS WHO RESPONDED TO ROLL CALL. THAT'S A QUORUM. UM, TO EVERYONE ELSE JOINING US TODAY, WELCOME. IF YOU'RE HERE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A SPECIFIC ITEM, YOU CAN FIND THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION ON THE DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE. ALL ADVANCED COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED BY NOON YESTERDAY ARE INCLUDED IN OUR PACKET. WE HAVE THOSE. UM, AND AS I SAID, IF YOU'RE HERE AND YOU WANT TO SPEAK, MAKE SURE YOU FILL OUT A LITTLE WHITE FORM. UM, WE ASK THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE CONNECTED BY PHONE OR COMPUTER TO PLEASE KEEP YOUR DEVICE MUTED UNTIL YOU ARE CALLED ON TO TALK AND ALSO KEEP YOUR CAMERA OFF UNTIL IT'S YOUR TURN TO SPEAK. UM, A COUPLE OF ITEMS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM TODAY'S AGENDA UNDER PUBLIC HEARINGS. ITEM ONE 40 WAYBURN ESTATES AND UNDER VARIANCES, 1 45 RESIDENCES AT 1934 WEST GRADE. THERE'LL BE NO OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THOSE. WITH THAT, WE'LL GO TO [Director’s Report] THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT REPORT. DIRECTOR MARGARET WALLACE BROWN. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME'S MARGARET WALLACE BROWN AND I'M SECRETARY TO THIS COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. I WANNA ALERT EVERYONE THAT ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21ST, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED IN OUR BUILDING AT SIX 11 WALKER, WE WILL BE CONDUCTING A SAFETY TRAINING EXERCISE AT SIX 11 WALKER. AND, UM, THE ENTIRE BUILDING WILL BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING SOME OF THE STREETS SURROUNDING THE BUILDING. SO, UM, YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE STREETS ON OUR WEBSITE, BUT, UM, JUST BASICALLY STAY AWAY FROM US FOR THE, FOR THE DAY OF DECEMBER 21ST, WE WILL BE ACCESSIBLE BY PHONE AND EMAIL. YOU CAN ALWAYS CALL 8 3 2 3 9 360 600 FOR ASSISTANCE, BUT JUST DON'T COME SEE US. UM, OUR HOLIDAY SCHEDULE, YOUR NEXT MEETING IS JANUARY 5TH, WHICH IS, UM, MORE THAN TWO WEEKS AWAY. SO DUE TO THE 30 DAY LIMIT ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN DEFERRED ONCE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE DEFERRED AGAIN ON THAT DATE. STAFF WILL REMIND YOU ABOUT THE OPTIONS WHEN WE GET TO THAT DATE. AND, UM, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANYTHING, CALL THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT (832) 393-6600 OR YOU CAN CALL THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNER OF THE DAY DIRECTLY AT 8 3 2 3 9 360 6 24. AS ALWAYS, VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONTX.GOV SLASH PLANNING OR JUST GO TO HOUSTON PLANNING.COM. THIS CONCLUDES MY REPORT. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NOT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO [Approval of the December 1, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes] APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 1ST, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, WHICH ARE IN YOUR PACKET. UH, IF THERE ARE NO ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES, IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? MOTION GARZA GARZA. SECOND MA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. [Platting Activities a & b] THAT TAKES US TO ROMAN NUMERAL ONE PLOTTING ACTIVITY. UM, DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT ALL THE BEEPS ARE? OKAY, JUST, I, I JUST, YOU KNOW, I LIKE TO KNOW WHAT BEEPS ARE WHEN I HEAR 'EM. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR. SECTIONS A AND B ARE PRESENTED AS ONE GROUP, WHICH INCLUDES CONSENT AND REPLANT ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION. SECTIONS A AND B ARE ITEMS ONE THROUGH 1 28 SECTION A. CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 73 AND SECTION B REPLANT ITEMS [00:05:01] ARE NUMBER 74 THROUGH 1 28. NO ITEMS NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MADAM CHAIR, IF THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSENT AND REPLANT ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY ITEMS IN SECTIONS A AND B WE NEED TO CONSIDER SEPARATELY? COMMISSIONER SIGLER? UM, YES. ITEM 12 THROUGH 16, 18, 30 AND 36. OKAY. AND COMMISSIONER? YES. MADAM CHAIR ITEMS THREE THROUGH SIX, 12 THROUGH 16, 30, 37, 38, 39, 91 AND ONE 17. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? MADAM CHAIR? YES. COMMISSIONER SMITH? CLARIFICATION ON ITEM NUMBER 61? IT SHOWS AN ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION. THAT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. OKAY. ITEM 61? YEAH. OKAY. OR, OR MS. MATER, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS? UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION. THE, UM, GIVE ME ONE SECOND. I THINK IT MAY BE DEFERRAL PER HARRIS COUNTY REQUEST. THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE? YES, BUT LET ME DOUBLE CHECK JUST ONE MINUTE AND I'LL HAVE THE ANSWER. OKAY, WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE THAT WITH THE OTHERS. OKAY. SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, WE'LL TAKE ITEM 61 SEPARATELY. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN ADVANCE ON ANY OF THE CONSENT OR REPL ITEMS. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE CHAT? I GUESS NOT. IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE ITEMS FROM ITEM ONE TO 1 28? HEARING NO RESPONSE? WE CAN GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THOSE. UM, AND WE'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION. WHAT NUMBER WAS THAT? 61. 61 61. WE'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ALL ITEMS IN SECTIONS A AND B SAVE. AND EXCEPT FOR ITEMS THREE THROUGH SIX 12 THROUGH 16 30, 36 THROUGH 39, 61, 91 AND ONE 17. IS THERE A MOTION? AN 18. AN 18. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. UH, MOTION BALDWIN. IS THERE A SECOND? JONES? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. AND NOW, UH, MS. MACHO, ARE YOU READY WITH 61? UM, IT, IT APPEARS TO BE A DEFERRED PER HARRIS COUNTY REQUEST. OKAY. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO THE, SO THAT WILL BE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. THE RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM 61 IS DEFER PER HARRIS COUNTY REQUEST. OKAY. SO NOW WE CAN VOTE ON THE REMAINDER, WHICH WILL BE THREE THROUGH SIX 12 THROUGH 16, 18, 30, 36 THROUGH 39, 61, 91, AND ONE 17. IS THERE A MOTION? ALL ALLMAN, SECOND VICTOR, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES AND NOTE THAT COMMISSIONERS, HE AND SIGLER ABSTAINED. OKAY, THAT WILL TAKE US TO, UM, [c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Dorianne Powe-Phlegm, Devin Crittle, John Cedillo, and Arum Lee)] SECTION CI DO WANNA, I FORGOT I MEANT TO DO THIS AT THE BEGINNING. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE WITH US ON YOUR COMPUTERS, THE UM, RAISED HAND FEATURE ON TEAMS IS USED IN THIS MEETING ONLY AMONGST THE STAFF. UM, FOR ADMINISTRATIVE THINGS, WE DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO TRACK, RESPOND, OR ANSWER YOU, UM, UNLESS YOU ARE SIGNING UP TO SPEAK. IS THAT CORRECT? IN THE CHAT? YEAH. SO IF YOU WANNA SPEAK, PUT YOUR NAME IN THE CHAT. DO NOT RAISE YOUR HAND 'CAUSE NO ONE WILL, NO ONE WILL ANSWER YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MS. FLM. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS DORIAN FLM. ITEM ONE 18 IS BLAYLOCK, I MEAN 1 29, I'M SORRY. ITEM 1 29 IS BLAYLOCK SQUARE. THE SITE IS LOCATED WEST ALONG BLAYLOCK ROAD NORTH OF HAMLEY BOULEVARD IN HOUSTON. CORPORATE LIMITS. THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE 10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND FOUR RESERVES. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS FILED SEPARATELY. THE PLAT WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING, PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE LEGAL INDICATED THAT THE PLAT VIOLATED DEED RESTRICTIONS. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAD REQUESTED THE DEFERRAL AND PROVIDED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, [00:10:02] UM, SHOWING ABOUT THE RELEASE OF THE, UM, OF THE RESTRICTIONS. AND LEGAL HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PLAT WOULD NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS FILED SEPARATELY. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 1 29 BLAYLOCK SQUARE IS CONTINUED. UM, THE FIRST SPEAKER I HAVE LISTED IS EDUARDO RENA. MR. RENA, I THINK HE'S GONNA BE WITH US VIRTUALLY. ARE YOU WITH US, MR. RAINA? OKAY. HE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. UM, BERNICE DAVIS, I THINK IS HERE WITH US. COME FORWARD PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS BERNIE DAVIS. I'M VICE PRESIDENT OF BROOKHAVEN CIVIC CLUB. UH, WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF THE PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO REPLY OF VIOLATES MULTIPLE DEED RESTRICTIONS. UM, ONE STATES THAT ANY REPL PROB PROPERTY IN BROOKHAVEN, IT HAS TO MEET A CERTAIN DIMENSION, WHICH IS 67 FEET ACROSS THE FRONT AND AT LEAST 150 FEET DEEP. IF YOU'RE ON A CORNER LOT AND YOU TRY TO REPL, THEN YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REACH THE 150 FEET DEEP BECAUSE OUR PROPERTIES ARE PRIMARILY ABOUT 103 TO 106 FEET WIDE. EXCUSE ME, THAT'S, OH, WELL SHE CALLED FOR ME. OH, . OKAY. MAYBE IT WAS, MAYBE YOU SIGNED UP FOR THE WRONG ONE. DID YOU SIGN UP FOR ITEM ONE 30? YES. 1 29. I AM SO SORRY. OKAY, CAN YOU HOLD ON JUST A MOMENT? I, I, MY APOLOGIES. EVERYONE JUMPED THE GUN. OKAY, SO DID I ANNOUNCE THE PUBLIC HEARING CORRECTLY FOR 1 29? BLOW LOCK SQUARE? I DON'T SHOW IT, SO. OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING? YEAH. YEAH, SHE DID SAY YEAH, I DID. OKAY. YES SHE DID. AND I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON 1 29. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 29 LISTENING OR WITH US? NO ONE IN THE CHAT THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. IS THERE DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? HI, IS THERE A SECOND? GARZA? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. NOW WE ARE ON ITEM ONE 30, ALBERTA VILLA. GO AHEAD. I APOLOGIZE AGAIN. ITEM ONE 30 IS ALBERTA VILLA. THE SITE LOCATED IN HOUSTON, CORPORATE LIMITS AT THE INTERSECTION OF RED BUD AND ALBERTA STREETS EAST OF SCOTT STREET. THE REASON FOR RELAID IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT FOR FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW. STAFF HAS RECEIVED ADVANCED COMMENTS CONCERNING THIS PLAT FROM THE BROOKHAVEN CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND RESIDENCE THAT THIS PLAT IS IN VIOLATION OF SEPARATELY FILED DEED RESTRICTIONS. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. OKAY. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM ONE 30, ALBERTA VILLA IS OPEN AND THE FIRST SPEAKER IS BERNICE DAVIS BROUGHT BACK BY POPULAR DEMAND. OKAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. UM, UM, THE PROPERTY IS, IS LOCATED AS SHE SAYS, ON THE CORNER OF ALBERTA, WHICH IS THE FRONTAL STREET AND RED BUD, WHICH IS THE SIDE STREET. SO ALL PROPERTIES DIVIDED MUST HAVE AN ADDRESS FOR THE FRONTAL STREET BECAUSE IT'S THE SHORTEST STREET. THEY ARE TRYING TO REPL AND MAKE RED BUD THE SHORTEST STREET AFTER RE REPLYING, WHICH THAT CANNOT HAPPEN BECAUSE THEN THE PROPERTY WILL ONLY BE 106 FEET DEEP AND IT'S A REQUIREMENT OF OUR DEED RESTRICTION THAT A PROPERTY BE A MINIMUM OF 150 FEET DEEP. AND SO, UM, THERE'S LIKE HARDLY ANY WAY TO REPL OUR PROPERTIES BECAUSE NONE OF OUR PROPERTIES CAN BE DIVIDED FRONTAL TO REACH THE 67 SQUARE FEET THAT THEY NEED NOR DEPTH TO REACH LESS THAN 150 FEET BECAUSE OUR PROPERTIES RANGE FROM ANYWHERE FROM 150 TO 250 FEET DEEP. AND SO THE PROPERTY THAT HE'S TRYING TO REACH WAS ONLY GOING TO BE A DEPTH OF 106 FEET. OKAY. UM, THANK [00:15:01] YOU. AND I, OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, I BELIEVE HAS NOT CONCLUDED THEIR REVIEW BUT COM UM, MS. MICKELSON IS THAT WE WE'RE STILL IN THE PROCESS. I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN SOME NEW INFORMATION. THERE'S ALSO SOME EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS ACROSS ALBERTA, ACTUALLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF RED BLOOD, UH, RED BUD, EXCUSE ME. THAT HAS BEEN, UM, THAT HAVE BEEN REPLANTED. SO WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE AS WELL. OKAY. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THEN IS TO DEFER. SO I ASSUME WE'LL PROBABLY BE VOTING LATER TO DEFER THIS ITEM UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS JANUARY 5TH. AND AT THAT POINT WE'LL HAVE A CONCLUSIVE OPINION FROM OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT ABOUT WHETHER IT DOES OR DOES NOT VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS. ONE OTHER THING, IF THEY TRY TO REPL ON RED BUD TO MAKE IT FIT WHAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS, THEN THEY WILL BE CHANGING OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS, WHICH STATES YOU CANNOT. RIGHT. AND, AND IF THAT IS THE FINDING WE HAVE NO, WE WOULD HAVE TO DENY IT. OKAY. IF THAT'S THE CASE. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, UM, MADAM CHAIR, I'LL ADD THE, THE, THAT QUESTION WAS RAISED AT TUESDAY, PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION, AND WE HAVE RESPONDED THROUGH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO THE MAYOR THAT, THAT NO, THE COMMISSION CANNOT GRANT A VARIANCE OR MAKE ANY CHANGES TO YOUR TWO DEED RESTRICTIONS, RIGHT? WE, WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, TO OVERRIDE ANY DEED RESTRICTIONS. UM, AND THEN I'M GONNA TRY MR. EDUARDO RAINA. MR. RAINA, ARE THEY, ARE YOU THERE? HE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. IS THERE, UH, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE CHAT ON ITEM ONE 30? ANYONE LISTENING? WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ONE 30? UM, THEN I WOULD, UH, ASK IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION FOR A MOTION TO DEFER AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION. BALDWIN BALDWIN. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND FOR PERLE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. AND ITEM ONE 30 IS DEFERRED. MADAM CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED AS PRESENT PLEASE. YES. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ABRAHAM HAS JOINED US. ITEM 1 31. ITEM 1 31 IS ESTATES AT RANDOLPH STREET. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF JET PILOT STREET AND RANDOLPH STREET AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS. THE REASON FOR PLA IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. THE PLAT WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE REVISED INFORMATION AND TO CONFER WITH LEGAL CONCERNING THE SEPARATELY FILED DEED RESTRICTIONS. LEGAL HAS REVIEWED THE PLAT AND THE PLAT AND, AND, AND THE PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE, UM, SEPARATELY FILED RESTRICTIONS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM. MADAM CHAIR PLEASES COMMISSION. YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 31 AS STATES AT RANDOLPH STREET IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED IN ADVANCE. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE CHAT FOR ONE 30? 1 31? NO. ANYONE LISTENING? WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 31? HEARING NO RESPONSE? A PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? SIGLER SECOND JONES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM 1 32. ITEM 1 32 IS FOSTER CROSSING. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF GO AND FOSTER STREETS WEST OF CULLEN AVENUE AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS. THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE THREE NARROW FRONT LOADING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO PROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM. MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE COMMISSION. YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 32 FOSTER CROSSING IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. ANYBODY IN THE CHAT? NO. ANYONE LISTENING WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 32? HEARING NO RESPONSE TO PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. IS THERE DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION BALDWIN FOR FERTILE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSE THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM 1 33. ITEM 1 33 IS GEORGE HEIGHTS REPL NUMBER ONE. THE SITE IS LOCATED EAST ALONG D GEORGE STREET, WEST OF FUGATE STREET, WEST OF MAIN STREET AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS THE [00:20:01] PROPERTY STUBS INTO FUGA FU GUIDE STREET. THE APPLICANT IS EXTENDING FUGA STREET TO THE GEORGE STREET. THE REASON FOR RELA IS TO CREATE 10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND IT CREATE A RIGHT OF WAY. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WOULD NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. HOWEVER, THE PLAT DOES NOT MEET CHAPTER 42 WITH REVERSE CURVE RADIUS AT THE EXTENSION OF FUGATE STREET. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT FOR CHAPTER 42 AND HAVE THE APPLICANT CHAPTER 42 STANDARDS, PLANNING STANDARDS AND HAVE THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE REVISED INFORMATION BY NOON. NEXT WEDNESDAY, STAFF HAS RECEIVED, UH, LETTERS OF OPPOSITION CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF FUGATE STREET AND THEY'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT SIDEWALKS AND THE SAFETY OF THE SIDEWALKS THAT THE, UH, APPLICANT WOULD PUT IN MADAM CHAIR. IF IT PLEASES TO COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. OKAY, THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 1 33, GEORGE HEIGHTS, REPL NUMBER ONE IS OPEN. WE DO HAVE SPEAKERS, UH, ROSA LINDA FREE. ROSA LINDA FREE? YES. HI. HI. UH, WE, I'M WITH THE DEVELOPER, UH, AND WE KIND OF CAME TO EXPLAIN WHY EXACTLY WE WERE OPENING UP THAT FEW GATE WE WOULDN'T HERE PREVIOUSLY. UM, AND WE SUBMITTED A PLAT SEVERAL MONTHS BACK. IT WAS ALMOST A YEAR AGO TO DO 13 FRONT LOADING UNITS. AND WE CAME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, WITH PUBLIC WORKS TO, UM, TO DO A SHARED DRIVEWAY, UH, AND DO NO DETENTION AT ALL. UM, WE'VE SUBMITTED PLATS. WE'VE GOTTEN KICKBACKS AND THEY'RE REQUIRING US TO DO DETENTION. SO THAT WAS NOT THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAD. UM, AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT DOESN'T WORK FOR OUR PROJECT, SO WE HAVE TO REVERT BACK TO OPEN THIS STREET, UM, ON FUGATE. UM, WE WOULD NOT LIKE TO OPEN IT UP, BUT THAT'S KIND OF OUR ONLY OPTION GIVEN THAT IT WAS DEFERRED PREVIOUSLY. UH, WE SUBMITTED A VARIANCE TO NOT EXTEND FUGATE, UM, BUT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY DENIED. THAT'S WHEN THE SHARED DRIVEWAY CAME INTO PLACE. UM, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE EXTENDING THAT STREET ON FUGATE NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE TO REVERT BACK TO OUR ORIGINAL PLAN. SO IF THERE'S A WAY TO NOT EXTEND THAT STREET, WE WOULD LOVE NOT TO DO THAT. UM, AND I'M SURE THE NEIGHBORS ARE AGREE WITH THAT. UM, BUT IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANYTHING, I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY, UM, IN REGARDS TO THAT, SO, OKAY. I'M JUST, I'M AVAILABLE. ALRIGHT. AND LET ME ASK IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS IMMEDIATELY AND THEN STAND BY. WE MIGHT CALL YOU BACK. ANY QUESTIONS FOR NOW? OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS LAWRENCE FIBO. MR. FIBO, ARE YOU WITH US VIRTUALLY, OR MR. FIBO SIGNED UP IN ADVANCE, BUT HE DOESN'T NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. UM, OKAY, SO I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON GEORGE HEIGHTS? REPL NUMBER ONE. ITEM 1 33. NOT IN THE CHAT, NOT LISTENING. UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THIS ITEM, AND I THINK PROBABLY MOST OF YOU REMEMBER IT. I JUST, I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE, WE ARE ALL UNDERSTANDING THERE IS NO VARIANCE REQUEST AT THIS POINT. SO RIGHT NOW WHAT'S ON, WHAT WE SEE IS A SHALL APPROVE. YES. UM, HOWEVER, WE KNOW THAT, THAT WE'VE GOT COMPLAINTS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT CO CUTTING THROUGH, BUT THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY TO DO A SHARED DRIVEWAY AT THIS POINT BECAUSE OF THE DETENTION REQUIREMENT. IS THAT, AM I STATING THAT CORRECTLY? YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBER. SO PLANNING COMMISSION, THE THREE MATTER, UM, THEY, THEY COULD DO A SHARED DRIVEWAY, BUT THIS WILL REQUIRE PROBABLY A RESUBMITTAL BECAUSE THE NOTICE HAS GONE OUT. UH, THEY COULD STILL EXTEND THE STREET AND LIKE THEY COULD EXTEND THE STREET AND DO THE SHARED DRIVEWAY WITHOUT THE EX EXTENSION OF THE STREET. THAT WILL BE A VARIANCE. RIGHT. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE, THE APPLICANT'S COMMENT THAT THEY, THEY CAN'T DO DETENTION? I THINK THAT IS COMPLETELY, UH, UH, PUBLIC WORKS AND IDM REQUIREMENTS AND THE DISCUSSION ON THE PREVIOUS ITEM WAS ABOUT [00:25:01] THE PREVIOUS ITEM. I DON'T THINK ANY DISCUSSION HAS BEEN, UH, HAD FOR THIS ITEM. SO THE DETENTION WOULD BE ASKED FOR THE IDM REQUIREMENTS. SO THIS WILL REQUIRE DETENTION. I WILL LET THE, THE PUBLIC WORKS STAFF SPEAK TO IT. WOULDN'T ANYTHING REQUIRE DETENTION? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M, I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO, I'M CONFUSED BY THE COMMENT THE APPLICANT MAY, BECAUSE I CAN'T IMAGINE US NOT REQUIRING DETENTION ON ANY PLA LIKE IS IS OUR REPRESENTATIVE FROM PUBLIC WORKS WITH US? I CAN, I CAN HEAR HIM SAY YES. SO, OKAY. DO YOU WANNA COME FORWARD AND JUST WE'LL GET YOU ON THE RECORD FOR THIS WITH AFTERNOON HAMAD, OCE? YES. IT'LL REQUIRE DETENTION. SO THE, THE PLA THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW WILL DE REQUIRE DETENTION. ANYTHING? YES. CHAPTER NINE OF THE IDM REQUIRES DETENTION. OKAY, THANK YOU. CAN WE BRING THE APPLICANT BACK UP? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, MS. FRIS, WOULD YOU COME BACK? WE'RE AWARE THAT THIS SPECIFIC PLAT DOES REQUIRE DETENTION, BUT IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO DETENTION ON BOTH, WE'D PREFER TO HAVE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY UNITS WITH BACKYARDS. UM, THAT'S GONNA GIVE US A HIGHER SALES PRICE AND THAT'S GONNA COVER OUR DETENTION COSTS. THE PREVIOUS PLAT, IF YOU GUYS REMEMBER, UH, WAS 13 UNITS WITH A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY IN THE BACK, WHICH WAS DONE PER YOUR REQUEST. IT WAS ORIGINALLY THREE LOTS. YOU GUYS, OR THE CITY, NOT YOU GUYS. THE CITY HAD US COMBINE THOSE LOTS AND THEN REQUIRED DETENTION AFTER AGREEING WITH US THAT NO DETENTION WAS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO, TO GIVE YOU GUYS A SHARED DRIVEWAY. I, I DUNNO IF YOU GUYS REMEMBER THAT. YEAH, I THINK WE DO. SO AT THIS POINT, IF WE'RE GONNA DO DETENTION ON BOTH, WE WOULD PREFER TO HAVE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY BACKYARDS. IT GIVES US A MORE SELLABLE UNIT, HIGHER SALES PRICE AND, AND WE CAN GET IT OFF THE BOOKS AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. RIGHT. AND YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE. SO WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR, WE ALREADY ASKED FOR A VARIANCE AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH HOOPS ON THAT. WE'VE WASTED A YEAR IN TRYING TO COMBINE LOTS AND DO EVERYTHING IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT WAS AGREED TO HERE. AND NONE OF THAT WAS EVER GIVEN TO US. SO WE WERE, WE'D RATHER NOT APPLY FOR A VARIANCE, MOVE FORWARD AND GET IT GOING. OKAY. SO I THINK WE UNDERSTAND. I HAVE A QUESTION. YES. UM, THE COMMISSIONER ABRAHAM, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY STAFF IS ASKING FOR A TWO WEEK VARIANCE? FOR A VARIANCE AS OF RIGHT NOW? UH, I'M SORRY FOR A DEFERRAL. EXCUSE ME. FOR A DEFERRAL? YEAH, FOR A, THEY HAVE TO, NO, NOT FULLY. I JUST, THAT'S, THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD ABOUT THAT. OKAY. I DID WRITE IT DOWN. OKAY. SO FOR THE, FOR THE, I I'M NOT, NO. SO THEN MY QUESTION WOULD BE FOR STAFF TO CLARIFY WHAT THE DEFERMENT WOULD BE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH BECAUSE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT SAYING, OKAY, WELL, UM, THE EXTENSION OF THE STREET THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING, UM, THE, THEY, THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE THE TANGENT OF THE STREET AND THE REVERSE CURVE HAS TO BE, HAVE A CURVE RADIUS OF, UH, 300 FEET. AND, UM, CHAPTER 42 SAYS THAT THE TANGENT HAS TO BE AT LEAST 50 FEET. HOWEVER, UM, PUBLIC WORKS HAD SAID THAT ACCORDING TO THE IDM AND CHAPTER 10, IT HAS TO BE, UH, A HUNDRED FEET FOR THE TANGENT. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE DEAL WITH THIS PARTICULAR, UH, THEM NOT MEETING CHAPTER 42 REQUIREMENTS. AND THEY'RE ALSO NOT MEETING IDM REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS THE EXTENSION OF THE, THE CURVE RADIUS. UM, UM, YEAH. OF THE REVERSE CURVE. YEAH. I COULD SEE THIS BEING HELPFUL FOR THE APPLICANT AS WELL TO UNDERSTAND THAT. THANK YOU. YOU SO I WOULD, I WOULD, I WOULD VOTE FOR THE DEFERRAL. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UM, IF WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM, UM, AND THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I GUESS WE'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DEFER THE ITEM AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ABRAHAM, IS THERE A SECOND? JONES? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THAT'LL TAKE US THEN TO ITEM 1 34. ITEM 1 34 IS ICK PLACE. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF MONROE ROAD AND GOLLICK STREETS AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS. THE REASON FOR REPLAY IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM. THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A 25 FEET BUILDING LINE ALONG MONROE BOULEVARD AS WELL AS DENY ACCESS BECAUSE MONROE IS A MAJOR RAFA MADAM CHAIR. IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 34, [00:30:01] UH, GULICK PLACE IS OPEN. WE HAVE A SPEAKER. PAT CLINKER. MS. CLINKER. HELLO. HI, I AM PAT KLIMAN. I'M REPRESENTING, UH, SKYSCRAPER SHADOWS. UM, WE HAVE DEED RESTRICTIONS WHERE WE ONLY HAVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. OUR LIGHT SIZE MINIMUM IS 50 FEET WIDE AND 120 FEET LONG. UM, WE'RE OPPOSED TO THEM CALLING THEMSELVES GULICK PLACE SINCE THEY ARE PART OF THE SKYSCRAPER SHADOWS SUBDIVISION. OKAY. OKAY. UM, ANY QUESTIONS? AND WE HAVE DEED RESTRICTIONS HERE. YEAH. AND HAVE WE, HAS THIS BEEN REVIEWED FOR DEED RESTRICTIONS? SO OUR ATTORNEYS HAVE, I'M, YEAH, I'M TRYING TO PULL THAT EMAIL BACK UP FROM OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON THAT ONE. OKAY. SO AS OUR, OUR REGULAR PROCESS IS, IS THAT OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT OVERSEES A PROCESS TO REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR WHETHER THEY MEET OR DO NOT MEET DEED RESTRICTIONS. AND WE HAVE FOUND THAT THIS DOES MEET DEED RESTRICTIONS. SO IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO PROVIDE, UM, YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD NEED TO DO THAT. WHAT, WHAT, DO YOU KNOW THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF THE DEED RESTRICTION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? WELL, THESE ARE, THESE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. OH, THEY ARE SINGLE FAMILY? YES. YES. OKAY. WELL THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE OF. WE DIDN'T LIKE THAT GULICK PLACE SINCE THEY'RE PART OF US. AND WE WILL ASK FOR, IS THERE ANY MAGIC ON THE NAME? ARE THEY NOT PART OF NO, NO. THAT'S A NAMING STANDARD FOR THE SUBDIVISIONS. IT'S GOVERNED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT DISCRETION STAFF COULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND SUGGEST THEY DO. WELL THEY, IT'S JUST OUR SUBDIVISION IN YOUR EXISTING SUBDIVISION WITH YOUR EXACT SAME DEED RESTRICTIONS. SO THAT'S HOW THAT'S GONNA WORK. YEAH. IT'LL HAVE A DIFFERENT NAME, BUT IT WILL JUST BE THE GULICK PLACE IN YOUR SKYSCRAPER SHADOWS. RIGHT. A REPLAY. WE, YOU KNOW, I ALSO RECALL, UH, YOU KNOW, OUR AGENDAS ARE FULL OF PARTIAL REPL, NUMBER ONE, NUMBER FIVE, WHICH COVER A SIMILAR SITUATION AND THAT'S SPECIFIED TO SOME DEGREE. UH, MS. FLM, COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT PERHAPS AS TO HOW THE, THE NAME OF THE PLAT CAN BE SELECTED IF IT IS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF A, OF A PREVIOUSLY NAMED PLAT? THOSE CHA SORRY. THERE WAS A CHANGE IN CHAPTER 42, A TECHNICAL AMENDMENT WHERE WE ARE NO LONGER REQUIRING, UM, TO FOLLOW THE, THE NAME OF THE ORIGINAL NAME, BUT IT WAS PASSED RECENTLY. THE IMPORTANT THING WOULD BE THAT THESE TWO NEW HOMES WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE EXISTING DEED RESTRICTIONS OF SKYCAP SKYSCRAPER SHADOWS. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. IT WOULD STILL COME UP IN A TITLE SEARCH BECAUSE THE FURTHER LANGUAGE ON THE REPL WILL SAY, GULICK PLACE A PARTIAL REPL OF X ACRES OUT OF, YEAH. THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE NAME IS KIND OF A TECHNICALITY, BUT THE IMPORTANCE IS THEY'RE PART OF SKYSCRAPER SHADOWS AND THEY'RE SUBJECT TO ALL THE, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. YES. THEY ARE SUBJECT TO ALL THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. AND AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED, THIS DOES MEET YOUR DEED RESTRICTIONS. YES, IT DOES. UM, DID THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS, MS. LINMAN? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US. ANOTHER ONE ON THIS? YES. OKAY. WE HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER. PATRICIA ROCHA ROCHA. GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. UM, I AM, UH, WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE PERPETUAL AND WE HAVE OUR ATTORNEY'S NAME AS WELL THAT WE CAN GIVE TO YOU. UM, BUT THEY, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED NOTICE. WE HAVE NOT, UH, RECEIVED THE ONLY NOTICE THAT WE WERE, WE WERE ACTUALLY VERY FORTUNATE TO SEE THE SIGN AND WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE A PICTURE AND SHOW UP HERE TODAY. UM, BUT OUR RESTRICTION, OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE PERPETUAL. THEY'RE ONGOING. I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY WOULD ALLOW SOMEONE TO CHANGE THE, UM, STREET NAME, THE RESIDENTIAL STREET NAME TO GULICK PLACE WITHOUT WANTING TO MAKE IT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. UM, BECAUSE IT, THIS LOT WAS GRANDFATHERED IN. THERE WAS A MOBILE HOME THAT HAD BEEN SITTING THERE SINCE 1950. UM, I'VE LIVED THERE FOR OVER 22 YEARS. AND, UM, THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME RIGHT NOW IS, IS THE, IS THE SAME SELLER THAT'S SELLING IT AND THEY'RE USING IT AS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX RIGHT NOW. AND THAT IS AGAINST OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS. SO IF THIS, IF THEY'RE DOING THE SAME THING BY CHANGING IT TO GULICK PLACE, YOU'RE NOT MAKING IT A RESIDENTIAL AND YOU'RE NOT KEEPING IT WITHIN OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS. OKAY. THE, THE CHANGE OF THE, OF THE [00:35:01] PLAT NAME TO GULICK PLACE HAS NO EFFECT ON THE RESIDENTIAL, THE USAGE. SO IT'S, THAT IS A TECHNICALITY. WHAT'S GONNA BE BUILT HERE UNDER THIS APPLICATION FOR THIS PLAT ARE TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. SO WHERE THERE WAS ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT, THERE'LL BE TWO. OKAY. AND THERE'LL BE SMALLER LOTS, BUT THERE'LL BE A SINGLE, A HOUSE ON ONE AND A HOUSE ON THE OTHER. WHEN YOU SAY SMALLER LOTS, WE DO HAVE A SIZE THAT IT IS ON OUR PERPETUAL DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW. THERE IS NO SMALLER LOTS. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY SMALLER LOTS. WELL, WHERE THERE WAS ONE LOT THERE TOO. IT, IT APPEARS TO MEET THE SIZE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE LISTED HERE IN THE IT DOES, BECAUSE WAS ONE OF MY THOUGHTS WAS THAT PERHAPS THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS BEING RAISED, BUT IT SAYS HERE, NO LOTS SHOULD BE LESS THAN 50 FEET WIDE AND ONE 20 FEET, 120 FEET LONG. UM, UNLESS ORIGINALLY PLATTED THAT WAY. RIGHT. THESE ARE 63 BY 106 60, RIGHT. 63 BY 160. 60 63. 63. 63. 63 BY A HUNDRED. AND THAT INFORM HUNDRED 60. OKAY. WE DIDN'T GET ANY OF THE INFORMATION. 'CAUSE EVEN OUR, UM, OUR COMMITTEE, UH, WAS LOOKING FOR PAPERWORK. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANYTHING. SO WE WEREN'T UNFAMILIAR WITH WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO, TO PROPOSE. DID YOU GET THE NOTICE LETTER FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING? NO, WE ACTUALLY, UH, WERE ABLE TO, UH, SEE THE SIGN. UM, AND THAT'S HOW I, I TOOK A PICTURE AND THAT'S HOW I INFORMED OUR COMMUNITY OF WHAT WAS TAKING PLACE BECAUSE SOUTHEAST HAS BEEN A VERY QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, IT'S BEEN A VERY CALM NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT HERE RECENTLY, WE ARE HAVING ALL THESE PEOPLE MOVE IN THAT ACROSS OUR STREET. UNFORTUNATELY, THEY'RE, THEY'RE DOING A LOT OF DUPLEXES AND IT'S BRINGING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD DOWN. I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT MORE CRIME THAN WE'VE HAD RECENTLY. SO WE ARE VERY CONCERNED AND WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO MEET THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THAT THEY, WE DON'T WANT OUR NAME CHANGED. I DON'T, DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY, THEY'RE CHANGING THE NAME TO GOLLICK PLACE. I LIVE ON GOLLICK LANE AND THEY LIVE ON GULICK LANE TOO. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE. THE NAME OF THE STREET IS GULICK LANE. THE PLAT IS CALLED GULICK PLACE IN SKYSCRAPER SHADOWS. WE KNOW WE'RE, WE'RE NAMING A RESIDENTIAL PLA Y ONE PLA IS BEING, OR THOSE TWO PLATS ARE BEING RENAMED. I'M GONNA ASK MS. MACHO. UM, SO THE NAME OF THE PLAT, EVERY TIME A SUBDIVISION PLAT HAPPENS, IN THIS CASE DIVIDING ONE LOT INTO TWO, THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION AND COME TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEIR APPROVAL. WHEN THEY DO THAT, THEY HAVE TO FIND A UNIQUE SUBDIVISION NAME AND A UNIQUE SUBDIVISION NAME COULD BE ANYTHING THAT IS NOT A DUPLICATE OF ANY OTHER NAME. SO GULICK PLACE HAPPENS TO BE A UNIQUE SUBDIVISION NAME THAT THEY'RE CHOOSING. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO. THE NAME OF THE SUBDIVISION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY DEED RESTRICTIONS. THE NAME OF THE SUBDIVISION CAN BE ANYTHING BUT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE PLAT ITSELF. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE RIGHT SIDE WILL MENTION THE NAME OF THE ORIGINAL PLAT AND WHERE IT IS RECORDED AND THE SUBJECT SITE IS, IF IT IS RESTRICTED TO SOMETHING, IT'LL REMAIN RESTRICTED TO THAT PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERRULE A DE RESTRICTION. SO IN THIS CASE, ALL IS COVERED, UH, REGARDING THE NOTICE, UH, IF THE NOTICE MAPS WERE, WE ARE SEEING THAT THE NOTICE WAS SENT, BUT THIS APPLICATION DOES HAVE AN ABILITY TO BE DEFERRED IF YOU SO CHOOSE. BUT THE PEOPLE, MEMBERS OF PUBLIC ARE HERE. THE SIGNS WERE THERE. UH, SO NOTICE WAS GIVEN. UH, SO IT'LL, IT'LL BE UP TO THE COMMISSION. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. AND, UH, I THINK YOUR YOUR TIME IS UP. YES. SO, BUT THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH IT TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 34? NO ONE IN THE CHAT. NO ONE LISTENING. UM, THEN, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THEN IS TO APPROVE THE PLATS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED. THIS IS A SHALL APPROVE SINCE IT MEETS ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS AT THIS POINT. UH, YES. AND THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. MODEST FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION SECOND. GARZA GARZA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ITEM 1 35. ITEM 1 35 IS HIGH PARK MAIN EDITION, PARTIALLY PLA NUMBER THREE, THE SIGN LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF VERMONT AND WOODHEAD STREETS AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS. THE REASON FOR REPLY IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THERE ARE NO VARIOUS REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WOULD NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT [00:40:01] PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCE COMMENTS FOR THIS PLAT. MADAM CHAIR OF PLEASES THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 35 HYDE PARK MAIN EDITION IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. WE HAVE NO ONE IN THE CHAT. ANYONE LISTENING, WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 35 HYDE PARK? HEARING NO RESPONSE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT CONDITIONS IS THEIR DISCUSSION. IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? A. IS THERE A SECOND? JONES? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 36. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JEFF BUTLER. ITEM 1 36 IS LAKEVIEW RETREAT, SECTION ONE, PARTIAL REPLANT NUMBER ONE. THE STUDY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ETJ WITHIN FORT BEND COUNTY ALONG BEL AIR BOULEVARD, EAST OF GRAND MISSION AND SOUTH OF THE WEST PARK TOLLWAY. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN A LANDSCAPE RESERVE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES. ONE TO ALLOW SHARED ACCESS TO THE THREE LOTS FROM BEL AIR BOULEVARD AND TWO, TO ALLOW A LANDSCAPE RESERVE TO BE CONVERTED INTO SINGLE FAMILY. LOTS BY WAY OF PARTIAL RELA. STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW AND FOR CONTINUED LEGAL REVIEW. THIS WILL BE OUR ONLY DEFERRAL OPPORTUNITY DUE TO THE THREE WEEK CYCLE. THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG BELAIRE BOULEVARD AT A BRIDGE CROSSING OF A DRAINAGE CHANNEL. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES SHARED ACCESS ALONG BEL AIR WITH AN INTERNAL LOOP. STAFF HAS CONCERNS THAT THIS METHOD OF ACCESS COULD PRESENT PUBLIC SAFETY RISKS AS IT WOULD LOCATE A DRIVEWAY ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A CURVE AND A BRIDGE LANDING. STAFF WILL WORK WITH THE COUNTY AND THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING A VARIANCE TO REPL A LANDSCAPE RESERVE BY PARTIAL REPL. THE INTENT OF THIS SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO PREVENT THE LOSS OF RECORDED OPEN SPACE WITHOUT SUPPORT OF EFFECTIVE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS CASE. HOMES WERE SOLD ON THIS STREET WITH REFERENCES TO NEARBY GREEN SPACE IN THEIR LISTINGS. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS CHANGE TO THE PLAT WOULD BE WELCOMED BY ANY OF THE NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS. STAFF WILL WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS THIS CONCERN AS WELL. REVIEW BY LEGAL IS STILL PENDING. STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL THIS ITEM OF FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW. UH, MADAM SHERRY MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 1 36 LAKEVIEW RETREAT, SECTION ONE IS OPEN. UM, I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM. WE HAVE NO ONE IN THE CHAT. IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 36? YES. HELLO? UH, CAN YOU LISTEN? YES. HELLO? YES. WILL YOU GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME? YEAH, THIS IS KA KESSER. I AM THE RESIDENT OF LAKE RETREAT AND THE SECTION THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE ARE JUST ADJACENT TO IT. LIKE IT'S, WE, UH, IT'S GOING TO BE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THE THING IS WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE, THEY ASSURED US THAT IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE THE CORNER HOUSE. THEY'RE GOING TO BE NO NEIGHBORS AND IT'S GOING TO BE A GREEN AID BESIDE THE HOUSE. AND WE BOUGHT THAT HOUSE THAT IT COULD BE, UH, END ROAD. WE HAVE FOUR KIDS, SO THEY KEEP ON PLAYING ON THE ROAD AND THERE WILL BE NO TRAFFIC OVER THERE. NOW THEY ARE LIKE, UH, BEFORE BUYING THE HOUSE, THEY ASSURED US THAT THEY, THERE'RE GOING TO BE NOTHING ON THIS AREA. NOW WHEN THE WHOLE COMMUNITY IS LIKE ALL BOOKED. NOW THE ONLY SPACE LEFT IS THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD A HOUSE HERE. AND WE ARE OPPOSING THIS BECAUSE WE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE BECAUSE WE, WE DON'T WANT, UH, THE NEIGHBOR AROUND US AND WE WANT THE GREEN AREA AROUND OUR HOME. SO WE, THE WHOLE LANE, WE ARE AGAINST IT. LIKE NO ONE IS IN THE FAVOR OF A BUILDING HOUSE ADJACENT TO OUR HOUSES. AND WE HAVE SMALL KIDS AND WE DON'T WANT A TRAFFIC OVER HERE. WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING. WE WANT THE GREEN AREA AND WE WANT THE TREES ALL AROUND OUR HOUSES. OKAY. THANK YOU. DOES THAT, DID THAT CONCLUDE YOUR REMARKS? YEAH. SO LIKE WE ARE POSITIVE. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I'M GONNA ASK YOU, WOULD YOU GO AHEAD AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME FOR US? I DIDN'T QUITE CATCH IT. IT'S Q-A-I-S-A-R. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM, OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 36? UH, I DON'T KNOW THE PEOPLE ARE HERE, BUT THE WHOLE STREET WE, WE WE HAVE BEEN. OKAY. WE HAD A MEETING AND THANK YOU. LIKE THANK YOU. I JUST, I'M JUST CALLING TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE. UM, SPEAKS UP. BUT THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH [00:45:01] US TODAY. MM-HMM. UM, THE APPLICANT I THINK IS PRESENT. DID YOU WISH TO SPEAK OR JUST FOR QUESTIONS? IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS? THE APPLICANT IS HERE. UM, OKAY. UM, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE ASIDE FROM UH, UH, COMMISSIONERS WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 1 36? OKAY. COMMISSIONER GARZA. ACTUALLY IT'S FOR THE DEVELOPER I THINK WOULD BE BETTER POSITIONED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. SO JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU. UM, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO LAST SPEAKER, I UNDERSTAND, UNLESS THEY HAVE A CONTRACT ON THIS PROPERTY, THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OF THIS PROPERTY. WHAT HAPPENS TO IT? HOW I'M SEEING FROM THE DRAWING THAT THERE IS A BUFFER SPACE THAT IS TREE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT THAT BUFFER SPACE GOING, I GUESS NORTH IS GOING TO STAY GREEN. CORRECT. SO WE'RE LEAVING THAT LANDSCAPE BUFFER SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE, WE EXPECTED THERE WOULD BE SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE LOSS OF THE GREEN SPACE AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DID PRESERVE, UH, A TREE BUFFER AREA BETWEEN THE OLD HOMES AND THE NEW HOMES. ALRIGHT. AND THEN, UM, COULD YOU, UH, INFORMA, UH, YOUR INFORMATION IS HELD BY STAFF. WOULD YOU MIND IF WE SHARED IT WITH THE LAST CALLER SO THAT THEY CAN SPEAK TO YOU DIRECTLY AND ASK PARTICULAR QUESTIONS? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. GREAT. THANK YOU MR. BUTLER. ARE WE COOL WITH THAT? GREAT. GREAT. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. SO WE'LL GET YOUR INFORMATION TO, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF MS. CASE SAR. YES, GO RIGHT AHEAD. UM, DO WE HAVE A WAY TO, DO WE HAVE A WAY TO ENSURE THAT THAT OPEN SPACE IS TREE AS WE ARE, WE'RE USING THE TERM? I KNOW THERE ARE EXISTING TREES ON THAT LANDSCAPE RESERVE. I I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN THE THAT WE CAN, LET'S YEAH, MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. SO I THINK, I THINK, WELL I WAS, I I ACTUALLY WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THE, OUR REGULATION, NOT THE APPLICANT. OH. UM, BECAUSE I THINK WE SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM GIVING THE PUBLIC THE, THE WRONG, WE SHOULD NOT GIVE THE PUBLIC, UH, THE WRONG IMPRESSION THAT WE HAVE A WAY TO MAKE SURE IT'S TREATED. NO, WE, WE CAN MAKE SURE IT'S, IT'S NOT BUILT ON OR, YOU KNOW, BUT WE, WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T MAKE SURE IT'S GONNA BE TREATED. UM, BUT YES, I, I WOULD, I THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RESIDENTS MAYBE SEE THE PLAT AS IT'S LAID OUT, SHOWING THAT THERE IS A GREEN BUFFER THAT MIGHT HELP THEM UNDERSTAND HOW THIS MIGHT IMPACT THAT INTERNAL STREET. MAYBE IT'S THE FOLKS ON CAMDEN HEIGHTS THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CIRCULATION PIECE BEHOOVE YOU PROBABLY TO, TO SHOW, MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND HOW THAT, HOW THAT, UH, CIRCULATION IS GONNA WORK. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SMITH. MS. CURTIS, UM, YOU KNOW, THE OWNERSHIP HISTORY OF THIS TRACK, UH, IT SEEMS TO ME THE COMMISSION MAY BE INTERESTED IN STAFF'S ANALYSIS MAY INCLUDE WHETHER THE PARTY REQUESTING THIS, UH, REPL IS THE SAME PARTY THAT CREATED THE RESERVE, UH, IN THE FIRST PLACE. UH, UH, YES. SO THE, THE RESERVE WAS CREATED INITIALLY BECAUSE THERE WAS, UM, SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE, UM, THE ENVIRONMENT, THE, THE SOIL AND ON THE SITE AND, UM, AND POTENTIALLY A WETLAND. AND THERE WERE SOME, THERE WERE, THERE WERE SOME CURRENT CONCERNS ABOUT THE SITE SO THAT IT WAS PLOTTED AS A LANDSCAPE RESERVE. THE DEVELOPER HELD ONTO IT. UM, BUT AFTER FURTHER STUDY THEY FOUND THAT NO, THIS, THE, THE SITE IS FINE AND IT WAS ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED. SO THEY'RE TRYING TO REPL IT. GOT IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? I HOPE YOU CAN GET IN TOUCH WITH THE NEIGHBORS BEFORE, BEFORE THIS COMES BACK IN TWO WEEKS. AND FOR THE RECORD, THAT WAS APPLICANT JENNIFER CURTIS, AND WE ALSO WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE COMMISSIONER TAHIR IS IN THE ROOM. OH, THANK YOU. YES. I DIDN'T SEE YOU COME IN COMMISSIONER. IT'S TAHIR. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER. MODEST. BUT I KNOW THIS TOPIC IN GENERAL HAS COME BEFORE US BEFORE WHERE ADVERTISEMENTS WERE DONE AND QUOTE UNQUOTE PROMISES WERE MADE TO BUYERS ABOUT, NO, THIS WILL NEVER BE DEVELOPED. AND THEN TWO, THREE YEARS LATER, WE, WE GET A PLAT AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THE GUY ABOUT THAT. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WHERE I'VE SEEN WHERE WE ACTUALLY KIND OF BRING THAT, UH, ADVERTISEMENT FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION. SO I APPRECIATE THE DUE DILIGENCE ON THAT. AND I MEAN, WHAT'S THE SOLUTION TO THAT? AND I CERTAINLY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT IT, IT'S, UH, IN THE BUYER'S DEFENSE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, GETTING THE RUG PULLED OUT FROM ON AND THEN FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. AND SO, UM, WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL OR I, I WOULD HOPE DEVELOPERS CONSIDER BEING CAREFUL ABOUT THE PROMISES THEY MAKE TO THOSE SELLERS OR EVEN PUT SOME, SOME KIND OF WRITING OF A POTENTIAL OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA BECAUSE, UM, PEOPLE THINK THAT THEY'RE GETTING A CERTAIN PRODUCT THAT CHANGES ON THEM LATER. SO IT'S JUST ME VOICING THAT, I GUESS I GUESS FOR LACK OF A SAID ANYTHING BETTER. BUT, UM, BUT ALSO, UH, TO STAFF, WHY CAN'T THEY TAKE ACCESS OFF OF [00:50:01] THE EXISTING INTERNAL, UM, ROADWAY AND THEN PROVIDE LIKE A SHARED DRIVEWAY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? IS THAT EVEN A POSSIBILITY? OH, IT'S, IT'S A POSSIBILITY. YOU MEAN FROM THE, THE STREET TO THE NORTH COLUMBUS STREET? CORRECT, YES. THAT, THAT WOULD, WE'VE GOT SOME THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM, DOESN'T IT? OKAY. AS FAR AS THE ACCESS AND AS FAR AS YOUR, YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE, THE 1 93 VARIANCE, WHICH IS FOR THAT, THE INTENT OF THAT PROVISION IS TO PREVENT THAT TO, IF, IF SOMETHING IS PLOTTED AS LANDSCAPE OR A PUBLIC AMENITY, THAT BY RULE IT SHOULD BE RE PLATTED BY THE FULL REPL OR THIS VARIANCE PROVISION IS THERE. AND TYPICALLY WE ACCEPT SOMETHING LIKE A DOCUMENTED SUPPORT FROM PROPERTY OWNERS, MAYBE THROUGH AN HOA AS FAR AS CHANGING IT AFTER IT'S BEEN SOLD. OKAY, THANK YOU. YEAH. AND IN MY EXPERIENCE, WHEN WE DO HAVE A 1 93 VARIANCE, IT STAFF IS ALWAYS REACHING OUT TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. SO WE WE DO WHAT WE CAN. I, WE, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT WE TRY TO OUR BEST TO FIND OUT AND I THINK MS. CURTIS IS COMMITTED THAT SHE'S GONNA TRY TO DO THAT IN THE INTERIM PERIOD. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? UM, STAFF IS ASKING US TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO OUR NEXT MEETING. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. SURE. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER. WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR TAKING ACCESS OFF OF BEL AIR? I'M, I'M GLAD YOU ASKED. I WANTED TO SAY THAT. SO, UM, WE KNEW THAT, THAT THE EXISTING RESIDENCE WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT ADDING ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAYS ONTO THE STREET AND THERE THERE WOULD BE QUESTIONS ABOUT TRAFFIC AND THAT THERE WOULD BE QUESTIONS ABOUT LOSING THE BUFFER. AND WE WANTED TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE RESIDENTIAL STREET AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE TURNING THE DRIVEWAYS TO BEL AIR. UM, AND, AND AS STAFF MENTIONED THAT THERE'S CONCERNS ABOUT BEL AIR BEING A THOROUGHFARE, AND SO INSTEAD OF DOING INDIVIDUAL, INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAYS, WE, WE KNEW THAT WOULDN'T WORK OUT. UM, WE WERE PROPOSING A SINGLE CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY THAT ALL THREE LOTS CAN SHARE ACCESS FROM, WHICH WOULD MINIMIZE THE RISK IN OUR OPINION. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE ITEM. IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER THE ITEM AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SIGLER? IS THERE A SECOND? MAD? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM 1 37. ITEM 1 37 IS LANGHAM CREEK COLONY SECTION TWO PARTIAL RE PLAT NUMBER FOUR. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HARRIS COUNTY NORTH ALONG BAXTER AVENUE, SOUTH OF LITTLE YORK ROAD AND EAST OF NORTH STATE HIGHWAY SIX AND HOUSTON EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. THE PURPOSE OF THE REPL IS TO CREATE FIVE LOTS AND TWO RESERVES. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING THREE VARIANCES, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PORTION OF A COMMON OPEN SPACE RESERVE TO BE REPLA INTO LOTS TO ALLOW A PORTION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY LOTS TO BE REPLANTED AND TO COMPENSATE IN OPEN SPACE AND TO ALLOW THE LOTS TO TAKE SOLE ACCESS FROM A PUBLIC ALLEY. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THESE REQUESTS. THE SITE IS A RELAID OF A RESERVE RESTRICTED TO COMMON AREA USE AND A PORTION OF TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS FROM THE LANGHAM CREEK COLONY SECTION TWO SUBDIVISION. THIS, THE SUBDIVISION WAS CREATED IN 1979 WITH PUBLIC STREETS WITH LOTS THAT HAD REAR ACCESS TO A 20 FOOT PUBLIC ALLEY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MIRROR THE SAME CONCEPT WITH THIS PARTIAL REPL PER CHAPTER 42 DASH 180 3G COMPENSATING OPEN SPACE CAN BE USED TO PROVIDE COURTYARD ACCESS FROM GROUPS OF CLUSTERS OF LOTS ADJACENT TO ONE OR MORE STREETS. PROVIDED THAT THE MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN THE OPPOSING FACES OF THE BUILDING FORM THE COURTYARD IS 20 FEET. THE PROPOSED LOT LAYOUT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. THE SITE PLAN SHOWS A WALKING PATH. GO BACK. ONE SLIDE. THE SITE PLAN SHOWS A WALKING PATH FROM THE PUBLIC STREET TO THE HOMES. THE COMPENSATING OPEN SPACE RESERVE WILL ACT AS A SMALL COURTYARD MAINTAINING THE OPEN SPACE CONCEPT. STAFF HAS RECEIVED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE LANGHAM CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SUPPORTING THE VARIOUS REQUESTS, AND THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL AS ON THE SCREEN REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT. ARE THOSE FILED SEPARATELY? HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE POSTS NO OBJECTIONS TO THIS REQUEST. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION HAS EXISTING REAR ALLEY ACCESS. THE OPEN SPACE COURTYARD, UH, WILL BE MAINTAINED AND IS IN KEEPING WITH THE INTENT AND REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 42. AND THE VARIANCE HAS SUPPORT FROM THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE [00:55:01] AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS PLAT. MADAM CHAIR, IT PLEASES COMMISSION. YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY CONTINUE. I'M SORRY. YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 37 LANGHAM CREEK COLONY IS CONTINUED. UM, THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. I HAVE NO OTHER SPEAKERS SIGNED UP. NONE IN THE CHAT. IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 37 HEARING NO RESPONSE? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLOT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER SMITH. UM, MS. FLM, UH, AT THE LAST MEETING I NOTED THAT THE HOMEOWNER'S LETTER OF SUPPORT, UH, MADE SOME REPRESENTATION THAT THE HOMEOWNERS WOULD PAINT THE PROP, UH, PAINT FOR NO PARKING AND INSTALL NO PARKING AND ASK THAT THAT BE, UH, DISCUSSED IN THE INTERIM. WAS THAT, WAS THAT RESOLVED WITH THE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE? UH, LET ME, LET ME SUGGEST GOING FORWARD, UH, COMMISSIONERS THE, THE, THE STATEMENT SAYS THE HOA HAS AGREED TO PAINT THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE ALONG BAXTER, RED OR YELLOW FOR NO PARKING USE AND POST NO PARKING SIGNS, THE DEVELOPER WILL ADD LIGHTING TO THE ALLEY. WE HAVE MR. MATHIS WHO IS VOLUNTEERING . WELCOME, FRED. OKAY, WELCOME. YES. UH, COMMISSIONER SMITH. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I COMMUNICATED WITH, UH, MS. OWENS AND WE HAVE, UH, TAKEN CARE OF THAT ISSUE. THANK YOU SIR. GREAT, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? UM, MOTION. MOTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION. GARZA SECOND. SMITH. SMITH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 38 OAK FOREST. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JOHN PHILLIPS LIO. ITEM 1 38 IS OAK FOREST, SECTION ONE, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER FIVE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS A 19,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF KINLEY LANE AND FISHER DRIVE NORTH OF WAKEFIELD DRIVE AND EAST OF ELLA BOULEVARD. THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TO ALTER AN EXISTING PLATTED AND DE RESTRICTED BUILDING LINE FOR LOT ONE ALONG KENLEY LANE FROM 15 FEET TO THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE PLAT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. THE INITIAL PROPERTY WAS LOT ONE AND BLOCK 16 OF OAK FOUR SECTION ONE PLATTED IN 1947 BUT WAS RE PLATTED EARLIER IN 2022 TO BE DIVIDED INTO TWO LOTS BEING OAK FOREST SECTION ONE, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER FOUR. THIS RECORDED PLAT ESTABLISHED A 15 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG LOT ONE ALONG KINLEY FOUR LOT ONE ALONG KINLEY THAT EFFECTIVELY DENIED VEHICULAR ACCESS PER DEED RESTRICTIONS. DEED RESTRICTIONS MANDATE A 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR LOTS FRONTING ON RIGHT OF WAYS AND 15 FOOT SIDE BUILDING LINES OF BUDDING RIGHT OF WAY. THE RESTRICTIONS ALSO STATE THAT THE HOA OR CORPORATION WILL DICTATE ON WHICH STREET A LOT FRONTS AND A LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM THE HHOA MAY BE REQUIRED. WE ARE CURRENTLY AWAITING MORE INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT AND FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW. WE HAVE, UH, RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE PLAT STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT FOR THREE WEEKS TO ALLOW CONTINUED LEGAL REVIEW AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. MADAM CHAIR FOR PLEASES THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU MR. CILLO. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 38 OAK FOREST IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED. WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE IN THE CHAT. ANYONE LISTENING WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 38 THIS WEEK? UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER IS IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING? ABRAHAM, IS THERE A SECOND? BALDWIN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM 1 39. ITEM 1 39 IS REED TERRACE, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER FOUR. THE SITE IS A 13,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS NORTH ALONG MALLOW STREET, EAST OF SCOTT STREET AND NORTH OF REED ROAD. THE PURPOSE OF THE REPL IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH SIX DWELL UNITS ATTENDING DUPLEXES FOR ALL OF THE LOTS. THERE ARE NO NCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE PLAT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE COMMENTS FOR THE PLAT STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCP C 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS MADAM CHAIR FOR PLEASE THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 39 REED TERRACE IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED IN ADVANCE. WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE IN THE CHAT. ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 39 REED TERRACE? HEARING NO RESPONSE, THE PUBLIC HEARING [01:00:01] IS CLOSED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION JONES SECOND VICTOR. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM ONE 40 WAYBURN ESTATES HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND THAT WILL CONCLUDE PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE MOVE ON [d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests (Geoff Butler, Tammi Williamson, John Cedillo, and Aracely Rodriguez)] TO SECTION D VARIANCES. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS ELLI RODRIGUEZ. ITEM 1 41 CYPRESS AT BOWER LANDING GP. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF BAR MARKET 29 20 AND BOWER ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXECUTE INTERSECTION FACING ALONG THE WESTERN AND EASTERN GP BOUNDARIES. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH ACCESS TO A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE ROAD TO BICEP THE PROPERTY FIRST CHAPTER 42. THE APPLICANT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MULTIPLE E EQUAL PUBLISHED STREET ALONG THE WESTERN AND AGE TWO BOUNDARY TO ADDRESS INTERSECTION PACING REQUIREMENTS. STREET APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD CREATE AN IMPRACTICAL DEVELOPMENT DUE TO THE SYSTEM PHYSICAL CONSTRAINT THAT ISIF IN THE SURROUNDING AREA TO THE WEST HUNTER CREEK ESTATE. A PRIVA GATED COMMUNITY WAS PLOTTED WITHOUT ANY STREET CONNECTION ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY. IT WILL BE UNFI TO PROVIDE AN EAST WEST CONNECTION DUE TO THE EXISTING TRIBUTARIES. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THIS PROPOSAL AND IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE GP SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION. STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE AND DID CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, MS. RODRIGUEZ BEFORE WE MOVE ON? UM, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE WHO'S SIGNED IN ADVANCE SUITE. I HAVE NO ONE IN THE CHAT. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 41? IF NOT, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THERE BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? ALLMAN SECOND ROBINS. ROBINS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM 1 42. ITEM 1 42 IS JANICE STREET DEVELOPMENT. THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG JANICE, EAST OF SHEPHERD AND WEST OF YALE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE FOR THE PURPOSES OF A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENTS BY NOT DEDICATING, EXCUSE ME, EXTENDING EL CENTRO STREET THROUGH THE SITE. STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW. THIS WILL BE THE ONLY DEFERRAL OPPORTUNITY DUE TO THE UPCOMING THREE WEEK CYCLE. THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG JANICE, ON A BLOCK MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 2,400 FEET WIDE. THE SITE IS WITHIN A COMMUNITY EXPERIENCING RAPID REDEVELOPMENT, WHERE LARGER LOTS HAVE BEEN SPLIT INTO SEVERAL SMALLER UNITS. THE RESULT IS AN INCREASE INCREASING BURDEN ON THE EXISTING STREET CODE, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED LONG BEFORE THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT TREND. STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED THE NEED FOR A NORTH-SOUTH STREET TO PROVIDE CIRCULATION AND ACCESS. THROUGH OUR REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION AND OTHERS WITHIN THE AREA, THE SITE OF BUTSON UNIMPROVED SEGMENT OF EL EL CENTRO STREET AT ITS SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. THIS IS PART OF A LARGER NETWORK OF RIGHT AWAY SEGMENTS THAT CAN EVENTUALLY SERVE AS THE NORTH SOUTH PUBLIC STREET STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DEFERRAL TO COORDINATE WITH THE APPLICANT TO IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES TO THIS APPLICATION. STAFF HAS RECEIVED ONE ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THIS ITEM. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OKAY, THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER? UM, I HAVE NO ONE WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE IN THE CHAT. DO YOU WANNA SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. DID YOU FILL OUT ONE OF THESE? ARE YOU ON, UM, ARE YOU SURE? THIS IS, I THOUGHT YOU WERE ON ITEM. OH, YOU'RE ON SHOPS AT SHEPHERD. THAT'S OKAY. BUT YOU WANNA SPEAK ON JANICE STREET? OKAY. COME ON. COME ON. AND I, UH, I GOT YOU ON A ADJOINING PROPERTY AND, UH, COULD WE PUT THE PICTURE BACK UP THAT HAD THE YELLOW, IT WAS A, IT WAS A SATELLITE VIEW WITH YELLOW ON IT. NOT THAT ONE. THAT ONE. SO I JUST WANNA SAY [01:05:01] THAT I'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 94. I'M OPPOSED TO ANY POSSIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT OF A EL CENTRO. FIRST OFF THAT LITTLE SECTION, THAT LITTLE SQUARE BELOW THE RED, RIGHT? THAT IS NOT ONLY UNDEVELOPED, BUT IT'S SITTING IN A PRIAL PRIVATE MOBILE HOME PARK THAT IS, UH, BORDERED BY LAND. THERE'S NO STREET, NORTH OR SOUTH OF IT. IT'S JUST THIS LITTLE SECTION THAT'S JUST SITTING THERE. IF YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE PLAT, BUT IT'S DOING, IT'S ON A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. OKAY. AND IT'S BOUND BY TREES AND, AND PROPERTY THAT'S PRIVATELY OWNED. SO I JUST WANNA SAY THAT. AND THEN THE MAIN THING IS, I JUST WANNA SAY I'M OPPOSED TO THE POSSIBILITY OF A DEVELOPMENT OF EL CENTRO. JANICE HAS SOME TRAFFIC, BUT I'VE LIVED THERE SO LONG. YALE AND SHEPHERD ARE ABOUT THE SAME AS THEY WERE. THEY MAYBE HAVE A SLIGHT BIT MORE, BUT THE FLYOVER ON THE NORTH END OF SHEPHERD HAS MADE SHEPHERD BETTER. AND, UM, I SEE NO POINT OF IT. OKAY. AND SO YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT. I'M, I'M COMING BACK ON JANUARY 5TH. PLEASE DO. BUT YOU DON'T WANT THE STREET. I DON'T WANT THE STREET. OKAY, GREAT. YEAH, I JUST FIGURED IT WAS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO THROW THAT OUT. ABSOLUTELY. WE'LL SEE YOU BACK IN THREE WEEKS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE? WE HAD PEOPLE WHO SIGNED UP ON, I THINK WE CHANGED SOME PEOPLE TO 1 46. 1 46? YEAH. OKAY. NO. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE ON 1 42. JANICE. ROAD DEVELOPMENT. ANYONE ELSE HERE WANTS TO SPEAK ON THAT? IF NOT, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER. IS THERE DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? UM, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER? MOTION? DOES GARZA, IS THERE A SECOND? A ALLMAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. 1 42 IS DEFERRED. 1 43. MR. CILLO, IS YOUR MIC ON? I CAN'T, I'M NOT HEARING YOU. MY APOLOGIES. I HAVE 1 43 IS MCCLAIN MANUFACTURING. THE SUBJECTS SIDE IS A NEARLY 12,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY IN THE HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF COWARD AND HARRIS STREET, EAST OF LANTHROP AND NORTH OF CLAYTON ROAD. THE APPLICANT WAS INITIALLY PROPOSING A 40, UH, 4,750 SQUARE FOOT UNRESTRICTED RESERVE WITH TWO VARIANCES. ONE TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 5,000 SQUARE FEET. AND TWO, TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE TO HAVE LESS THAN THE 60 FOOT REQUIRED FRONTAGE WITH A WIDTH OF 50. HOWEVER, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS CONTIGUOUSLY OWNED AND THE DEVELOPER HAS REVISED THE PLAT TO INCLUDE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND TO CREATE AN 11,875 SQUARE FOOT UNRESTRICTED RESERVE WITH 225 FEET OF CONTINUOUS FRONTAGE. WITH THE ADDITION, THE APPLICANT MEETS ALL CHAPTER 42 REQUIREMENTS AND NO LONGER REQUIRES A VARIANCE. THE SHOWN ENCROACHMENTS PREDATE THE ORDINANCE AND ARE ADDRESSED WITH A DUAL BUILDING LINE. UH, WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CBC 1 0 1 FORM. CONDITIONS AS A VARIANCE REQUEST HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU MR. CILLO. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UH, DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 43? WE DO NOT. UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? SICKLER? IS THERE A SECOND? ALLMAN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM 1 44. ITEM 1 44 IS POWELL COURT. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HARRIS COUNTY ETJ, WEST OF THE HARDY TOLL ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF RILEY ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO CREATE ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT ACCESSIBLE BY ACCESS EASEMENT RATHER THAN DIRECT FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE SITE IS LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF THE HARDY TOLL ROAD SOUTHBOUND RAMP AND RILEY F ROAD. THE SITE CONSISTS OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND TWO PRIVATE GARAGE AND STORAGE STRUCTURES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PLA THEIR PROPERTY IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE PERMITS FROM THE COUNTY. A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THIS TRACK IS NOT ABUT A PUBLIC STREET. THE SITE HAS UTILIZED THIS EASEMENT FOR ACCESS LONG BEFORE THE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT, AND THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES THAT WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STREET CAPACITY. IN ADDITION, THE INTERSECTION SPACING IS SUFFICIENT, SO THERE WOULD BE NO IMMEDIATE WAY TO DEVELOP A PUBLIC STREET TO THE SITE FOR ACCESS. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE TO STRICT INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 42, AS IT WILL ALLOW THE SITE TO BE USED AS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. HARRIS COUNTY AND THE HARRIS COUNTY TOLL ROAD AUTHORITIES [01:10:01] EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE VARIANCE AND APPROVING THE PLAT FOR THE CPC ONE ONE FORM. CONDITIONS WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT. THIS ITEM, THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER? UH, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NO. UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION JONES SECOND MAD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES 1 45 RESIDENCES AT 1934. WESTWAY HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN, 1 46 SHOPS AT SHEPHERD. THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG JANICE, WEST OF SHEPHERD AND NORTH OF THE SIX 10 LOOP. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESERVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING A RETAIL CENTER. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A SIX AND A HALF FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG SHEPHERD RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25. STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW. THIS IS THE LAST OPPORTUNITY TO DEFER THE ITEM DUE TO THE UPCOMING THREE WEEK CYCLE. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWESTERN INTERSECTION OF JANICE AND NORTH SHEPHERD. THE PAVED ROADWAY WITHIN SHEPHERD MEASURES APPROXIMATELY 85 FEET WIDE AND FEATURES THREE THROUGH LANES IN A CONCRETE MEDIAN. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 10 FOOT PEDESTRIAN AROUND ALONG SHEPHERD AND A TWO STORY RETAIL BUILDING. THE APPLICANT ASSERTS IS THAT THE APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE WALKABLE PLACES PROGRAM AND THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR REDUCED BUILDING LINES. HOWEVER, PER OUR WALKABLE PLACES USER GUIDE, A WIDER PEDESTRIAN REALM IS RECOMMENDED FOR WIDER AND FASTER STREETS. THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL CENTER STANDARDS ARE ALSO APPLICABLE TO NARROWER THOROUGH FARES. STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVES. WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENT IN THIS ITEM, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER? BEFORE WE CALL THE SPEAKERS, UM, WHAT DO WE YEAH, I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, WHAT DO WE NEED TO MEET THE CRITERIA? I MEAN, IN GENERAL, FIVE FOOT BUFFER, WIDER SIDEWALK. UH, SO HAVE YOU GIVEN 'EM A LIST? WE'RE WE'RE, YEAH. WE'VE GIVEN A A STARTING LIST. WE ALSO WANNA DO A SITE VISIT JUST TO VERIFY THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR FINDINGS ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S ON THE GROUND, UH, BUT, UH, MUCH WIDER REALM WITH WIDER BUFFER SIDEWALK. PERFECT. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER, TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS WHERE ON NORTH SHEPHERD, NORTH OF SIX 10 OR SOUTH OF SIX 10? IT'S BETWEEN SIX 10 AND PINE MOUNT. IT'S CLOSER TO PINE MOUNT. THAT'S NORTH OF SIX 10? YES. OKAY. SO I ASKED THAT BECAUSE IT'S SOUTH OF SIX 10 WHERE THERE'S A CAPITAL PROJECT AND A TOUR PROJECT. IT'S, IT'S QUITE A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT. NORTH SIX 10. YES. CORRECT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY, WE HAVE SPEAKERS. THE FIRST SPEAKER IS SEAL PRICE. HELLO THERE. HELLO, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THIS AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS SEAL PRICE. I AM A RESIDENT OF AND A HOMEOWNER AT 7 0 6 JANICE ROAD. I OBJECT TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST PRIMARILY ON THE ISSUE OF HEALTH AND SAFETY. UH, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT I WOULD TAKE ISSUE WITH IN THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF FACTS. SPECIFICALLY, NORTH SHEPHERD IS NOT MERELY A UNIQUE ROADWAY. IT IS A STATE HIGHWAY. UH, IT IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND ALTHOUGH THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT ON NORTH SHEPHERD AT THIS AREA IS 35 MILES AN HOUR, UH, LOCAL BUSINESSES, INCLUDING WABASH FEED, HAVE PAID MONEY TO HAVE THE FLASHING HIGHWAY SIGNS. AND WITHIN THE LAST, UH, 24 MONTHS, THERE'S BEEN AT LEAST ONE FATALITY FROM A HIGH SPEED CHASE ON NORTH SHEPHERD. THUS, THE STATEMENT THE APPLICANT HAS MADE THAT THIS IS ENHANCING A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY, UH, DEVELOPMENT, UH, SUBMIT, MAYBE OPTIMISTIC, UH, BUT SPECIFICALLY MY SPECIFIC CONCERN IS WITH THE REQUIREMENT IN THEIR APPLICATION, THEY SAY BOTH THAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN A 6.5 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK. THEY ALSO SAY THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR A FIVE FOOT BUILDING SETBACK. BOTH OF THOSE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY, UH, CLOSER TO THE HIGHWAY THAN THE RECURRENT REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS 25 FEET. AND AS A RESIDENT, LONGTIME RESIDENT SINCE 1993, UH, COMING OUT ONTO NORTH SHEPHERD, UH, FROM JANICE IS PROBLEMATIC FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. A LOT OF TRAFFIC, UM, SOME GOING FASTER THAN THE SPEED LIMIT. AND PARTICULARLY [01:15:02] IF WE'VE GOT THE SLIDE BACK WITH THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SHEPHERD AT, WHICH WOULD BE THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHEPHERD. AND JANICE, UH, IS AN EXISTING, UH, BUSINESS, WHICH IS A USED CAR LOT. IT IS NOT UNUSUAL. IN FACT, QUITE COMMON THAT FLATBED WITH NUMBER OF VEHICLES WOULD BE PARKED. THERE'S THEN THERE WOULD BE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF JANICE ROAD. UH, SO TRAFFIC COMING OFF OF SHEPHERD ONTO JANICE, UH, IS, HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE ADVERSELY IMPACTED WHEN THE APPLICANT SUGGESTS THAT IT WILL ENHANCE THE PROPOSAL TO MOVE THE DRIVEWAY TO JANICE FROM SHEPHERD? SEEMS VERY PROBLEMATIC FOR AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, I'M AVAILABLE TO STAFF AND TO THE COMMISSIONERS IF YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MS. PRICE. AND WE'LL SEE IF WE DO ALSO APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND WE CAN TAKE THEM INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE DEFERRAL PERIOD. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MARY HOLLIS. IS IT HOLLIS? H-O-L-L-I-S. OKAY. HI. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. UH, I'D LIKE TO ECHO EVERYTHING THAT, UH, MS. PRICE SAID. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT ITSELF, BUT THE SETBACK AND THE MAIN ENTRANCE BEING ON JANICE ROAD, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL STREET. THEY'VE GOT ONE ENTRANCE ON SHEPHERD, AND IN THEIR DISCUSSION THEY SAY THEY'RE REMOVING THE ENTRANCE IS ON SHEPHERD TO MAKE IT A MORE FRIENDLY WALKWAY. WELL, AS MS. PRICE INDICATED, IT'S A HIGHWAY. WE NEED THE ENTRANCE TO BE ON SHEPHERD, NOT ON A RESIDENTIAL ROAD. THAT'S IT. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR SPEAKER? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN? I'LL JUST REPLY TO BOTH OF YOU. I MEAN, BEG YOUR PARDON? I'M SORRY. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, BOTH, BOTH OF YOU AND YOUR PREVIOUS, YOUR FRIEND THERE. WE FOUND THAT WHEN WE PUSH THE BUILDING CLOSER TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON JANICE, WITH THE 25 FOOT SETBACK AND ALL THESE ENTRANCES ON SHEPHERD, WHICH HAS BEEN THE TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF HOUSTON FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS, WE'VE, WE, WE CREATED THIS WALKABLE PLACES CRITERIA SO THAT WE WOULD PUSH THE BUILDINGS FORWARD, WHICH GIVES THE DRIVERS SOMETHING TO LOOK AT MORE INTERESTING THAN THE PARKING LOT, WHICH TENDS TO SLOW THEM DOWN. THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN PREMISES OF THE WALKABLE PLACES CRITERIA. AND YES, WE BELIEVE MORE PEOPLE ARE GONNA WALK ON SHEPHERD THAN ARE GONNA WALK ON JANICE. SO WE ARE TRYING TO INTENTIONALLY ELIMINATE THE CURB CUTS OFF OF SHEPHERD, WHICH IS SOMETHING TYPICALLY THAT WE DO, AND, AND ROUTE THEM BACK TO THE JANICE SIDE, WHICH IS SAFER FOR THE PEDESTRIANS THAT MIGHT WALK OR BIKE OR STROLL ALONG THE SHEPHERDS. I JUST WANT YOU TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND OUR PREMISE OF WHERE WE CAME UP WITH THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE. SLOW DOWN THE TRAFFIC BY CREATING SOMETHING INTERESTING FOR PEOPLE TO LOOK AT AND ELIMINATE AS MANY CURB CUTS WHERE THE MOST PEOPLE TEND TO USE IT. ARE YOU ONE OF THE DEVELOPERS OF THIS? I WAS THE DEVELOPER OF THE WALKABLE PLACES CRITERIA . OH, OKAY. I'M SORRY. I NO, I, I I CHAIR THE WALKABLE PLACES COMMITTEE, WHICH WE SPENT A COUPLE OF YEARS TRYING TO DETERMINE THIS CRITERIA. OKAY. YOU MIGHT LOOK INTO GOOGLE THAT, AND IT'S ON THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE TO SEE WHY WE CAME UP WITH SOME OF THESE IDEAS. AND THE DEPARTMENT IS STILL INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO MAKE IT BETTER. SO I'M NOT SAYING THE COMMISSIONS WEIGHED IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT ENHANCING THE PEDESTRIAN REALM AND CREATING A SAFER ENVIRONMENT ALONG SHEPHERD IS AN IMPORTANT CRITERIA FOR US BECAUSE THE 25 FOOT SETBACK HASN'T SERVED US WELL. WELL, I THINK THERE'S VERY LITTLE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC RIGHT THERE. AND I THINK SOMEBODY HAS TO BE FIRST TO INCLUDE, TO BE THE, ALL OF THE, UH, ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS AND ACCESS TO THE WHITE OAK BAYOU TRAIL, WHICH IS EIGHT MILES AWAY, SO YOU'RE NOT GONNA WALK THERE. BUT, BUT RIGHT NOW, UNDER THE CURRENT CONDITIONS WITH BIG GIANT, HUGE APARTMENT COMPLEX BEING BUILT, IT'S NOT PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY THERE. AND SO YOU'RE DUMPING ALL THE TRAFFIC ONTO THE CORNER OF OUR RESIDENTIAL STREET OF JANICE, AND IT'S ALREADY VERY DIFFICULT TO GET OUT ONTO SHEPHERD FROM JANICE. SO MAYBE THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF PUTTING A TRAFFIC LIGHT THERE OVERTIME. MAYBE. SO, UM, WE'RE NOT IN, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THE WE BUILDING, WE'RE OPPOSED TO THE SETBACK IN THE ENTRANCE ON JANICE AND I, I THINK OUR [01:20:01] STAFF ALSO HAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE SMALL SETBACK, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE REVIEWING IN THE INTERIM. AND I INVITE YOU GUYS TO COME BACK IN THREE WEEKS. THAT'S JANUARY 5TH, DID YOU SAY BEFORE? YES. JANUARY 5TH. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, TODD P TODD PULASKI IS HERE, NOT SPEAKING, BUT WANTED TO BE RECORDED AS BEING IN OPPOSITION. ECHO. I KNOW THAT . YEAH, I THINK THEY GOT IT. OKAY. DID Y'ALL HEAR ME SAY WE HAD ANOTHER, ANOTHER, UH, VISITOR WHO'S NOT GONNA SPEAK, BUT WANTED TO BE, UH, RECORDED AS BEING IN A OPPOSITION? OKAY. I HAVE NOBODY ELSE WHO'S HERE. ANYBODY ELSE WANNA SPEAK? MADAM CHAIR? THERE'S ONE OTHER SPEAKER WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. OH, SO YOU WANTED TO SPEAK ON BOTH ITEMS? WOW. NOW I, YOU'RE DOING DOUBLE DUTY TODAY. OKAY. YES, VIRGINIA ELLIS. GO RIGHT AHEAD. AND I LIVE ON JANICE. AND IRONICALLY THIS IS HAPPENING HERE TODAY TOO. I JUST WANNA SAY THAT IF WE GO BACK TO THAT, WELL, FIRST OFF, I'LL SAY THAT THE, THE BUILDINGS THAT BACK UP TO THE ROADWAYS, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THEM. AND ON NORTH SHEPHERD, IT'S A ONE-WAY STREET, UH, SOUTH OF SIX 10 WHERE THAT'S HAPPENING. SO THIS IS A TWO-WAY STREET, SO IT'S QUITE A LOT WIDER AND THE TRAFFIC DOES MOVE QUITE QUICKLY. AND, UH, WITH NOT A LOT OF OBSERVATION. AND I WILL ALSO SAY, IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THAT PICTURE THAT SHOWS THE BUILDING COMING UP AND CREATING THIS LITTLE SIDEWALK AREA, UM, THE DRAWING, I, IF I WERE WALKING, IF I WERE GONNA GO, FIRST OFF, I NEVER WOULD CROSS SHEPHERD ON FOOT EXCEPT WITH MY LIFE IN MY HANDS. AND SECONDLY, IF I WERE GONNA WALK, IF I HAD TO WALK IN THAT SMALL OF A SPACE, I'D BE SCARED TO DEATH AND I WOULD WANNA RUN. SO I'VE LIVED THERE SINCE 94 AND I HAVE CROSSED JANICE AT MY OWN PERIL JUST A COUPLE OF TIMES. ENOUGH TO SAY I DON'T, I MEAN, I DIDN'T MEAN JANICE, I MEANT SHEPHERD. SO, UM, THAT SPACE WOULD BE PRETTY SCARY. AND THEN THE, THE LAST THING I WANNA SAY IS IF THAT BUILDING IS THAT CLOSE TO THE ROAD, IT'S ALREADY DIFFICULT TO TURN ONTO SHEPHERD FROM JANICE AS IT IS. SO IT'S GONNA HAVE LESS VISIBILITY. SO IT'S GONNA BE MORE DIFFICULT TO TURN ONTO SHEPHERD. SO JUST THAT'S MAYBE IT, MAYBE THERE'S A COMPROMISE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 46? IF NOT, UM, WE WILL TURN TOWARDS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS TO DEFER ANY DISCUSSION. JUST A QUICK COMMENT FOR JEFF. MAKE SURE YOU PAY ATTENTION TO CENTERPOINT'S, UM, COMMENT. SO A CODE CLEARANCE ISN'T CREATED. YES. COMMISSIONER SMITH. UM, IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE PICTURE THAT SHOWED THE BUILDING IN YELLOW AND THE, AND THE STREET PATTERN. UM, MR. BUTLER, UH, A, A DRIVER COMING EASTBOUND TOWARDS SHEPHERD ON JANICE WHO WANTS TO TURN LEFT WILL NEED TO BE LOOKING TO THE DRIVER'S, RIGHT, UH, PASSED THE STOP SIGN, UH, TO SEE THE TRAFFIC COMING NORTHBOUND. YOU FOLLOW ME? CORRECT? UH, IN THIS PICTURE THAT'S IN THE LOWER RIGHT, UH, WITH A CAR COMING SOUTH ON JANICE, WHICH WOULD BE TOP TO BOTTOM ON THE SHEET ON THE STREET MAKING A, UM, LEFT TURN. UM, I NOTICED IN THE CROSS SECTIONS WITH THE TIGHT BUILDING LINE, THERE'S ALSO A RAISE SIDEWALK, UH, THAT'S WITHIN THE BUILDING LINE, UH, BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO GET, UH, SOME FOLKS FROM YOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO REALLY WORK OUT A SITE TRIANGLE FROM THE DRIVER'S PERSPECTIVE. UH, 'CAUSE IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE RAISED SIDEWALK IS ONLY 10 FEET, UM, FROM, FROM THE CURB, THE DRIVER'S EYES, TYPICALLY, NO, NO MORE THAN OR NO LESS THAN 10 FEET FROM THERE. SO SITE TRIANGLE CONSIDERATIONS THERE SHOULD BE LOOKED AT A LITTLE MORE CLOSELY BEFORE THE COMMISSION, UH, VOTES ON THIS. THANK YOU. OKAY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER BARZA SECOND ALLMAN ALLMAN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 46 IS DEFERRED. THAT TAKES US TO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OF WHICH WE HAVE NONE. AND, UH, SECTION [f. Reconsiderations of Requirement (Aracely Rodriguez)] F RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENTS ITEM 1 47, ITEM 1 47 BLAKE VISTA. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN FORT BEND COUNTY, EAST OF CLOTHING ROAD AND NORTH OF WEST BELFORT STREET. [01:25:01] THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A RECONSIDERATION REQUIREMENT WITH A VARI TO ALLOW FIVE COMMERCIAL RESERVE TO HAVE ASSETS AND BONUS ON A 30 FOOT WIDE PUBLISHED STREET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 60 FEET WIDE PUBLISHED STREET THAT IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE SUCH PROPERTY IS A PARTIAL REEF OF EDDIE BUNICK SUBDIVISION THAT WAS RECORDED IN 1970 WITH A 20 FOOT WIDE ROADWAY EASTMAN. THIS ROADWAY EASTMAN, ALSO KNOWN AS BLAKE ROAD, RUNS IN A NORTH SOUTH DIRECTION THAT PROVIDES ASSETS TO BA I'M SORRY, TO BOSS GASTON ROAD TO THE SOUTH. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING, I'M SORRY, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT OWN THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST. I'M SORRY, I I MESSED UP. GOING BACK. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FIVE COMMERCIAL RESERVE AND IS PROVIDING A 30 FOOT WIDE RIGHTWAY DEDICATION OVER THE 1620 FEET ASSET EASEMENT. THIS RIGHTWAY DEDICATION WILL BE A DIRECT EXTENSION OF A PRESCRIPTIVE WHITE ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, WHICH PROVIDE ASSETS TO BOTH GASTON ROADS TO THE SOUTH. THE PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT OWN THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST AND CANNOT DEDICATE THE FULL RIGHT OF WAY TO MEET THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. SO IN THE FUTURE, THE PLOT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE WHEN THE ADJACENT CHECK TO THE EAST DEDICATE THE REMAINDER 30 B HIGHLIGHTED IN ORANGE, CREATING THE REQUIRED 60 FOOT PUBLISHED STREET. THIS IS AN ASSISTANT CONDITION NOT CREATED BY THE APPLICANT. UM, FORT BEND COUNTY ENGINEERING DE DEPARTMENT HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST. THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION. STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN EVENT AND THEY CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MS. RODRIGUEZ? UM, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED. WE HAVE NO ONE IN THE CHAT IF NO ONE WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 47. UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION JONES? IS THERE A SECOND? AYE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. THAT TAKES US TO SECTIONS G, H AND I. GOOD AFTERNOON MA'AM. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS PETRA SHAW. IF IT PLEASES [Platting Activities g - i] THE COMMISSION, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS. GH AND I AS ONE GROUP PLEASE. SECTION G EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 48 THROUGH 1 57, SORRY, NOT 1 67. SECTION H NAME CHANGES CONSIST OF ITEM 1 68 AND SECTION I CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 69 THROUGH 1 73. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTIONS GH AND I. THERE ARE NO ITEMS TAKEN OUT OF ORDER PER STAFF AND NO CHANGES IN STAFF RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, ABSTENTIONS ON THESE, THESE COMMISSIONER SIGLER? UM, YES. ITEM 1 48, 1 49 AND ONE 50. OKAY. COMMISSIONER HY? YES. MADAM CHAIR. 1 51, 1 52, AND 1 61. OKAY, NOTED. ANYBODY ELSE? UM, WITH THAT, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ALL ITEMS AND SECTIONS? GH AND I MOTION VICTOR, IS THERE A SECOND? CORIS PERLE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. NOTE THAT COMMISSIONERS, UH, SIGLER AND ABSTAINED ON THEIR RESPECTIVE ITEMS. UH, NOTHING UNDER SECTION J, SECTION [k. Development Plats with Variance Requests(Ramon Jaime-Leon, Jacqueline Brown and Nick Parker)] K DEVELOPMENT PLOTS. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JACQUELINE BROWN. ITEM 1 74 IS 93 0 3 FURNISH STREET. THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF TIDWELL ROAD AT THE NORTH CORNER OF ETT STREET AND CROFTON STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO NOT PROVIDE A 28 FOOT PRIVATE STREET FOR A GARDEN STYLE APARTMENT. DEVELOPMENT STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE LOT WAS PLATTED WITHIN THE BARKLAY PLACE SUBDIVISION IN 1945, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW TRIPLEX, WHICH WILL CREATE THREE UNITS ON THE SITE. THIS IS CONSIDERED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND THUS WILL REQUIRE THE STANDARDS OF MULTI-FAMILY FIRE PROTECTION UNDER 42 DASH TWO 30. THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO COMPLY WITH THE LIVABLE PLACES INITIATIVE AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE FIRE PROTECTION STANDARDS OF CHAPTER [01:30:01] 42. THE PROXIMITY OF THE FIRE HYDRANT WILL ALLOW A FIREFIGHTING APPARATUS TO PARK AND CONNECT TO THE HYDRANT WITHIN THE REQUIRED 300 FOOT MAXIMUM DISTANCE. AND THE PROPOSAL WILL MEET THE STANDARDS FOR A 200 FOOT HOSE FROM THE TO THE LIVABLE SPACE. IN ADDITION, THE FIRE MARSHAL HAS REVIEWED THE SITE PLAN IS AN AND IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE NOT TO PROVIDE A 28 FOOT PRIVATE STREET REQUIRED FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, BUT THE CONDITION OF THE APPLICANT PROVIDES THREE INCH CALIBER STREET TREES. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? NO. UM, WE DO NOT HAVE ANYBODY PRESENT OR IN THE CHAT WHO'S HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 74. UM, DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM. IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE MOTION? AYE. IS THERE A SECOND JONES? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. EVERYBODY'S EXHAUSTED. I SEE. ITEM 1 75 IS 38 51 MERRICK STREET. THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF BELAIRE BOULEVARD, WEST OF BUFFALO SPEEDWAY, AND AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF STELLA LINK ROAD IN MERRICK STREET, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 15 FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR A NEW RESIDENCE. INSTEAD OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG STELLA LINK ROAD, A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE SUBJECT SITE IS A CORNER LOT THAT WAS CREATED BY THE BRAYS HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION WITH A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG STELLA LINK ROAD AND A 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG MERRICK STREET. STELLA LINK IS A 125 FOOT MAJOR THOROUGHFARE WITH SUFFICIENT WIDTH LINED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THE DISTANCE FROM BACK OF CURB TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS 10 FEET, AND FROM THE BACK OF CURB TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS 25 FEET. THEREFORE, THIS SHOULD NOT BE INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE. THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS THERE ARE OTHER STRUCTURES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY ADHERING TO THE PLA 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE OR GREATER. ADDITIONALLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS GRANTED SIMILAR VARIANCES IN THE AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 15 FOOT BUILDING LINE IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR MS. BROWN. UM, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY, ANYBODY HERE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 75 STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE, UM, ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MAD ZIEGLER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. MADAM CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT, PLEASE. AFTER. OKAY, COMMISSIONER ABRAHAM. UM, I, I THINK WE, WE HAVE A, I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN BEFORE. WE HAVE A PRECEDENT THAT WE'VE GRANT, WE GRANT THESE VARIANCES BECAUSE NOBODY'S TAKING ACCESS FROM THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE TODAY. UM, AND WHAT, WHAT WE ACTUALLY ARE DOING IS, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE PROHIBITING THE IMPROVEMENT OF THAT, OF THAT THOROUGHFARE TO ANYTHING LARGER OR FASTER. AND SO WE, WE SHOULD KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN I SAY LARGER OR FASTER. I MEAN MAYBE RAIL DOWN STEL LINK AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. MAYBE SOMETHING ELEVATED DOWN STYLING SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE. AND SO I, I DIDN'T VOTE AGAINST THIS ONE BECAUSE I THINK EVERYONE IS, UH, OBVIOUSLY GOING BY PRECEDENT HERE. BUT I WANTED TO BRING THAT TO OUR ATTENTION, THAT WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY, WE'RE DOING IT MANY TIMES BASED ON THE HISTORICAL, BUT WE SHOULD ALSO BE LOOKING TO THE FUTURE AS WELL. SO, SO PLEASE BE VERY CAREFUL WITH, UH, LIMITING, UH, UH, DEVELOPMENT AND ENCROACHMENT ON MAJOR THOROUGH AFFAIRS FOR THAT REASON. NOTED. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY. SO WE ARE ON ITEM 1 76, WHICH HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. UM, THAT'S 1 4 11 14 STUDIO STREET. UM, THAT WILL CONCLUDE, UM, OUR PLOTTING ACTIVITY. WE MOVED TO ROMAN [II. Establish a public hearing date of January 19, 2023] NUMERAL TWO TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 19TH, 2023 FOR THE FOLLOWING. BRINGHURST NOBLE MAJESTIC EASTWOOD MANOR HAZARD PLACE, HOUSTON GATEWAY ACADEMY, CASHMERE ESTATES, MASA AMINI MISSION GREEN NORTH PARTIAL REPL NUMBER THREE AND EXTENSION RIVERSIDE TERRACE. SECTION SIX, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER FIVE, TALENA WAY ESTATES THREE PILLARS. TOWN HOMES, TIMBERLAKES FIRE STATION, WEST 12TH STREET, MANORS AND WHITE OAK CROSSING. SECTION FIVE, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE. IS THERE A MOTION TO SET JANUARY 19TH FOR THE HEARINGS? MOTION FOR FOREST PERLE? IS THERE A SECOND? OR IS THAT MODEST? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR [01:35:01] SAY AYE. A AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. ROMAN NUMERAL [III. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Special Minimum Lot Size Block Renewal for the 1300 block of Edwards Street, south side – MLS 15REN (Abraham)] THREE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE BLOCK RENEWAL FOR THE 1300 BLOCK OF EDWARD STREET SOUTH SIDE. MR. ABRAHAM, GOOD AFTERNOON MAD CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS ABRAHAM SAR. SORRY, I JUST SAID YOUR NAME WRONG. THAT'S OKAY. SORRY, I'M READING, I'M READING FROM MY SCRIPT HERE. OKAY, GO AHEAD. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR THE RENEWAL OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT SPECIAL MINIMUM OUT SIZE BLOCK FOR THE 1300 BLOCK OF EDWARD STREET SOUTH SIDE BETWEEN HICKORY STREET AND GLEE STREET. PREVIOUSLY, THE MINIMUM OUT SIZE ORDINANCE FOR THE BLOCK WAS PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2002. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARD THE APPLICATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. STAFF WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A SPECIAL, MINIMAL, ODD SIZED RENEWAL APPLICATION. THEREFORE, PER THE ORDINANCE, A PROPERTY OWNER MAY SUBMIT A RENEWAL APPLICATION WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF SUPPORT. ACCORDING TO OUR ANALYSIS, THIS APPLICATION AREA CONSISTS OF SIX SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS. FOUR OF THE SIX SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS HAVE A MINIMAL OUTSIZE OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET. AGAIN, PER THE ORDINANCE, EVIDENCE OF SUPPORT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR RENEWAL APPLICATIONS. ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WERE PROVIDED NOTICE, STATING THAT A PROCESS OF THE APPLICATION MUST BE FILED WITHIN A 30 DAY PERIOD. AND ONE PROCESS WAS FILED. THE APPLICATION AREA IS LOCATED IN THE BAKER EDITION NORTH SIDE BIG BLOCK SUBDIVISION, WHICH WAS PLOTTED IN 1824. AND WITH THAT MADAM CHAIR, WE ARE READY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY, THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. UH, THE FIRST SPEAKER IS GILBERT CHAVEZ, MR. CHAVEZ. SO I HAVE COPIES TO HAND OUT AND WE PUT 'EM DOCUMENT, CAMERA PLEASE TO BECAUSE I SEE THEM AS WELL. IF YOU WANT TO PASS THOSE OUT, UM, WE CAN GET SOMEBODY TO SURE. TO WE'LL DO IT LIKE YOU DO IN SCHOOL OR TAKE ONE AND PASS IT ON. PERFECT. THANK YOU. SO, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS GILBERT CHAVEZ. UM, I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF HOUSTON SINCE 2000, AND I, UH, BUILT AND LIVE AT 1309 EDWARDS STREET, WHICH IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM HERE. MM-HMM . I ALSO OWN THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, 1307 EDWARDS, WHICH IS ALSO, UH, A LOT. SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY. AND SECOND, ALSO, THANK YOU FOR THE, YOU DO A LOT. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME AT ONE OF THESE SESSIONS AND GOODNESS GRACIOUS AND BY GOODNESS, ALL THAT YOU DO IS RECOGNIZE YOU MAKE HOUSTON PROGRESSIVE FORWARD THINKING, UH, AMAZING HOW IT ALL COMES TOGETHER. HOUSTON IS A CAN-DO CITY AND I THINK THIS IS THE HUB OF A LOT OF THAT HAPPENING. SO THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU DO. SO LET'S REFER TO THE SUMMARY, UH, WHICH IS MY ANALYSIS AS THIS IS THE BASIS FOR ME TO PROTEST THE RENEWAL APPLICATION. THERE'S FOUR SECTIONS, THE BACKGROUND, THE CONSIDERATION, THE CONCERNS, AND THEN THE RECOMMENDATION. SO THE BACKGROUND, A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE ORDINANCE FOR THE 1300 BLOCK OF EDWARDS. THE SOUTH SIDE ONLY BETWEEN HICKORY AND GOLIAD WAS IMPLEMENTED SEPTEMBER, 2002 AND EXPIRED 20 YEARS LATER. SEPTEMBER, 2022. THE SECTION OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES WAS CREATED TO PRESERVE THE LOT SIZE CHARACTER IN THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, NO PLURAL NEIGHBORHOODS. YET THIS ONLY APPLIED TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF 1300 BLOCK OF EDWARD STREET, WHICH IS SIX RESIDENTIAL LOTS. FOUR LOTS ARE 5,000 SQUARE FEET. THE OTHER TWO ARE LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET. ON THE SECOND, UH, PAGE IS A VISUAL THAT SUMMARIZES YES, THERE'S ONLY FOUR LOTS THAT MEET THAT REQUIREMENT OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET. THE OTHERS ARE 4,000 SQUARE FEET AND 1,915 SQUARE FEET. ONE OF THE LOTS HAS TWO HOMES, UH, 1,720 SQUARE FOOT HOME AND A 640 SQUARE FOOT HOME ON THE SAME LOT. SO I WASN'T HERE BACK IN 2002 WHEN THIS WAS IMPLEMENTED, BUT I GUESS AT THE TIME THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS WAS THE INTENT CONSIDERATIONS. A REVIEW OF THE 16 NEIGHBORHOODS [01:40:01] IN THE AREA, INCLU INDICATE A MIX OF VARIOUS SIZE RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND NOT NECESSARILY A MINIMUM, MINIMUM SIZE OF SQUARE FEET. I DID SOME DATA CRUNCHING AND I'VE ATTACHED, UH, THE HCA MAP, WHICH IS THE BIG PAGE HERE, THE THIRD PAGE. AND ON THIS WE CAN SEE THERE'S ABOUT 485 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. 81% ARE LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET. 19% ARE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET. BASED ON DATA, THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS SUCCESSFULLY TRANSFORMED INTO A DESIRED AREA WITH NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND COMMERCIAL USED PROPERTIES. ON THE WEST SIDE OF EDWARD STREET, THE FAR LEFT SIDE, THERE'S TWO BRAND NEW APARTMENT COMPLEXES. SAWYER YARDS ART HOUSE HAS 334 BRAND NEW UNITS. AND BELL ROCK SAWYER YARDS APARTMENTS HAS 327 UNITS. AND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT RAILROAD TRACK AROUND TAYLOR, THERE'S A BRAND NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AS WELL. EMPIRE APARTMENT COMPLEXES A LUXURY APARTMENT COMPLEX HOUSE. SO OVERALL, THE AREA HAS CHANGED OVER TIME, YET THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL ONLY APPLIES TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF 1300 BLOCK OF EDWARDS, SIX OF WHICH ARE LESS THAN FIVE OH SQUARE FEET. THAT'S BEYOND ME. THIS IS NOT LOGICAL, IT'S NOT INTUITIVE WITH THE PROGRESSION THAT WE WANNA MAKE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S BEEN EXCELLENT ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN WASHINGTON AVENUE. UH, THE NEW BRAND NEW WALMART, THE BRAND NEW HEB, A LOT OF, UH, TOWN HOMES, A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION, MIXED USE, KROGER OR YOU NAME IT, IT'S THERE. SO THE CONCERNS THAT THE RENEWAL DE RESTRICTION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WILL BE FOR 50 MORE YEARS. IN SUMMARY, IT'S NOT PROGRESSIVE. 2020 YEARS. IT'LL BE FOR 20 YEARS. 20 YEARS. OKAY. CORRECTION, AGAIN, I'M A NOVICE AT THIS. OKAY, . SO IT'S NOT PROGRESSIVE AND NOT ALIGNED WITH THE TRANSITION THEME OF THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S ALSO A DETERRENT THAT PROVIDES INFLEXIBILITY TO FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS FOR BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE CITY OF HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. NOW, ON A PERSONAL NOTE, AND THIS IS WHY I'M HERE. UH, I OWN THE HOUSE AT 1309 EDWARDS. I'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 2009. IT'S A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD, GREAT LOCATION. I PURCHASED A PROPERTY NEXT DOOR FROM MY NEIGHBOR. HE PASSED AWAY OF COVID BACK IN THE BEGINNINGS OF COVID. BUT NOW, UM, I'VE GOT, I'M ABOUT READY TO RETIRE AND I GOT, UH, TWO YOUNGER BROTHERS THAT ARE ALSO TALKING ABOUT RETIREMENT. AND THEY SAID IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE'RE ABLE TO RETIRE IN THE SAME AREA, SAME NEIGHBORHOOD, SIDE BY SIDE. I SAID, WELL, THAT'D BE EXCELLENT. WELL, HERE'S THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE HOUSEHOLDS, TWO SEPARATE WIVES. AND THEY SAY, WELL, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DIVIDE THAT LOT. THIS THING FOR TODAY IS ABOUT THE RE RENEWAL OF THE, UH, THE, UM, MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT. NEXT PHASE IF CAPITAL, IF WE DECIDE TO PROVIDE THAT FLEXIBILITY. THIS IS WHY I'M HERE ASKING FOR THE CONSIDERATION. SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, DO NOT RENEW THE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE ORDINANCE FOR THE 1300 BLOCK OF EDWARDS, THE SOUTH SIDE. IT'S PUNITIVE. IT'S NOT FLEXIBLE. IT'S A CONCERN FOR ME PERSONALLY. SO RESPECTFULLY, THAT'S MY REQUEST. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? THANK YOU. UM, I HAVE ONE. SO YOU, UH, YOU LIVE AT 1309, BUT YOU OWN 1307. I LIVE AND OWN AT 1309 AND I OWN 1307. OKAY. JUST 1 13 0 7 IS A TEAR ME DOWN HOUSE, BY THE WAY. IT WAS BUILT IN 1930. WE'VE LOOKED AT RENOVATIONS, UH, IT'S BEYOND REPAIRS TERM MANIFESTATION INCIDENT INFESTATION. WE HAVE SOME THE FOUNDATION QUESTIONS FOR YOU. UM, JUST QUICK ON THE DOCUMENTATION FROM STAFF. IT SHOWED THE PROTEST RECEIVED FOR 1309, BUT NOT FOR 1307. IT'S, UH, THE ENTIRE, THE SIX, THE SIX PROPERTIES THERE. 1309. CORRECT. BUT DID YOU, YOU COULD HAVE SUBMITTED AN, UM, OPPOSITION FOR BOTH PROPERTIES. DID YOU DO THAT? OR, OR MAYBE IT'S A QUESTION FOR STAFF. MR. ZURI, HOW DOES THAT WORK? I APOLOGIZE FOR THE MISTAKE. IF THE PROPERTY OWNER OWNS TWO LOTS, THEN THERE WILL BE TWO, UH, PROPERTIES AND PROTECTION AND UNDER, UH, PROTEST IN THE ORDINANCE. OKAY. JUST 'CAUSE THEN IT, IT DOES LOOK, UH, A LITTLE BIT MORE INTERESTING 'CAUSE THEN TWO OUT OF THE FOUR IN OPPOSITION. YEAH, TWO OUT THE FOUR OUTTA THE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT. LOTS A GOOD OBSERVATION. BUT YOU LOOK AT THAT BIG MAP, THE HCA MAP, UH, MR. CHAVEZ, UH, YOUR TIME'S UP. SO LET US THANK YOU. LET US DO SOME DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN. SURE. JUST CURIOUS IF YOU KNOW IF ANY OF YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE IN FAVOR OR IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU? ANY, SOME ARE, SOME ARE. I THINK, UH, WHOEVER APPLIED FOR THE RENEWALS, PROBABLY AGAINST, UH, AGAINST YOU. AGAINST ME, YEAH. UH, IF YOU HAD A DEFERRAL PERIOD AND COULD HAVE YOUR NEIGHBORS WEIGH IN, WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN THAT? I SURE WOULD. DO YOU THINK THERE'S A CHANCE SOMEONE WOULD WEIGH IN? UH, I WAS JUST CURIOUS. YEAH. [01:45:01] ALRIGHT. HAS HAVE, DOES OUR STAFF HAVE, UM, YOUR, YOUR ANALYSIS HERE, HAVE THEY HAD A CHANCE TO ANALYZE IT FROM THE COMMISSIONER? WE RECEIVED THIS, UH, LAST NIGHT, SO I WAS NOT ABLE TO REVIEW THE, THE DOCUMENT THAT HE PROVIDED. COMMISSIONER SMITH, UM, THE, FOR THE STAFF MEMBER. UM, REFRESH MY MEMORY PLEASE. ON THE RENEWAL PROCESS, THIS WAS INITIATED BY AN ACTION TAKEN BY ONE OF THE RESIDENTS WITHIN THE ZONE, OR IS THIS, THAT IS CORRECT. AUTO, AUTO RENEWAL THAT STAFF TRACKS AND, AND TAKES ACTION ON. SO THE ONLY THING STAFF DOES IS TO INFORM THE APPROPRIATE OWNERS ABOUT THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE ORDINANCE. SO ONE PROPERTY OWNER SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO RENEW THIS, UH, MINIMALIZED ORDINANCE. OKAY. AND DO YOU KNOW OF ANY, ANY OTHER THAN THAT PROPERTY OWNER, MR. CHAVEZ? DO YOU KNOW? UH, I, I'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS. UH, I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT AND ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER, UH, SIGN UP FOR A SPEAK. I I'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH ANOTHER LADY WHO WAS IN SUPPORT, BUT SHE'S NOT ABLE TO ATTEND AS, SHE'S NOT AVAILABLE TODAY. OKAY. SO WE HAVE ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS PERHAPS. OKAY. WE DO HAVE ADDITIONAL SPEAKER. THERE IS ONE IN THE CHAT AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WAS, UH, IS JOINING US TOO. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE IN ADVANCE, BUT I'M GONNA CALL ON, UH, I JUST WANTED TO DIRECTOR WALLACE BROWN. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT FOR A, FOR A RENEWAL, ALL IT TAKES IS ONE APPLICANT MAKING THE APPLICATION AND THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR DOCUMENTING SUPPORT OR NOT, OR, OR NOT IN THE RENEWAL PROCESS. AND THE OTHER, THE OTHER QUESTION IS THE RENEWAL PERIOD IS FOR 20. DOES, IS IT FAIR TO ASSUME THAT THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION WAS 20 YEARS AGO? YES. QUITE A TIME. THANK YOU. IT'S 2000. YEAH. AND OUR, IF, IF WE MEET THE CRITERIA, WE, OUR ACTION IS TO FORWARD IT TO CITY COUNCIL WHO MAKES THE DETERMINATION. OKAY. SO THANK YOU MR. CHAVEZ. LET ME SEE WHO ELSE WE HAVE VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE, WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? THERE IS A GREGORY NASSAR IN THE CHAT. CAN YOU SPELL THE LAST NAME? YES. N-A-S-S-A RMSS. OKAY. GREGORY MASAR. M-A-S-S-A-R OH NASS. NASSAR. NASSAR. OKAY. MR. NASSAR, MR. NASSAR DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE? HELLO? OH, MR. NASSER. YEAH, I'M, I'M SO SORRY ABOUT THAT. THAT'S OKAY. GO RIGHT AHEAD. YEAH, I'M GOOD. AFTERNOON. UH, THANK YOU. UH, MY NAME'S GREGORY NASSER. I WANT TO BEGIN BY THANKING THE COMMISSION TODAY, UH, FOR YOUR GENEROUS TIME DONATION AND EVALUATING THIS, UH, FOR RENEWAL APPLICATION. UM, I RESIDE AT 1319 EDWARDS STREET AND I'VE RESIDED AT THIS LOCATION SINCE, UH, APRIL, 2019. I'VE ALSO RESIDED, UH, WITHIN THE FIRST WARD SINCE, UH, 2014. UM, I'M APPEARING, UH, I'M AT THIS HEARING, UH, VIRTUALLY ON BEHALF OF THE SUPPORT OF THE, UH, SUBMITTED APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL. UH, THIS APPLICATION, AS YOU KNOW, IS TWO DECADES OLD, UH, AND HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE THEN. UM, TO BEGIN, I REALIZE THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO THE APPLICABLE, UH, MUNICIPAL CODE, WHICH IS 42.204, SUBSECTIONS ONE AND TWO WHEN MAKING THEIR DETERMINATIONS. UM, AS IT PERTAINS TO MUNICIPAL CODE, I MEAN, I, I I WANT TO ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN JUST WHAT APPLIES TO MUNICIPAL CODE, BUT, UH, AS IT APPLIES TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THE EXISTING, UH, RESTRICTION IF RENEWED, WOULD CONTINUE TO PRESERVE THE COMMON PLAN AND SCHEME. UH, THE CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT IN THE IDENT IDENTIFIABLE LOT SIZES. AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS COMPRISED OF A MAJORITY OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES SITTING ON 5,000 AND SOME 3000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZES, UH, RENEWING THE APPLICATION WOULD CONTINUE TO FURTHER THE GOAL AND PRESERVE THE IDENT IDENTIFIABLE LOT SIZE CHARACTER OF THE PROPOSED AREA AND SURROUNDING AREA. SURROUNDING AREA. UM, SIMILAR TO OTHER CHARMING NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE FIRST WARD AND OTHER SURROUNDING AREA, NOT OTHER SURROUNDING AREAS, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SPECIFICALLY LOTS AN ISSUE. THEY'RE KNOWN FOR THEIR LONGSTANDING, UH, CHARACTER CREATED BY THE PRESERVATION OF THE SINGLE UNIT HOMES. AND THAT'S, UH, WHAT THE, UH, SIZE LOT RESTRICTION SEEKS TO, UH, MAINTAIN BY RENEWING IT. UH, AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS DOTTED WITH, UH, SOME HIGH DENSITY, MODERN, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE STORY TOWN HOMES, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE AND SPECIFICALLY OUR SPECIFIC, UH, AREA IDENTIFIED BY THE [01:50:01] SIX LOTS WHICH SEEKS RENEWAL, MAINTAINS THAT HISTORIC SINGLE UNIT MINIMUM LOT SIZE RESTRICTION. UH, THIS LOT RESTRICTION HAS NOT ONLY BEEN IN PLACE FOR 20 YEARS, BUT IT WAS ALSO INITIATED AND ADHERED TO BY RESIDENTS STILL RESIDING IN THE SPECIFIED AREA, UH, IN WHICH THE EXISTING RESTRICTION APPLIES TO. UM, I WANNA POINT OUT THAT, UH, UH, FOR THE OPPOSING PARTIES SUBDIVIDING A PARCEL OF LAND TO CONSTRUCT TWO HOMES OR MULTIPLE HOMES, MAYBE A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE, UH, OR A SYSTEM IN HIS FA UH, WITH HIS FAMILY RETIREMENT. BUT IT'S CREATING AN IRREVERSIBLE, IRREPARABLE HARM BOTH FINANCIALLY, AESTHETICALLY, AND IF TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ANY PERSONAL EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENTS SOMEONE MAY HAVE TO THE, YOU KNOW, TO THEIR PROPERTY THAT THEY OWN. UH, IF THEY'RE SEEKING TO RENEW THE LONGSTANDING ORDINANCE, DENYING THE RENEWAL WOULD ALLOW THE OPPOSING PARTY TO BENEFIT AT THE COST OF ALL OTHER PERSONS WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF THE RENEWAL AND WOULD IMPACT THE VALUE OF THE SURROUNDING HOMES AS IT WOULD FURTHER DEPRIVE ALL OTHERS OF MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH ALL OWNERS KNOWINGLY ENTERED INTO AND BENEFIT FROM. ALLOWING THE APPLICATION RENEWAL FOR THE LOT SIZE RESTRICTION WOULD BE OF NO SURPRISE OR SHOCK TO THE OPPOSING PARTY. AS THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR TWO DECADES AND CONTINUES TO ADHERE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SPECIFIED AREA IN THE RENEWAL APP, UM, THE OPPOSING PARTY HAS BENEFITED FROM THE LOT SIZE RESTRICTION THEY NOW OPPOSE AND WILL CONTINUE TO, SHOULD IT REMAIN IN PLACE BY APPROVING THE RENEWAL. MR. NA, YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED. CAN YOU WRAP UP REAL QUICKLY? THAT WAS IT. I JUST WANTED TO SAY WHAT THAT SAID. I RESPECTFULLY THANK COMMISSION FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY. UM, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE? THANK YOU. WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS? NO. OKAY. UM, THEN WITH THAT I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL DELIBERATE A LITTLE BIT. COMMISSIONER SIGLER, UM, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. CAN YOU JUST REMIND ME HOW WE TREAT A CORNER LOT? UM, BECAUSE WE'RE CONSIDERING IT AS A PART OF THE BLOCK FACE, BUT IT APPEARS THAT 1317 IS, UM, A, A ADDRESS IS OFF OF GOLIAD. SO PER THE ORDINANCE, WE NEED TO INCLUDE ALL THE LOTS WITHIN THE BLOCK PHASE. UH, THE FACT THAT THAT CORNER LOT IS FACING ANOTHER STREET IS STILL, WE STILL NEED TO INCLUDE IT WITHIN THE, UH, BOUNDARY OF THE APPLICATION. SO IF GOLIAD WOULD COME IN WITH THIS, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT IT WOULD ALSO BE, IT WOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THAT. OKAY. CORRECT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF. YES. COMMISSIONER FOR PERLE, IS THERE A SIMILAR ORDINANCE AFFECTING THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STREET? NO, THERE IS NOT. BUT HOWEVER, IN THIS SOUTH DIVISION, THERE ARE FIVE, UH, MINIMAL OUTSIZED ORDINANCES ESTABLISHED BETWEEN 2016 TO 2019. IN THAT, IN THAT, YES. NEAR THAT AREA, YES, COMMISSIONER SMITH. SO, UM, MR. CHAVEZ WAS CONCERNED THAT THE LOT HE OWNS, THAT HE DOES NOT LIVE ON WOULD BE LIMITED TO ONLY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. UM, IN OUR PLANNING RULES, IN THE CODES IN THE CITY'S DUPLEX IS CONSIDERED A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. IS THE DUPLEX ALLOWED OR PROHIBITED SPECIFICALLY? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. AS, AS DUPLEX IS CONSIDERED A SINGLE FAMILY, AND ALSO THIS RENEWAL, UH, BECAUSE IT WAS ESTABLISHED 20 YEARS AGO, UH, DOES NOT INCLUDE, UH, SINGLE FAMILY LAND USE RESTRICTION. SO THIS, THIS RENEWAL IS ONLY FOR THE MINIMAL OUTSIDE RESTRICTION. THERE'S NO SINGLE FAMILY LAND RESTRICTION RESTRICTION FOR THIS, BECAUSE IT WAS, IT'S SO OLD, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. THE, THE LAND RESTRICTION WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2007. OKAY. OKAY. AND I'M SURE YOU CAN GO FOR YOU NEXT. YES. COMMISSIONER ABRAHAM? UM, I'D, I'D LIKE TO TO TO TO POINT OUT THAT I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK THE INTENT OF THE LAWS IT WAS 20 YEARS AGO IS THE SAME AS IT IS TODAY. UM, I, I BELIEVE, UH, AND I'VE HEARD THIS RHETORIC AS WELL AROUND THE CITY, UM, WITH REGARDS TO IF YOU, IF YOU ALLOW PEOPLE TO SUBDIVIDE, YOU'LL GET MULTIFAMILY COMING IN, RIGHT? WE DON'T, WE WANNA PROHIBIT MULTIFAMILY, WE WANNA PROHIBIT SINGLE FAMILY COMMUNITIES THAT WANNA STAY SINGLE FAMILY FROM MOVING TO MULTIFAMILY. AND THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE BIG REASON TO HAVE THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE IN PLACE BACK THEN. BUT AS WE JUST HEARD, UM, WE, WE [01:55:01] CANNOT ACTUALLY PROHIBIT SOMEBODY TO, TO FROM BUILDING MULTIFAMILY ON THAT, UH, UH, THOSE LOTS, EVEN IF THEY WERE KEPT AT THIS, THIS RESTRICTED LOT SIZE. AND FOR THAT REASON, I, I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES AS WELL TO, TO CONSIDER THAT AS WE, AS WE, UH, UH, DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD LIKE TO RENEW THIS, I, I PERSONALLY WILL, WILL GO AGAINST IT BECAUSE I, I DON'T THINK IT REALLY, UH, MEETS THE, THE, THE THRESHOLD OF, OF, UH, WHAT THE INTENT WAS 20 YEARS AGO. IF, IF, IF THE INTENT IS TO, TO PROHIBIT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, FROM CHANGING FROM ONE PARTICULAR TYPE OF LAND USE TO ANOTHER. I BELIEVE THERE ARE OTHER MECHANISMS SUCH AS SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OR DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT MAKE MORE SENSE, UH, TO DO THAT. AND ALSO OUR NEW, UH, UH, ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE WORKING ON, THE LIVABLE PLACES COMMITTEE IS WORKING ON THAT MIGHT ALSO HELP TO, TO TO, TO MAINTAIN A CERTAIN KIND OF DESIGN STANDARD HERE. BUT PROHIBITING THE LOT WON'T DO IT. AND SO I, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR TO, TO GO AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR RENEWAL. OKAY. IF, IF, UM, COMMISSIONERS, UH, I MAY ADD SOMETHING ELSE. IF YOU, IF WE COULD GO TO SLIDE THREE. UH, THERE IS A BUILDING LINE IN PLACE THAT IT WAS RENEWED, RENEWED, UM, THIS YEAR, CITY COUNCIL PASSED IT, UH, IN AUGUST, 2022. AND THE BUILDING LINES IS FOR, UH, 15 FEET AND IT WILL BE IN PLACE FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT AS WELL. SO THERE'S A 15 FOOT BUILDING LINE IN PLACE FOR THE, THIS EXACT LINE THAT IT WAS RENEWED THIS YEAR, CORRECT. OKAY. WALLACE DIRECTOR? YEAH, WALLACE BROWN. I, I'M SORRY. WHEN WE DID THIS 20 PLUS YEARS AGO, WHAT, WHAT WE HEARD AND WHAT WE WERE RESPONDING TO WERE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS THAT MUCH OF THE, UM, URBAN CORE OF HOUSTON WAS BEING SUBDIVIDED INTO SMALLER LOTS, NOT NECESSARILY FOR MULTIFAMILY, FOR SINGLE FAMILY. WE WERE SEEING QUITE A FEW, UM, 50 BY 100 FOOT NEIGHBORHOOD LOTS BEING SUBDIVIDED INTO TWO OR THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, IN THAT NEIGHBORS BELIEVED WERE INAPPROPRIATE TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND AS THE, THE CITY AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGED THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES, WHICH ALLOWED AND IN FACT ENCOURAGED THAT TYPE OF SUBDIVISION, THIS WAS A WAY TO SUPPORT NEIGHBORS WHO HAD SOME LEVEL OF DEED RESTRICTIONS, BUT COULDN'T PREVENT THAT SUBDIVISION, BUT WHO CHOSE TO OPT IN AND CREATE THAT PROFE THAT PRO PROTECTION FOR THEMSELVES. SO THIS WAS REALLY NOT ADDRESSING MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS ADDRESSING SUBDIVIDING LOTS TO MAKE SMALLER LOTS INTO SINGLE FAMILY AND INCREASING THE DENSITY IN NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT'S WHY IT WENT HAND IN HAND WITH BUILDING LINE PROTECTIONS, BECAUSE OFTEN THOSE SUBDIVIDED LOTS HAD A REDUCED BUILDING LINE. AGAIN, WE WERE ENCOURAGING INNER CITY DEVELOPMENT, BUT THE REDUCED BUILDING LINE NEIGHBORS BELIEVED WERE INAPPROPRIATE TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. SO, SO THIS WAS AN EFFORT TO GIVE PROPERTY OWNERS THE, THE, THE OPTION, IF THEY COULD AMASS THE SIGNATURES, IF THEY COULD, UM, OBTAIN THE SUPPORT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO, TO GIVE THEM THE PROTECTION OF LETTING THEM SAY, WE WANT OUR, WE WANT OUR BLOCK TO REMAIN THE SAME AS IT IS RIGHT NOW FOR 20 YEARS. IT WAS ULTIMATELY LENGTHENED FOR 40 YEARS. AND AT THE TIME, COUNCIL DECIDED PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPORTED, AND COUNCIL DECIDED THAT WHEN THE 20 YEARS IS UP, WHAT WE WILL DO IS MAKE IT EASIER. INSTEAD OF HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS AGAIN, WE WILL ALLOW A RENEWAL TO TAKE PLACE BY JUST ONE, ONE PROPERTY OWNER ASKING FOR THE RENEWAL. AND NO DOCUMENTATION OF PROPERTY OWNER SUPPORT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE RENEWAL PROCESS. THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE HERE TODAY. WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A BLOCK LENGTH, UM, ORDINANCE THAT, THAT IS EXPIRING, AND WE HAVE ONE PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAS TAKEN THE ACTION TO APPLY TO HAVE IT RENEWED. WE DO NOT HAVE TO DOCUMENT COMMUNITY SUPPORT. YOU MAY ASK FOR IT, BUT THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT PART OF YOUR DECISION MAKING AT THE POINT, AT THE TIME IT COMES FOR YOU TO MAKE A DECISION. WE, WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, THE APPLICATION HAS MET THE ORDINANCE. WHAT'S THAT? HOLD ON. WE GOT, DID YOU? WELL, UH, I GUESS, UM, FOR DISCUSSION, UM, BECAUSE I, I, I CERTAINLY LOVE THE SENTIMENT OF WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, UH, FOR THE PROTESTOR, BUT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE NO MECHANISM TO ENFORCE OR CONTRACT YOU TO THAT. SO, ALTHOUGH YOU MAY HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS OF, UM, YOU KNOW, WANTING IT FOR FAMILY OR POTENTIALLY PUTTING TO PLOTS FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, YOU MIGHT CHANGE YOUR MIND. AND THEN WE HAVE NO WAY TO, YOU KNOW, REIGN THAT BACK IN AND, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT COULD BE SOLD AND SUBDIVIDED INTO WHATEVER. AND THAT'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, [02:00:01] I I TO BE TOLD, I'M GOING BACK AND FORTH ON THIS ARGUMENT, BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE NO WAY TO, UM, ENFORCE YOUR INTENT, UM, IT'S DIFFICULT THEN TO WANNA RELINQUISH THIS FOR, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THAT SENSE. UM, I'M SURE YOU HAVE THE BEST OF INTENTIONS, I HAVE NO DOUBT, BUT WE HAVE NO WAY TO, UM, CONTROL THAT IN ANY SENSE OF THE WAY. UH, AND SO THAT'S KIND OF THE STRUGGLE HERE. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR 20 YEARS, ANYBODY WHO'S BOUGHT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE LAST 20 YEARS, IT VERY WELL AWARE OF THE FACT OF WHAT THEY BOUGHT INTO. SO THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SMITH. UH, I, I'M, I'M CONFLICTED AS WELL AS SOME OF THE OTHER ONES. UM, AS OF THIS MOMENT, WE HAVE ONE, WE HAVE TWO VERY WELL-SPOKEN AND WELL PRESENTED CASES, UH, ONE BY A PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTING ONE OF THE SIX PROPERTIES, ANOTHER BY A PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTING TWO, UM, AS, AS THE DIRECTOR DESCRIBED, UNLIKE THE INITIAL CREATION, WE DON'T HAVE A SENSE, SO I'M, I'M QUITE RELUCTANT TO CONSIDER IT AT THIS TIME WITHOUT GIVING THE STAFF, THE NEIGHBORS MORE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR, THEIR THOUGHTS KNOWN. HOWEVER, I, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IT MIGHT MAKE A DIFFERENCE, UH, IN THE END, UH, QUESTION FOR THE STAFF. IF, IF, IF WE VOTE AGAINST THIS, DOES IT GO ON TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION OR IT DOES NOT? IT DOES. IT DIES. OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ABRAHAMSON. NEXT. UH, YEAH, SO I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT, UM, THE, THE OBVIOUS AND, AND THAT IS THAT A BLOCK IS NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD. AND, AND WHAT, WHAT WE WERE DOING 20 YEARS AGO, THE INTENT AS, AS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR MENTIONED, WE WERE TRYING TO DEVELOP SOMETHING TO HELP COMMUNITIES TO PRESERVE WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS WORTH PRESERVING. UM, WE ALSO MADE IT EASY FOR THAT, FOR THEM TO COME BACK TO DO A RE-UP. BUT THE, THE, THE MAIN FACT THAT WE MADE THEM COME BACK, IT MEANS THAT WE WOULD MAKE IT FOR THE EXISTING COMMISSION AT THAT TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND DECIDE WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE TODAY. AND THAT'S WHAT I, YOU KNOW, NOTHING AGAINST, UH, WHAT WE DECIDED 20 YEARS AGO. IT MIGHT HAVE MADE SENSE THEN. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO, TO, TO, TO, TO ME NOW, YOU KNOW, AS A PLANNER, UH, TRYING TO, UH, FORCE THE, THE, THE, THE, THE SIZE OF A LOT TO, TO DECIDE WHAT CAN HAPPEN THERE. UM, I, I'D LIKE TO SEE US MOVING AS A, AS A COMMISSION GENERALLY. I'D LIKE TO SEE US MOVING TOWARDS, AGAIN, WHAT THE LIVABLE PLACES COMMITTEE IS DOING, WHICH IS THINKING ABOUT ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND, AND ALSO MAKING SURE THAT COMMUNITIES AROUND THE CITY RECOGNIZE THAT THAT IS PROBABLY A BETTER WAY TO, TO HELP TO DECIDE HOW YOUR COMMUNITIES LOOK BY, BY INSTITUTING ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS, DESIGN STANDARDS. I BELIEVE MOST SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ALREADY CONTAIN A CHAPTER SAYING ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS. MANY COMMUNITIES DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY REGULATE THE COLOR OF A HOUSE IN YOUR SUBDIVISION. THAT'S HOW STRONG THOSE REGULATIONS ARE. UM, I'LL CLOSE BY SAYING THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE US MOVING TOWARDS NOT JUST A, A RECOGNITION THAT ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS ARE, ARE EXTREMELY HELPFUL IN MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITIES. UM, BUT I'D ALSO LIKE TO SEE US AS A PLANNING COMMISSION AND PLANNING STAFFERS ALSO HELP TO PUSH THAT INFORMATION OUT TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL. COMMISSIONER SIGLER, THEN GARZA. I, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, BUT, UM, WANNA ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT YOU, THAT YOU SAID, I DO BELIEVE THAT WHAT YOU SAID IS TRUE ABOUT DEED RESTRICTIONS, ABOUT, UM, OTHERS, OTHER WAYS TO DO THIS FOR A BIGGER COMMUNITY. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS 20 YEARS AGO, WE, WE THOUGHT ABOUT AND CONSIDERED, AND IS STILL VERY TRUE TODAY, IS IT'S VERY HARD FOR AN ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD OR A COMMUNITY TO GET DEED RESTRICTIONS, TO CHANGE THEM, TO GET BUILDER GUIDELINES, ANY KIND OF ARCHITECTURAL OVERVIEW. AND SO I THINK THIS WAS A WAY THAT WAS THOUGHTFULLY AND CAREFULLY, FULLY CONSIDERED THAT, HEY, IT'S FAIR TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND LESS COST EFFECTIVE. I MEAN, TO ALL, TO THE, TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT CAN'T AFFORD TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO GET DEED RESTRICTIONS. THIS ALLOWS A GRASSROOTS PROGRAM WHERE YOU CAN HAVE SOME PROTECTIONS. SO I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY OF IT, BUT MY QUESTION FOR STAFF WAS, WHEN THE APPLICANT, WHEN THE PERSON CAME IN TO RENEW THIS APPLICATION, AT THAT POINT, WAS EVERYONE ON THE STREET NOTIFIED? NO. NO. OKAY. WE, [02:05:01] ONCE WE RECEIVED THE APPLICATION, WE DO A STA A STAFF ANALYSIS MM-HMM . AND ONCE THAT'S COMPLETED, SO NO ONE WAS NOTIFIED. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, IF I MAY, EVERYBODY WAS AWARE OF THE, UM, OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A RENEWAL APPLICATION, THE PROTESTOR, I TALKED TO HIM PRIOR, THE, UH, THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE ORDINANCE. AND, UH, BUT I TALKED TO, UH, SEVERAL PROPERTY OWNERS ON THAT BLOCK, AND THEY WERE AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A RENEWAL APPLICATION, BUT WITH THEIR NOTIFICATION SENT, WERE ASSIGNED, POSTED, THERE WERE SIGNS POSTED, SIGNS POSTED ONCE. OKAY. OKAY. NO, GOOD. THAT'S, I JUST WANTED EVERYONE TO HEAR THAT. THANK YOU. YEAH. ONCE, ONCE WE SEND NOTIFICATION LETTER, WE LET THE APPLICANT KNOW THAT IT'S TIME FOR, FOR THE APPLICANT TO POST SIGNS ON THE STREET. SO, AND THERE'S STILL SIGNS ON, UH, AS TODAY. AS OF TODAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, COMMISSIONER ROBBINS, ONE THING I'D LIKE, UM, TO, TO HAVE DURING THE DEFERRAL PERIOD IS A COPY OF THE ORDINANCE. AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU SAID, WHICH IS ONE APPLICANT HAS TO SUBMIT IT AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO SUPPORTS IT OR WHO OBJECTS. UM, I'D LIKE IT TO UNDERSTAND IN THE ORDINANCE WHAT OUR DISCRETION IS. IF THERE'S NO THRESHOLD FOR PROTEST, IS IT WIDE OPEN? IS DOES THE LANGUAGE CONTEMPLATE THAT WE WOULD EXERCISE, UM, SOME JUDGMENT OR IS IT MORE OF A DEFAULT PROVISION WHERE IF IT'S SUBMITTED, THEN IT'S APPROVED? AND IF YOU COULD SHARE THE LANGUAGE FROM THE ORDINANCE, THE RELEVANT LANGUAGE WITH US SO WE CAN SEE IT, THAT'D BE HELPFUL BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. AND WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER AT THIS POINT. I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR. I THINK YOU MIGHT GET ONE, BUT LET ME, I, I STEPPED ON, UH, VICE CHAIR GAR CHOSE HERE. ARE, WERE YOU, I'M SORRY. YES, JUST COMMISSIONER OMAN'S POINTING OUT THAT IT MAY ALREADY BE IN THERE AND I DIDN'T SEE IT, IN WHICH CASE I WOULD NEED TO, I BELIEVE, ISN'T THE LANGUAGE ALREADY IN THERE FROM THE ORDINANCE? I MEAN, IT SAYS HERE'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO CONSIDER THE, UM, OH, IT IS, IT PROBABLY, IT MAY THE APPLICATION AND HERE'S, AND I SHOULD READ IT. YES. I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING FOR SOMETHING MORE THAN THAT. COMMISSIONER GARZA. ALRIGHT, WELL LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, FIRST, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, TO, TO CORRECT YOU LIVABLE PLACES IS NOT TALKING ABOUT ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS. THAT IS NOT AT ALL WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AT LIVABLE PLACES. WELL, , UH, WELL, ALRIGHT, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S LIKE A TECHNICALITY. BUT THAT'S FOR BUILDING, HOWEVER, PARKING LOTS, FOR EXAMPLE. BUT WHAT WE ARE DOING IS TRYING TO CREATE, UM, MORE HOUSING OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE AND BRINGING EQUITY TO PEOPLE AT ALL KINDS OF INCOME LEVELS. SO HERETOFORE WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS TO HAVE MULTIPLE HOUSING OPTIONS, SPECIFICALLY THAT ARE STILL SINGLE FAMILY. AND THAT COULD BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, A DUPLEX, A THREEPLEX, AND EVEN IF THIS IS APPROVED, A FOURPLEX WITHOUT DROPPING INTO, UH, COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE. SO, UM, FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS BLOCK, WHO, BY THE WAY, AND, AND, UH, OUR PROTESTOR DID, OF COURSE, MR. CHAVEZ, HE DID BUY THIS IN 2009, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THIS WAS PUT IN PLACE IN 2002. SO AGAIN, AND THIS IS NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD, IT IS A BLOCK. AND AS, UH, COMMISSIONER SICKLER SAID, IMPOSED THESE RESTRICTIONS ONLY ON THEIR BLOCK, USED THE VOLUNTEER METHOD TO GO OUT, ASK THEIR NEIGHBORS TO SUPPORT IT, AND GOT THAT. AND WE, UH, THIS BODY CHANGED THE ORDINANCE SO THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO OUT AND VOLUNTEER AND GET THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 400 HOUSES OR 200 HOUSES TO ACQUIESCE. SO WE HAVE CHANGED THIS ORDINANCE OVER TIME TO MAKE INDIVIDUAL BLOCKS, NORTH SIDE OR SOUTH SIDE, UM, TAKE A VOTE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND GET APPROVAL FOR WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO. AND IN THIS CASE, PRESERVE THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT EXISTED 20 YEARS AGO. IF THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR IS FALLING DOWN AND IT'S NOT HISTORICALLY RESTRICTED, THE INDIVIDUAL CAN BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, A DUPLEX OR A THREEPLEX, A DUPLEX WITH A GARAGE APARTMENT TODAY. UH, DIRECTOR, I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT. A DUPLEX WITH A GARAGE APARTMENT IS STILL CONSIDERED SINGLE FAMILY. I BELIEVE SO FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE MINIMAL OUTSIDE SUMMARY, TWO UNITS TWO UNITS, IT'S TWO UNITS, TWO UNITS ONLY. OKAY. SO I WANTED CLARIFICATION, THAT'S WHY I ASKED THAT QUESTION. BUT WHAT I SAY IS YOU ARE LIMITED AND THE PEOPLE DID IN 2002 DECIDE WE WANNA PROTECT OUR BLOCK, NOT THE, UH, THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD AS SHOWN IN THE SUBMISSION HERE. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SIX HOUSES. SO THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. AND AS AGAIN, LIVABLE PLACES IS WORKING ON CREATING MORE EQUITY FOR, UM, FOR ALL OF HOUSTONIANS IN AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE MORE HOUSING OPTIONS. AND THAT MIGHT BE IN AN UNRESTRICTED, YOU GET FOUR HOUSES OR FIVE HOUSES OR A COMPOUND THAT HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED YET, BUT [02:10:01] WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS THAT. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE YOU ALL AWARE OF WHAT, WHAT WE CAN VOTE ON TODAY AND WHAT WE CANNOT. AND I, FOR ONE, WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS AND ASKING TO BE SENT WITH OUR APPROVAL TOWARDS CITY COUNCIL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR WALLACE BROWN. ABRAHAM, IF YOU COULD, COULD YOU PLEASE CLARIFY? I, I, COMMISSIONER SER ASKED A QUESTION THAT I DON'T KNOW, WE ACTUALLY ANSWERED WRIGHT CORRECTLY OR COMPLETELY. HOW DID WE NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF THIS? WE SENT NOTIFICATION LETTERS TO EACH TO, TO EACH PROPERTY OWNER. FOR THE RENEWAL. FOR THE RENEWAL. AND YES. OKAY. WE DID. I I DIDN'T HEAR, I DIDN'T HEAR WELL. AND THE HEAR YOU SAY THAT EARLIER. I'M SORRY. NOT THE WHOLE AREA. LIKE YOU MIGHT HAVE NO, JUST THE PROPERTY HONOR WITHIN THE BLOCK. YES. YEAH. OKAY. THE ONES THAT WOULD IMPACT. OKAY, I DID. IT'S OKAY. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, THANK YOU ALL FOR THE LIVELY DISCUSSION. I THINK THIS IS ALWAYS GREAT , BUT I WANNA BE CLEAR BECAUSE READ WHAT WE SHALL CONSIDER YEAH. THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DI DEMONSTRATED SUFFICIENT SUPPORT, SUFFICIENT SUPPORT. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED SUFFICIENT SUPPORT. WE'VE HAD SEEN ONE PERSON FOR IT AND TWO PROPERTY OWNERS AGAINST IT. NOW I KNOW THE OTHERS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN, BUT I MEAN, THEY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUPPORT AND WE ARE ALLOWED TO CONSIDER THE AREA, WILL IT CONTINUE TO PRESERVE THE LOT SIZE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. THAT MEANS THE GREATER AREA, NOT JUST THAT PARTICULAR BLOCK. SO I THINK WE ARE ALLOWED TO CONSIDER THOSE THINGS ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS IN MY LITTLE BINDER HERE TODAY. SO I DO BELIEVE A DEFERRAL TO LET THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE THE CHANCE TO WEIGH IN WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE WAY FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ONE AND, AND LET THEM SEE IF THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE SUFFICIENT SUPPORT, NOT JUST NO SUPPORT , BUT SUFFICIENT SUPPORT. YOU'VE GOT ONE APPLICANT, ONE PROPERTY OWNER SAYING THEY LIKE IT, TWO PROPERTY OWNERS SAYING THEY DON'T, I'M NOT SURE THAT DEMONSTRATES SUPPORT. IT'S MY, JUST MY OPINION. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ALLMAN, BESIDES, UH, MR. CHAVEZ, WHO'S THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTIES? WELL, HE'S ONE PROPERTY OWNER WITH BUT, BUT OWNS 40. OH, I UNDERSTAND. HE OWNS TWO PROPERTIES, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT, SO, AND, AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FOUR PROPERTIES, CORRECT? SIX, BUT FOUR ARE OVER FOUR, YES. 4, 4, 4 5,000 OR OVER 5,000 OR LARGER. SO THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, I THINK. SO COMMISSIONER VICTOR, UM, DIDN'T YOU MENTION THAT THERE WAS, UH, ONE LADY WHO CALLED IN OPPOSITION WHO COULDN'T BE HERE AS WELL? YES. THE PROPERTY OWNER OF, UH, 1311. SHE WAS THE ORIGINAL APPLICANT 20 YEARS AGO. UH, SHE COULDN'T ATTEND. SHE CALLED ME THIS MORNING. UM, BUT THAT'S, SHE JUST CALLED ME TO LET ME KNOW THAT SHE IS, SHE COULDN'T MAKE IT TODAY IN OPPOSITION OR NO, SHE'S IN FAVOR. UH, ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO COMMENT? IS THERE A MOTION OF SOME KIND WE CAN GET ON THE TABLE AND VOTE ON IF OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND ROBINS. UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO DEFER? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? OPPOSED. OKAY. WHO'S OPPOSED? WE HAVE MORRIS, SIGLER, GARZA AND ALMAN AND ALLMAN. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. THE MOTION CARRIES. AND THE, UH, ITEM IS DEFERRED WITH FIVE NO VOTES. MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE. I, I HAVE ALEX TO BE EXCUSED. PARDON ME? I WILL ASK TO BE EXCUSED. OH YEAH, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE ASKED YOU, YOU CAN JUST GO . THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, SO WE WILL BE BACK ON THIS, UH, JANUARY 5TH AND LOOK FORWARD TO SOME MORE LIVELY DISCUSSION. UM, ROMAN [IV. Public Comment] NUMERAL FOURS PUBLIC COMMENT, I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE CHAT, ANYBODY WHO IS LISTENING WISHES TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION? IF NOT, UH, ACTUALLY YOU, UH, I'M BRIDGET JENSEN AND I'D WANTED TO SPEAK, I'D SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR ITEM 1 45 THAT WAS WITHDRAWN. UM, BUT I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND GIVE A COMMENT SO IT'LL GIVE JUST SOME IDEA OF WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM. SO WHEN THERE'S OTHER THINGS LIKE THIS. MAY I, MAY I PROCEED? YES. AND YOUR NAME IS BRIDGET JENSEN? YES. OKAY, GO AHEAD. OKAY. SO AGAIN, THIS IS FOR, UH, WITHDRAWN. ITEM NUMBER 1 45. THE RESIDENCE IS AT 1934 WEST GRAY. AND I HAVE A CONCERN FOR THE PEDESTRIANS WHERE THERE IS THE INGRESS AND EGRESS AT THE PARKING GARAGE ALONG WOODHEAD FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. THERE SHOULD BE A SIGHT LINE WHERE DRIVEWAYS FOR THE PARKING GARAGE INTERSECT THE SIDEWALK WALK JUST AS THERE'S A SIGHT [02:15:01] TRIANGLE REQUIREMENT AT STREET INTERSECTIONS FOR VEHICLE SAFETY. AND THOUGH THE CURRENT PARKING GARAGE IS CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK, IT'S OPEN SO PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLE DRIVERS CAN SEE EACH OTHER. THE PROJECT HAS A WALL ENCLOSING THE GARAGE, WHICH REDUCES THIS VISIBILITY, ESPECIALLY CONCERNING AS HOW THE TRANSFORMERS JUTT OUT CLOSER TO THE SIDEWALK ON WOODHEAD. AND SOME CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS SAW SHOW THE NORTHERN GARAGE ACCESS AS INGRE INGRESS AND OTHERS SHOW IT AS EGRESS. SO IT'S UNCLEAR WHAT THE PLAN IS. AND EGRESS WOULD BE ESPECIALLY DANGEROUS GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THE TRANSFORMERS RIGHT NEXT TO IT. SETTING THE BUILDING BACK ACCORDING TO THE 15 FOOT SETBACK WOULD PROVIDE A SAFER WALKING ENVIRONMENT THAN IF THE VARIANCE ALONG WOODHEAD IS GRANTED. SO I KNOW IT WASN'T, IT WAS WITHDRAWN, BUT JUST TO, THAT WAS JUST TO GIVE A SENSE OF WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY, THOSE KINDS OF IDEAS OR WHAT'S FLOATING AROUND. THANKS. OKAY. THANK YOU MS. JENSEN FOR STICKING AROUND AND SHARING YOUR VIEWS WITH US. APPRECIATE IT. UH, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? IF NOT, UH, ROMAN NUMERAL FIVE IS ADJOURNMENT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOTION? SMITH. SMITH AND THANK. AND THIS IS COMMISSIONER SMITH'S LAST MEETING. NO, WELL, IT IS MY LAST MEETING. NO ONE WILL BE THE, UH, COMMISSIONER'S COURT, UH, DID NOT ACCOMPLISH, UH, NAMING MY REPLACEMENT. I KNOW THE NAME THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COURT AND THEY WILL ACT ON THAT JANUARY 13TH. SO I THINK YOU'LL BE LEFT IN GOOD HANDS. OKAY. UH, BUT WILL YOU BE HERE ON THE FIFTH? I DO NOT PLAN TO BE HERE ON THE FIFTH. OKAY. . SO THIS LEMME LET ME, IF IF YOU MIGHT, IF YOU MIGHT ALLOW ME OUT, I'LL JUST LIKE TO THANK GO RIGHT AHEAD. WALLACE BROWN AND THE STAFF MEMBERS AND NEW COMMISSIONERS FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS HAVE BEEN VERY FULFILLING, VERY CHALLENGING AT TIMES. UH, I COME TO THESE MEETINGS PREPARED TO THINK, TO DEBATE. IT KEEPS ME SHARP IN BOTH OF THOSE. UH, AND I THINK, UH, WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED A LOT. UH, I GUESS MY, MY, MY PARTING WORDS TO YOU IS, IS A REMINDER, YOU'VE HEARD ME GET ON A SOAPBOX FROM TIME TO TIME, UH, WITH A REMINDER THAT THIS COMMISSION, UH, IS APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR OF HOUSTON. IT'S A CITY OF HOUSTON COMMISSION. WE'RE VERY MUCH A CITY ORGANIZATION, BUT THE ITEMS WE CONSIDER HERE, UH, ROUGHLY HALF OF THEM ARE INSIDE THE CITY AND HALF OF THEM ARE NOT. AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT BY AREA OR A NUMBER OF LOTS CREATED OR MANY OTHER MEASURES, A LARGE PORTION OF WHAT THIS COMMISSION CONSIDERS IS NOT JUST CITY BUSINESS. AND I WANT TO COMPLIMENT, UH, ALL OF Y'ALL FOR DOING YOUR BEST TO TREAT THOSE EQUALLY AND WOULD DO CONSIDERATION, UM, AND, AND HOPE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO DO SO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE. APPRECIATE IT. UM, OKAY, WELL WITH THAT I'LL JUST SAY WISH EVERYBODY A HAPPY HOLIDAY SEASON. UM, DID WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? WE HAD A MOTION AND I SECOND. SO WE HAVE A MOTION. SMITH AND GARZA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.