[00:00:05]
THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION[Call to Order]
IS CALLED TO ORDER.I'M THE COMMISSION CHAIR, MARTY STEIN.
AND TO VERIFY WE HAVE A QUORUM, I WILL CALL THE ROLE THE CHAIR IS PRESENT.
PRESENT, UH, COMMISSIONER VAR.
COMMISSIONER HINES IS NOT PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER ROBBINS WILL BE ABSENT.
UH, COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG WILL BE ABSENT.
COMMISSIONER TAHIR IS NOT PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER VICTOR, PRESENT IS PRESENT.
UH, COMMISSIONER KANE, WE SEE YOU VIRTUALLY.
AND COMMISSIONER DALTON PRESENT, VIRTUALLY PRESENT.
AND, UM, COMMISSIONER SMITH IS ABSENT AND DIRECTOR MARGARET WALLACE BROWN.
15 MEMBERS HAVE RESPONDED TO ROLL CALL.
WE HAVE A QUORUM, UM, TO EVERYONE ELSE JOINING US TODAY.
IF YOU'RE HERE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A SPECIFIC ITEM, YOU CAN CHECK THE CITY, UH, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WEBSITE FOR THE FINAL AGENDA WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, ALL ADVANCED COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVE FROM THE PUBLIC, UH, BY NOON YESTERDAY ARE INCLUDED IN THE COMMISSION'S PACKETS.
UM, AND IF YOU ARE, AS I SAID, IF YOU'RE WITH US IN PERSON TO SPEAK, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THESE LITTLE, UH, WHITE FORMS THAT YOU CAN GET AT THE FRONT.
UM, WE ASK IF YOU'RE CONNECTED BY PHONE OR COMPUTER TO PLEASE KEEP YOUR DEVICE MUTED UNTIL YOU'RE CALLED ON TO SPEAK.
AND IT'S ALSO HELPFUL IF YOU TURN YOUR CAMERA OFF UNTIL YOU'RE CALLED ON.
UH, A NUMBER OF ITEMS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM TODAY'S AGENDA UNDER PUBLIC HEARINGS.
ITEM 1 26, OAK FOREST, 1 27 SPRING BRANCH, VILLA 1 28, WATERLOO CROSSING AND 1 29 REDWOOD HAVE ALL BEEN WITHDRAWN ALSO UNDER VARIANCES.
1 33 JANICE STREET DEVELOPMENT.
THERE'LL BE NO OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THOSE.
[Director’s Report]
UM, THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, DIRECTOR MARGARET WALLACE BROWN.GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS MARGARET WALLACE BROWN.
I'M SECRETARY TO THIS COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
I HAVE KIND OF A LONG REPORT TODAY, SO I HOPE IT'S INTERESTING TO YOU.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE NEW MEMBERS WITH US.
AS THE CHAIR SAID, WE WANNA THANK DAVID ABRAHAM FOR HAVING SERVED ON THE COMMISSION THESE PAST YEARS.
HE, UM, IS NOT JOINING US ANY LONGER.
WE RECOGNIZE THE REAPPOINTMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS, VITI, VICTOR ALMAN, MAS, SIGLER, AND HINES, AND WE WELCOME TWO NEW MEMBERS.
UM, MICHELLE LYNN CULVER, WHO IS NOT HERE TODAY.
UM, COMES TO US WITH A BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH COMPLIANCE BACKGROUND.
AND LIBBY VIRA BLONDE COMES, UM, WHO IS PRESENT TODAY, COMES TO US FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD, SO WE WELCOME BOTH OF THEM.
UM, CHAPTER 42, AMENDMENTS TO THE BUFFERING AND, UM, SCREENING ORDINANCE.
WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ORDINANCE, UM, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11TH AT 9:00 AM IN CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN PART OF THE WORK WE'VE DONE TO GET TO THIS POINT ON THAT.
THIS IS THE WORK ON, UM, THAT INCLUDES LIGHTING, SCREENING FROM GARAGES, BUFFERING FROM, UM, FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND, UH, SCREENING FOR DUMPSTERS.
UM, AND SINCE IT'S THE END OF THE YEAR, I HAVE A FEW END OF THE YEAR TIDBITS OF INFORMATION FOR YOU.
UM, IN THE TRANSPORTATION AREA LAST YEAR, WE HANDLED 10 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND FREEWAY PLAN AMENDMENTS, ALL OF WHICH WERE ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL THIS YEAR.
THE MTFP APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PERIOD IS JANUARY 9TH THROUGH MARCH 3RD.
THE TRANSPORTATION TEAM IS HEADED BY CHIEF TRANSPORTATION PLANNER, DAVID FIELDS.
UM, WE CURRENTLY HAVE A STAFF OF FIVE PROFESSIONALS WORKING WITH HIM ON THAT.
SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE WORK THEY'RE GONNA DO ON THE MTFP THIS YEAR.
UM, FOR THOSE OF YOU INTERESTED IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION, THERE WERE 333 CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED THROUGH OUR PRESERVATION TRACKER IN 2022.
HISTORIC COMMISSION CONSIDERED 133 OF THOSE ITEMS, AND STAFF HANDLED ANOTHER 200 ITEMS. ADMINISTRATIVELY.
THE HISTORIC BOARD HAD FOUR MEETINGS, HEARD FOUR APPEALS.
UM, AND REGARDING OUR COMMUNITY PROTECTION PROGRAMS, MINIMUM LOT SIZE INCLUDED, ONE NEW MINIMUM LOT SIZE AREA AND NUMEROUS RENEWALS OF APPLICATIONS.
44 APPLICATIONS WERE RECEIVED AND 937 LOTS WERE PROTECTED.
IN 2022, THE MINIMUM BUILDING LINES
[00:05:01]
INCLUDED RENEWAL APPLICATIONS.UM, 26 NEW APPLICATIONS IN 543 LOTS WERE PROTECTED.
UM, HERE'S THE BIG NUMBER GUYS.
YOU CONSIDERED 3,701 SUBDIVISION PLAT APPLICATIONS IN 2022.
THAT IS A 20% INCREASE FROM THE YEAR 2021.
AND, UM, WE RECORDED 1,508 PLATS PROVIDED 23, PROVIDED 202,339 RECORDATION APPOINTMENTS.
AND THIS IS A 20% INCREASE OVER LAST YEAR.
AND OUR STAFF HAS REMAINED CONSTANT.
SO WE HAVE NOT INCREASED BY 20%.
UM, THE FOLKS OVER AT THE HOUSTON PERMIT CENTER.
UM, THE FOLKS OVER AT THE HOUSTON PERMIT CENTER, UM, REVIEWED 19,269 APPLICATIONS IN 2022.
UM, WE HAVE A CURRENT STAFF OF EIGHT OVER THERE.
I I DO WANNA RECOGNIZE THAT RIGHT NOW OUR NUMBERS OVER AT THE PERMITTING CENTER ARE UNBELIEVABLY HIGH IN TERMS OF THE LENGTH OF TIME IT TAKES US TO GET TO A, UM, TO GET THROUGH A PLAN.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE ARE WORKING DILIGENTLY ON THAT.
UM, RIGHT NOW WE ARE LIMITED ON OUR STAFF.
ABOUT 50% OF OUR TEAM OVER THERE IS VACANT.
AND SO WE ARE, UM, WORKING TO GET MORE STAFF ON BOARD AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME.
SO THAT CONCLUDES THE NUMBERS FOR THIS REPORT.
UM, OH NO, WE'VE RECEIVED 12,230 EMAILS THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT'S MAIN INBOX THIS YEAR, WHICH IS ALSO AN INCREASE OVER LAST YEAR.
SO THIS WILL BE A YEAR OF JOY, OF GOOD WORK AND GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR ALL OF US.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING CLOSELY WITH EACH OF YOU AS WE CONTRIBUTE TO STRENGTHEN OUR COMMUNITY.
UM, IN CLOSING, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT (832) 393-6600, OR YOU CAN CALL THE DI DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNER OF THE DAY AT 8 3 2 3 9 360 6 24, OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM.
AND THOSE ARE SOME IMPRESSIVE NUMBERS.
I WANTED TO ADD MY CONGRATULATIONS TO THOSE, UH, COMMISSIONERS WHO WERE REAPPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL YESTERDAY AND A SPECIAL WELCOME TO LIBBY VIERA BLAND, WHO'S A NEW MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION.
UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAYOR'S REPORT? AND LET ME NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER HINES IS HERE.
WHAT DID I SAY, MAYOR? SORRY, BUT YOU GOT A BIG BOOK THERE.
[Approval of the December 15, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes]
OKAY WITH THAT, WE GO TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 15TH, UM, COMMISSION MEETING.UH, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES THAT WERE IN YOUR PACKET? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES? NOT A SECOND.
[Platting Activities A & B]
UH, THAT WILL TAKE US TO ROMAN NUMERAL ONE PLATTING ACTIVITY.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SECTIONS A AND B ARE PRESENTED AS ONE GROUP, WHICH INCLUDES CONSENT AND REPLANT ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION.
SECTIONS A AND B ARE ITEMS ONE THROUGH ONE 15 SECTION A.
CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 62 AND SECTION B REPLANT ITEMS ARE NUMBER 60 THROUGH 63 THROUGH ONE 15.
NO ITEMS NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MADAM CHAIR, IF THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSENT AND REPLANT ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION.
UM, BEFORE WE PROCEED, COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO TAKE SEPARATELY? COMMISSIONER SICKLER? YES.
ITEMS TWO 10 THROUGH 1371 THROUGH 73 AND 1 21 20 IS LATER.
UM, AND COMMISSIONER DALTON? YES, MADAM CHAIR ITEMS 2 6 16 41, 42 AND 67.
UM, SO DO WE, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP IN ADVANCE TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING IN SECTIONS A OR B.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE CHAT? IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE ITEMS FROM ITEM ONE TO ONE 15? HEARING NO RESPONSE? WE CAN GO AHEAD AND PROCEED ON VOTING ON SECTIONS A AND B AND WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ALL ITEMS. SAVE AND ACCEPT ITEMS 2, 6 10 THROUGH 13 16, 41, 42, 67, AND 71 THROUGH 73.
MOTION, VICTOR, IS THERE A SECOND FOR PERLE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[00:10:01]
ON THE REMAINDER, WHICH WILL BE 2 6 10 THROUGH 13.16 41, 42, 67 AND 71 THROUGH 73.
IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION CLARK SECOND JONES.
OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES NOTING THAT COMMISSIONERS, UH, DALTON AND SIGLER ABSTAINED.
[c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification]
THAT WE GO TO PUBLIC HEARING SECTION C.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM ONE 16 IS ELISE PARK, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE, THE SIZE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF ARNOLD AND CHANDLER STREETS, NTA MEMORIAL DRIVE IN HOUSTON.
THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT AND PL A PORTION OF A SHARED DRIVEWAY.
THERE ARE NO VARIS REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
SAS RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT TO ALLOW LEGAL ADDITIONAL TIME TO REVIEW DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE REPLYING THE A PORTION OF THE CHAIR DRIVEWAY STAFF HAS RECEIVED ADVANCED COMMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF HAMILTON PARK, HOA, TO MAINTAIN THE THREE FEET, UH, EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSES TO REMAIN CLEAR OF PERMANENT STRUCTURES AND FREE OF VEGETATION THAT MAY DAMAGE THE, THE WATER PIPES, UM, IN THIS EASEMENT.
AND THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF THE HAMILTON PARK IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REPL.
MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM ONE 16.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE CHAT OR ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ALICE PARK? ITEM ONE 16, HEARING NO RESPONSE, I'LL TURN TO THE COMMISSION.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER MODEST, I'LL PUT A MOTION TO DEFER, BUT I'LL JUST WANNA GET ON THE RECORD THAT THEY LOOK AT THAT CENTER POINT COMMENT BECAUSE THEY COULD CREATE A CODE CLEARANCE ISSUE THAT THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE IF THEY DO NOT PAY ATTENTION TO THAT.
UM, SO WITH THAT, I'LL PUT A MOTION TO DEFER.
UH, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND TO DEFER.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF DEFERRAL SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
ITEM ONE 16 IS DEFERRED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED.
THE SITE IS LOCATED AT LARE WAY AND CORP STREETS EAST OF SCOT STREET AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REPLY IS TO CREATE FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ONE 17 CANDY ESTATES IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 17 HEARING? NO RESPONSE? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IS THERE DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION HINES HINES, CLARK, CLARK.
ITEM ONE 18 IS DOLORES VILLAS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH ALONG DOLORES STREET, EAST OF BARING STREET AND WEST OF CHIMNEY ROCK ROAD IN HOUSTON.
THE REASON FOR REPLY IS TO CREATE SIX LOTS AND ONE PARKING RESERVE ALONG A SHARED DRIVEWAY.
THERE ARE NO VAR REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OF THOSE FILES SEPARATELY.
STAFF HAS NOW RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICATION.
MADAM CHAIR, IT PLEASES COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM.
AT THIS TIME, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ONE 18 DOLORES VILLAS IS OPEN.
ANYONE LISTENING WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 18 HEARING? NO RESPONSE TO PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE.
IF THERE IS NO FURTHER NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? ALLMAN? IS THERE A SECOND JONES? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THE SIGNS LOCATED IN, IN HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS AT THE INTERSECTION OF RED BUD AND ALBERTA STREETS EAST OF SCOTT STREET.
THE REASON FOR REPLY IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO BEARINGS REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
[00:15:01]
THE PLAT WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW LEGAL TIME TO REVIEW ADDITIONAL DE RESTRICTIONS THAT WAS PROVIDED BY A CONCERNED CITIZEN LEGAL REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS AND HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED.STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS STAFF HAS RECEIVED ADVANCED COMMENTS AGAIN, UH, THAT THIS PLAT WILL VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM ONE 19 ALBERTA VILLA IS CONTINUED.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ALBERTA VILLA ONE 19 HEARING NO RESPONSE.
UM, IS THERE DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE SIGLER? IS THERE A SECOND CLARK? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM ONE 20, ITEM ONE 20 IS ELI IN SECTION 41.
REPL NUMBER ONE, THE SCIENCE LOCATED WEST ALONG PORTER ROAD, EAST OF KATY HOCKLEY CUT OFF IN HOUSTON.
EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
THE REASON FOR PLAT IS TO ADJUST LOT LINES AND CREATE 114 LOTS AND EIGHT RESERVES.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCE COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
MADAM CHAIR PLEASES THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM ONE 20 IS OPEN.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 20? ALL SECTION 41 REPL NUMBER ONE, HEARING NO RESPONSE.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IS THERE DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION JONES? SECOND.
NOTE THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER SIGLER HAS ABSTAINED.
ITEM 1 21 IS GEORGE HEIGHTS REPL NUMBER ONE THE SIZE LOCATED EAST ALONG THE GEORGE STREET WEST OF FUGATE STREET, WEST OF MAIN STREET AND HOUSTON.
CORPORATE LIMITS THE PROPERTY STUBS INTO FUGATE STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS EXTENDING FUGATE STREET TO THE T TWO DE GEORGE STREET.
AND, UM, THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE 10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND CREATE A RIGHT OF WAY.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THE PLAT WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION PER CHAPTER 42.
THE APPLICANT HAS REVISED THE PLAT AND THE PLAT MEETS CHAPTER 42.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO PROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM.
CONDITIONS STAFF HAS RECEIVED COMMENTS IN ADVANCE CONCERNING THIS PLAT IN OPPOSITION OF EXTENDING FUGATE STREET.
THERE WERE CONCERNS, UM, THAT THIS, THAT THERE WERE AN OPPOSITION OF EXTENDING FUGATE STREET.
THEY INDICATED THAT THE EXTENSION OF THE STREET WOULD CAUSE HIGHER VOLUMES OF TRAFFIC INCREASE IN STREET PARKING AND TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS AND FLOODING.
MADAM CHAIR FOR PLEASES THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 1 21, GEORGE HEIGHTS IS CONTINUED.
I JUST, I BEFORE WE START, CAN YOU JUST POINT OUT THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 42 SINCE LAST TIME.
IS IT MAINLY JUST THE ALIGNMENT OF THE STREET? YES.
UM, INITIALLY THEY HAD, THEY, THEY SHOWED LIKE THE, THE STREET CURVE.
SO THE REVERSE CURVE WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
AND SO NOW THEY HAVE STRAIGHTENED THE STREET OUT.
AND THE STREET IS A REQUIREMENT OF CHAPTER 42? YES.
UM, I, AND JUST TO POINT OUT, WHILE WE MAY NOT LIKE IT, IT MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA AND THE COMMISSION DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DENY IT IF IT MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA.
THIS IS FOR US AT THIS POINT, A SHALL APPROVE ITEM.
THERE'S NO VARIANCE REQUESTED, NO VARIANCES.
THE FIRST SPEAKER I HAVE IS LAWRENCE FBO.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND ESTEEMED COMMISSIONERS.
[00:20:02]
UM, THANK YOU FOR HEARING US TODAY.UM, I'VE GOT A HANDOUT THAT'S, UM, COMING AROUND AND ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THAT THIS PLAT HAS DRAWN IS, UM, SHOWS AN INACCURACY MAINLY THAT, UM, WATSON STREET DOES NOT ACTUALLY DEAD END INTO LOT TWO.
IT CONTINUES ON INTO A, UH, A GATED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.
AND ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE HAVE IS THAT INACCURACY SHOULD BE CORRECTED BEFORE IT IS FORMALLY APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.
UM, IF THAT IS, UH, SHALL APPROVE.
THE OTHER ASPECT TO THIS SORT OF CENTERS AROUND THAT, AND IT'S MAINLY, UM, THE COMMUNITY CONCERNS ABOUT SAFETY AND THE INCREASED TRAFFIC THAT MAY COME INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THE APARTMENT, UM, ACROSS THE STREET, LOTS OF PEOPLE WILL PARK ALONG THAT THE CHRIST THE KING PARISHIONERS DO NOT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, TRAFFIC AND PARKING DOES EXTEND ONTO TO GEORGE.
AND WITH THIS EXTENSION INTO NOR HILL, WHICH HAS BEEN CLOSED FOR A HUNDRED YEARS, THAT WILL COME INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, SO WE, WE REQUEST THAT THERE BE SOME ACCOMMODATION IN THE FUTURE IF THAT STREET IS DEVELOPED FOR A DA COMPLIANT, UH, SIDEWALKS.
UM, SOME BETTER SIGNAGE, UM, UM, STREET CUSHIONS PERHAPS TO MANAGE THE TRAFFIC.
UM, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD LIKE TO BE A PART OF THAT DISCUSSION IF THIS IS IN FACT APPROVED.
AND AGAIN, UM, WE THINK THAT A A, A TRAFFIC STUDY OF SOME SORT WOULD BE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT BY THE CITY, UM, IN THIS, UH, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN.
I MEAN, JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE STAFF WORKED VERY HARD WITH THE PEOPLE TO KEEP THE ORIGINAL VERSION WITHOUT THE FRONT LOADING.
I MEAN, WE DON'T PARTICULARLY LIKE ALL THESE CURB CUTS.
WE'VE WORKED VERY HARD TO NOT HAVE ALL THESE CURB CUTS, BUT THERE'S NOT MUCH WE HAVE IN OUR BANDWIDTH TO BE ABLE TO STOP IT.
FOR THE SPEED CUSHIONS THAT YOU GO THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT REALLY HAVE THE POCKET OF MONEY FOR THAT SORT OF THING.
AND THE SIDEWALKS WILL BE A REQUIREMENT AT PERMITTING OR WHATEVER.
THEY, THEY WON'T NECESSARILY SHOW UP HERE ON THE PLA BUT, BUT WE HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR AND THERE'S JUST NOT MUCH WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.
BUT I DO WANNA APPLAUD THE STAFF.
WORKED VERY HARD TO TRY AND CONVINCE THE DEVELOPER TO KEEP THE SHARED DRIVE, TO PRESERVE THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THE EXTRA PARKING AND NOT OPEN THE STREET.
THERE JUST WAS NOT MUCH THEY COULD DO ABOUT IT.
WE WERE VERY HAPPY WITH THE FIRST ITERATION OF THIS.
WE THOUGHT WE SOLVED THE PROBLEM AND IT, IT, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
AND WE, WE WISH WE HAD MORE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
I, I NOTE THAT WE ARE JOINED BY RICHARD SMITH, WHO IS, UH, OUR REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COMMISSION FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
UM, MR. SMITH, WELCOME BACK AND PERHAPS AFTER THE SPEAKERS YOU MIGHT TALK WITH THEM ABOUT THE PROCESSES GOING FORWARD.
I THINK A DA COMPLIANCE IS A, A GIVEN COR, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.
UM, BUT YEAH, WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND LET JUST RICHARD SMITH, WHO DO YOU SAY? HOLD ON, MR. FIBO.
GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS AND MADAM CHAIR.
BUT YES, A DA WOULD BE A GIVEN ON ANY DEVELOPMENT GOING IN.
AND PUBLIC WORKS WOULD REQUIRE THAT TO BE SATISFIED, SO.
AND YOU MIGHT TALK WITH THEM ABOUT THE SPEED CUSHION PROCESS GOING FORWARD.
I, I'M NOT EVEN, YES MA'AM, I WILL.
AS SOON AS THEY FINISH WITH YOU GUYS, FINISH WITH THIS ITEM.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. FIBO? YEAH, JUST ABOUT THE INACCURACY OF THE PLAT DRAWING.
YEAH, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA GET THEM TO ADDRESS THAT.
YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEAK, I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS MY, YOUR OPPOSITION.
OKAY, SO MS. POPLE, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE, UM, ALLEGATION THAT THERE'S A MISTAKE? WE DIDN'T FIND ANY, UM, INACCURACIES TO THE PLA DRAWING.
I THINK HE MAY BE CONFUSED WHERE HE SAID THAT THERE WAS A GATE.
THE STREET HASN'T BEEN OPENED UP YET, SO THEREFORE IT WA IT, THAT'S WHY IT, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT
SO WE'RE SURE ABOUT IF YOU COULD TURN TO THE, UM, THAT DRAWING SHOWS A FOUR-WAY STOP, A FOUR-WAY INTERSECTION, NOT A THREE-WAY.
CAN YOU TURN TO THE, UM, EXISTING CONDITION SURVEY? GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS, I THINK THE INACCURACY IS ON THE, UH, PLATE TO A JOINERS.
AND IT IS THAT THE WATSON STREET IS SHOWN AS IT JUST TEAS INTO FEW GATE STREET
[00:25:01]
ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.IT APPEARS THAT WATSON PROBABLY GOES STRAIGHT THROUGH.
I DON'T KNOW, UH, IF IT'S THE RIGHT, UH, INFORMATION, BUT WE WILL CHECK THAT IT IS A PRELIMINARY PLOT.
IT IS THE ADJOINING INFORMATION AND ADJOINING INFORMATION WILL BE CHECKED BEFORE IT GETS RECORDED.
SO WE'LL HAVE ALL OF THAT DONE TODAY.
IT'S A DEPICTION OF THE PLAT IS WHAT YOU ARE APPROVING, NOT THE SURROUNDINGS.
SO WE'LL MAKE SURE THE SURROUNDINGS ARE CORRECTED.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? I THINK WE DO.
SHE'S JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
UM, MS. VIAL, ARE YOU HERE? I DON'T SEE HER.
OR ARE YOU ON A PHONE? GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS IS BARRY VIAL, THE AIRFIELD GROUP, AND I AM HERE.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO, UM, CLARIFY THAT THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER, HE WASN'T PERMITTING TO GET THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAT, UH, PERMITTED, BUT AT THE TIME WHEN WE HAD REQUESTED THE VARIANCES TO NOT RUN IT THROUGH STREET, UH, THE CITY ENGINEER HAD, UH, INFORMED US THAT, UH, HE WOULD WORK WITH THE CLIENT ON DETENTION.
BUT, AND THEN THE PLAT WAS RECORDED, THEY WENT TO PERMITTING.
BUT THEN WHEN HE WENT TO PERMITTING, UH, THE DEVELOPER INFORMED ME THAT THE CITY ENGINEER HAD STATED THAT HE HAD MADE A MISTAKE AND HE WAS NOT ABLE TO, UH, PROVIDE NO DETENTION WITH THE, SO THAT'S WHY THEY'VE HAD A DIFFICULT TIME TRYING TO GET THROUGH PERMITTING FOR THE SHARED DRIVEWAY OPTION.
AND IT'S TAKEN SUCH A LONG TIME AND THEY JUST NEED TO GET THE PROJECT GOING.
SO THEY DECIDED TO GO BACK IN AND FORTH JUST TO FRONT LOAD HIM.
SO HE, THE DEVELOPER IS WILLING TO, UH, STAY WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAT IF HE CAN, IF THE CITY ENGINEER'S WILLING TO WORK WITH HIM.
THEY HAVE SUBMITTED A VARIANCE TO THE CITY ENGINEER, BUT THEY'RE STILL WAITING TO HEAR BACK.
SO, UM, I SEE MR. SMITH COMING FORWARD.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT.
UM, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT UNDER CHAPTER 19, THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD BE CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES.
NOW THE CITY ENGINEER MAY BE ABLE TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO THAT ASPECT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO, AND I ALSO BELIEVE, LIKE I SAID, UNDER CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES, THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE DETENTION.
AND WE DID ESTABLISH THAT AT OUR LAST MEETING THAT DETENTION'S REQUIRED.
AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S IN SUPPORT OF WAIVING DETENTION REQUIREMENTS AT THIS.
BECAUSE THEY WON'T BE ABLE, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE SUBDIVIDING THIS LOT OR THIS PLAT UP, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO SUB SUBDIVIDING THE PLOT.
THE PLAT WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO GET OUT OF THE DETENTION OF THAT HOLE PIECE OF PROPERTY.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SMITH? THANK YOU MR. SMITH.
UH, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK IF WE'VE GOT ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO'S LISTENING WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 21? GEORGE HEIGHTS? YES, THIS IS PHIL AUGH.
COULD YOU GO AHEAD AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME FOR US, PHIL? YES.
IT'S MACN, LIKE NANCY, A-U-G-H-T-O-N.
OH, SO WHAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT, AND, AND I APPRECIATE THERE'S LIMITATIONS ON YOUR JURISDICTION, BUT THERE IS A SAFETY ISSUE AS TRAFFIC WILL BE INCREASED ALONG FUGATE.
THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE PLAT THAT RELATES TO SAFETY.
AND IT'S NOT JUST A TECHNICAL ISSUE THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE THE PLAT AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
WATSON AND FUGATE DO CONSTITUTE A T AND THERE IS SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC ACROSS THERE.
SO IF FUGATE IS OPENED UP, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IN THERE.
NOBODY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T WANT IT OPENED.
THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T WANT IT OPENED.
IT'S ONLY OPENED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IN ORDER TO AVOID A DETENTION REQUIREMENT.
HOWEVER, YOU COULD TAKE THAT SAME SPACE AND INSTEAD OF POURING CONCRETE ON IT, YOU COULD MAKE IT A POCKET PARK.
A POCKET PARK, EXCUSE ME, THAT WOULD NOT INJURE DETENTION.
IN FACT, IT WOULD IMPROVE IT BECAUSE GROUND ABSORBS WATER BETTER THAN CONCRETE DOES.
SO WHY THAT WASN'T THOUGHT ABOUT BEFORE? I DON'T KNOW.
I'M SURE THE DEVELOPER WOULD RATHER HAVE THAT BE A PARK THAN HAVE TO GO BUY CONCRETE AND BUILD A STREET THAT NOBODY WANTS AND WOULD DECREASE SAFETY.
AND I AGREE, WE DON'T WANT TO NOT HAVE DETENTION, BUT WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO PRIORITIZE DETENTION, ESPECIALLY ON NEEDED DETENTION OVER THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN AND OTHER PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I DO.
KAREN, CAN YOU SPELL YOUR LAST NAME FOR US? MS.
[00:30:01]
SURE.MY NAME'S KAREN ECKER WITH MY HUSBAND.
WE LIVE AT EIGHT 12 FUGATE AND WE ALSO OWN ONE OF THE DE GEORGE CONDOMINIUMS THAT WATSON, AS THEY TALK ABOUT, GOES INTO.
WE HAVE A STRONG FINANCIAL INTEREST IN OUR HISTORICAL NOR HILL NEIGHBORHOOD, PARTICULARLY THIS SECTION THAT IS BEING MOST IMPACTED.
WILLIAM HOGG, THE FIRST CITY PLANNER, DESIGNED OUR NEIGHBORHOOD 100 YEARS AGO AS A NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE WORKING PEOPLE FOR 100 YEARS.
FUGATE HAS BEEN A DEAD END STREET WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF FUGATE, AS WELL AS BEHIND THE DEAD END.
FACING THE CHURCH ON THE GEORGE.
THE HISTORICAL DESIGN HAS PASSED THE TEST OF TIME AND REMAINS THE DESIRE OF THE DEVELOPER AS WELL AS OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS DESIGN QUOTES THE SAFEST DESIGN TO OUR PEDESTRIANS AND SUPPORTS THE CITY'S LIVABILITY AND WALKABILITY DESIRES OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS INTERSECTION IS A WELL USED ROUTE FOR HOMEOWNERS TO GO TO PROCTOR PLAZA PARK WITH OVER 70% OF THEM USING THE MAIN STREET TO WALK ON, NOT THE SIDEWALKS YET.
ONLY THE CITY PLANNERS WANT TO DISRUPT OUR CURRENT DESIGN BY BUILDING A THROUGH STREET, CREATING AN UNSAFE HIGH TRAFFIC AREA, PUT AN UNDUE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE DEVELOPER AND SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASING THE CITY'S PROPERTY TAXES THROUGH FOUR FEWER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS BEING BUILT.
AND THE DECREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES OF ALL OF OUR HOMES ON Q GATE.
AS OUR STREET BECOMES AN OVERFLOW PARKING, A QUICK ESTIMATE OF LOSS OF A MINIMUM OF $55,000 PER YEAR TO THE COUNTY, THE CITY, AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN TAXES.
THE EXTRA PROPERTY TAXES ARE NEEDED AT THIS TIME FOR THE COUNTY, THE CITY AND HISD.
MORE THAN THE NEED TO CREATE THIS THROUGH STREET, WE ARE ZONED TO A SCHOOL WITH A D RATING.
AND YET YOU ARE FOREGOING TAX DOLLARS FOR WHAT'S GAINED.
THIS APPLICATION IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY, OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD, THE DEVELOPER OR PROPERTY TAXES EARNED BY THE COUNTY, THE CITY, AND HISD.
WE ASK THAT YOU DISAPPROVE AND WE ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD HIS 13 HOMES PER HIS ORIGINAL REQUEST WITH AN APPROPRIATE VARIANCE TO CHAPTER 42.
THIS IS THE ONLY WIN-WIN FOR ALL CONCERNED.
OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD, THE DEVELOPER, HARRIS COUNTY, CITY OF HOUSTON, AND HISD.
NO, JUST ANOTHER CLARIFICATION.
MR. SMITH, WHILE THEY'RE DEDICATING THE RIGHT OF WAY, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO BUILD THAT STREET TO THE CITY STANDARD, RIGHT? THEY'LL BE REQUIRED TO BUILD THE STREET.
IT WOULD BE REQUIRED, I MEAN, I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS GONNA BE PUT ON THE CPC THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BUILD THAT SECTION OF THE ROADWAY TO CITY STANDARDS TO CITY STANDARD.
IT WOULD BE BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS ANYTIME.
AND THEY'LL STILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE DETENTION FOR THE 10 THAT THEY HAVE.
SO ANY, ANY LOTS HAVE, THEY'RE BUILDING THREE LESS HOUSES, HAVING TO BUILD A CITY STREET.
I, I'M STILL BEWILDERED BY MS. VILLAREAL AND WHY WE CAN'T COME TO SOME COMPROMISE HERE, WHICH I'D BE WILLING TO GRANT SOME VARIANCE FOR THE STREET CONNECTION IF WE GOT SOMETHING.
WHY CAN'T THE DETENTION GO THERE IN A COMMUNITY PARK THAT THEY, I MEAN, ISN'T, ISN'T THERE A COMPROMISE HERE? NOT DEDICATE THE STREET, CREATE THAT AS THE GREEN SPACE WHERE HIS DETENTION WOULD GO? I THINK THE COMPROMISE WOULD HAVE TO INCLUDE THE 13 UNITS WITHOUT THE CURB CUT.
NO, YEAH, WITHOUT THE CURB CUTS.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR THE DETENTION, WHICH WAS THE INCREASED COST.
SO SURELY THE STREET COSTS MORE THAN THE DETENTION.
I'LL REMIND COMMISSION THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING TODAY.
WHAT'S, CAN YOU PUT YOUR MICROPHONE ON PLEASE? I THINK IT IS ON, NO, CAN'T HEAR YOU.
WE HAVE A SURFACE OF MICROPHONES TODAY.
UM, I'D REMIND COMMISSION THAT WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THE PLAT AS DRAWN, NOT WITH A VARIANCE.
IT'S NOT POSTED ON THE AGENDA.
UM, THIS PLAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 40 OF CHAPTER 42 AND CHAPTER TWO 12 OF STATE LAW, WHICH MEANS THAT IT MUST BE APPROVED UNLESS WE CAN POINT TO SOMETHING IN THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
[00:35:01]
THAT IT DOES NOT MEET.AND WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT PRECISE INFORMATION TO THE DEVELOPER.
IF THE DEVELOPER'S REPRESENTATIVE WISHES TO WITHDRAW TO GO BACK AND REVISIT THIS.
THEY HAVE THAT, THAT OPTION OR SEEK A DEFERRAL FROM THIS.
YES, BUT I DON'T THINK, WE CAN'T DEFER AGAIN, CAN'T BE DEFERRED AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE 30 DAYS.
I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER BALDWIN WAS, WAS ACTUALLY ASKING, OR AT LEAST WHAT I HEARD HIM ASKING, WAS FOR THE APPLICANT TO THINK ABOUT THE COST DIFFERENCE.
HE'S THAT, THAT THEY ARE GIVING UP THE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY FOR A STREET AS OPPOSED TO PAYING FOR A DETENTION.
AND I THINK THAT'S, I THINK HIS QUESTION WAS DIRECTED MORE AT THE APPLICANT THAN IT WAS AT CHANGING THIS PLAT.
YES, THE PLAT WILL, OH, I'M SORRY.
THE PLAT WILL SPECIFY THAT THOSE TWO END PROPERTIES WILL HAVE TO TAKE ACCESS OFF THE STREET.
THERE'S NO WAY NOT TO BUILD THAT STREET.
CAN, CAN WE HEAR FROM THE, UH, DEVELOPER, UH, CAN WE HEAR FROM THE DEVELOPER IF THEY HAVE, UH, ANY COMMENTS? YEAH.
MS. VIAL, ARE YOU STILL THERE? I AM.
UM, I DO NOT HAVE THE DEVELOPER ONLINE, I BELIEVE, BUT, UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ABOUT GETTING THE PRELIMINARY PLOT APPROVED.
UM, WE, I CAN DISCUSS WITH THE DEVELOPER AND PLAN STAFF, UH, BUT OTHER OPTIONS, UH, IF THE DEVELOPER WERE TO CHOOSE TO HAVE A DIFFERENT OPTION, UH, IF FEES COULD BE WAIVED FOR A UB SUBMITTAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLA.
UM, ALSO WE CHECKED ON WATSON STREET.
IT APPEARS THAT WATSON STREET IS, DOES HAVE, UH, LIKE A PRIVATE STREET ACROSS THE WAY, BUT IT'S SHOWN THAT WAY BECAUSE IT'S A PRIVATE STREET.
SO IT'S NOT PART OF, IT'S NOT A PUBLIC STREET.
IT DOESN'T LOOK THAT WAY, BUT WE'LL DOUBLE CHECK THAT BEFORE FINAL
ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONER HINES? NO.
YOU UNDERSTAND WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO WAIVE THOSE FEES? WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THE ORDINANCE.
BELIEVE ME, THE CITY DEPARTMENTS THEMSELVES WOULD LOVE IT IF WE WOULD WAIVE THE FEES FOR THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO EVEN DO THAT.
SO, BUT I'M, I I I PLEASE WAIVE THE COST OF THAT STREET VERSUS, AND THE LOSS OF THREE HOUSES AND THE DETENTION REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU HAVE VERSUS JUST THE ORIGINAL DETENTION REQUIREMENTS.
I'M NOT A BUILDER, BUT I SURE WOULD THINK THE ORIGINAL PLAT WOULD BE WAY MORE COST EFFECTIVE.
YOU'D BE A HERO TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE YOU CAN AT PLEASE FIGURE OUT SOME WAY TO MAKE THIS WORK, MS. MOTHER.
IF IF THEY, WE APPROVE IT THIS WAY AND IT COMES BACK FOR THE FINAL APPROVAL, CAN IT BE SWITCHED? NO, BUT THEY, THEY GOOD, GOOD AFTERNOON.
MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION, THEMA, AGAIN, THE PREVIOUS PLAT HA IS APPROVED, AND MARY, YOU CAN CORRECT ME.
IT IS APPROVED THE FINAL FOR THE PRELIM PREVIOUS ONE IS APPROVED.
SO THEY COULD, IF THEY WANT TO PROCEED WITH THAT ONE, THEY COULD, THEY, THEY, THEY CAN HAVE TWO PLOTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND THEN THEY CAN CHOOSE WHICH ONE TO RECORD BEFORE IT EXPIRES.
THAT'S A LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL.
THE DEVELOPER, WE SPOKE WITH THE DEVELOPER AND HE, THEY WERE NOT AWARE THEY WERE EVEN GONNA HAVE TO PAY.
I'M SORRY, MS. NECKER, IS THAT YOU? YES.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND CALL OTHER SPEAKERS AT THIS POINT.
WHO ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? GEORGE HEIGHTS.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE? YEAH, IT'S ANTHONY LYNN HERE.
L-A-N-I-E-R? NO, NO, THAT'S ANTHONY WYNN.
UH, SO I LIVE IN THE DEAD END.
I'M ONE OF THE THREE HOUSES THERE.
I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THAT DEVELOPMENT, UH, FOR THE NEW TOWN TOWN HOMES.
AND THERE'S SINGLE FAMILY HOMES UNDER GEORGIA.
I'M JUST EXPOSED TO THE, UH, EXTENDING OF THE DEAD END, MAKING IT A THROUGH STREET.
UM, THIS WILL TURN THAT INTERSECTION TO A MAJOR INLET AND OUTLET OF NORWELL THROUGH, UH, TO GET THROUGH NORTH MAIN.
AGAIN, THE CURRENT PLAT SHOWS A INTERSECTION.
THAT'S A MISREPRESENTATION, YOU KNOW, HOW CAN YOU MAKE A DECISION ON DRAWINGS THAT ACTUALLY DON'T SHOW THE ACTUAL TRAFFIC? UH, IT'S ACTUALLY A FOUR-WAY INTERSECTION, WHICH IS CURRENTLY VERY DANGEROUS.
MANY PEOPLE RUN THAT STOP SIGN, MAKING A LEFT, GOING WEST ON FUGATE, AND THEN A RIGHT TO GET ONTO WATSON.
MANY DRIVERS DO MAKE THE WRONG TURN INTO THE DEAD END, UH, UP TO 12, UH, DRIVERS A DAY.
THIS INCREASE IN TRAFFIC, UH, TO FUGATE, UH, TO, TO GEORGE WILL MAKE IT UNSAFE FOR MY KIDS
[00:40:01]
THAT DO PLAY OUTSIDE ON THE SIDEWALK AND ARE, AND, UM, AND, AND THE DEAD END AS WELL AS FOR THE NEIGHBORS, THE FOLKS WALKING THEIR DOGS, AND ANYBODY ELSE WHO USES OUR DEAD END AS A WALK SPACE AND AS A TURNAROUND AND SAYING, HOW DOES IT OPENING THE DEAD END THAT HAS BEEN CLOSED FOR A HUNDRED YEARS, AFFECT THE TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC ON FUNNELING, UH, TRAFFIC, UH, THROUGH FUGATE FROM NORTH MAIN STREET AND 14TH STREET OR OTHER STREETS.I KNOW IN CHAPTER 42, IT REQUIRES EITHER, UH, THAT TURNED INTO A CUL-DE-SAC OR EXTENDING THE STREET.
WHY CAN'T A VARIANCE BE APPROVED BY THE CITY TO, UH, NOT EXTEND THE STREET? UH, OTHER OPTIONS WOULD BE, AGAIN, TURNING INTO A GREEN SPACE, A POCKET PARK INSTEAD OF DEVELOPING, UH, YOU KNOW, AVOIDING DETENTION AND HAVING TO BUILD A STREET.
I, AND ACTUALLY THE COMMISSION DID APPROVE A VARIANCE TO, TO DO A DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT WITH A CUL-DE-SAC AND, UM, A DIFFERENT TYPE OF, UH, PARK AT, WITH A SHARED DRIVEWAY AT THE REAR, I GUESS.
WAS IT, IT WAS IT, WAS IT AT THE REAR OR THE FRONT? UM, TO AVOID THE CURB CUTS ONTO GEORGE? IT WAS ON THE FRONT.
UM, BUT ANYWAY, BUT THE DEVELOPER HAS ELECTED TO GO THIS WAY.
AND, AND AS WE SAID, FOR US, THIS MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND WE ARE, UH, YOU KNOW, OBLIGATED TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE IT.
UM, HOWEVER, THERE IS A CHANCE THAT, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN NOW AND FINAL RECORDATION, THEY'LL GO WITH THE OTHER PLAT AND WE HOPE THEY DO.
UM, BUT THAT'S ABOUT ALL WE CAN DO.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON GEORGE HEIGHTS? MA'AM, CHAIR THERE IS A JEFF EMERSON, A-M-E-R-S-O-N IN THE CHAT.
I AM A 23 YEAR RESIDENT OF FUGATE, JUST FIVE OR SIX HOUSES FROM THIS DEAD END.
UH, I DON'T KNOW IF, IF THE COMMISSION, UH, FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE WAY THIS JUST DEAD ENDS AND THEN IT BACKS UP TO THE PROPERTY WHERE THE, WHERE THE NEW, UH, DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE.
AS MR. WIND SAID, THIS HAS BEEN THIS WAY FOR A HUNDRED YEARS.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE ARE A HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE PEOPLE HAVE CHOSEN TO MOVE FOR THE QUALITY OF LIFE.
AND EXTENDING FUGATE THROUGH TO THE, TO THE GEORGE, BASICALLY TO NORTH MAIN STREET, IS GOING TO SERIOUSLY DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN PROCTOR PLAZA AND ON FUGATE CHILDREN.
AND PEOPLE PLAY IN THIS AREA WHERE THERE ARE ONLY THREE HOMES, FOUR, IF YOU COUNT THE OTHER SIDE, UM, CHILDREN LEARN TO RIDE THEIR BICYCLES THERE.
I, I WOULD LIKE THE COMMITTEE TO, TO SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLITICIZING SOMETHING AND MAINTAINING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SECTION OF THE HEIGHTS, OPENING FUGATE WILL DEGRADE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WORKED LONG AND HARD TO RECEIVE THE PROTECTION OF THE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION.
UM, WE HAVE MOVED HERE FROM ALL PARTS OF THE CITY.
WE'VE COME IN FROM THE WOODLANDS.
WE'VE COME IN FROM KATY, WE'VE CHOSEN TO LIVE RIGHT WHERE WE ARE.
IT'S VERY CONFUSING WHEN I SIT HERE AND I HEAR, WE MUST APPROVE THIS, THIS IS UP FOR VOTE, SO JUST DON'T APPROVE IT.
AND THEN WE'RE LEFT WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAT, THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT THAT WAS ALREADY MADE.
SO THIS IS VERY CONFUSING TO SOMEONE WHO PAYS TAXES.
THIS IS GOING TO INCREASE NOISE.
THIS IS GOING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC WHEN IT IS OPEN, THE EXCESS CARS WILL BE PARKING UP AND DOWN FUGATE INSTEAD OF ON THE STREET WHERE THE PROPERTY ACTUALLY EXISTS.
NONE OF US UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DOING THIS, TO TAKE CARS AND TRAFFIC FROM THE STREET WHERE THE PROPERTY WILL BE AND THEN BRING THEM THROUGH THE BACK DOOR AND INTO OUR STREET.
SO I ASK YOU TO VOTE NO TO THIS AND HELP US MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
MR. EMERSON, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TODAY? OKAY.
WITH THE HEARING? NO RESPONSE.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 1 21 IS CLOSED.
UM, COMMISSION STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER BALDWIN.
COULD, COULD WE JUST HAVE LEGAL WEIGH IN ONE MORE TIME ON WHY WE CAN'T VOTE? NO, IT IT, YEAH.
FOR THE PUBLIC EVERY SO OFTEN, EVERYBODY LISTENS.
SO WE HAVE MADAM CHAIR, OH, EXCUSE ME, MADAM CHAIR.
UM, SOMEONE IN THE CHAT JUST, UM, SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION IF I REOPEN THE HEARING TO HEAR FROM ONE OTHER SPEAKER? HEARING NO OBJECTION.
WHAT'S THE NAME? UM, CAROLINE.
[00:45:01]
CAROLINE STRONG.I'LL TYPE IT, I'LL TYPE IT IN THE CHAT.
YEAH, I HAD SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
UM, SO I DISAGREE WITH ALL OF MY FELLOW NEIGHBORS ON THIS.
AND IT WAS NEWS TO ME HEARING THAT THE DEVELOPER ALREADY HAS ANOTHER PLAN APPROVED THAT THEY COULD GO WITH.
AND SO I JUST WANT TO PUSH FOR THAT.
NO, EVEN THOUGH IT SOUNDS LIKE YES, YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO APPROVE IT 'CAUSE IT MEET REQUIREMENTS.
PUSHING THAT NO WILL REALLY HELP US OUT AS NEIGHBORS BECAUSE WE DON'T OPPOSE, YOU KNOW, TO DEVELOP THEIR HOMES.
IT'S JUST WHY DO YOU NEED TO OPEN THE DEAD END WHEN THERE'S ALREADY ANOTHER PLAN APPROVED THAT DOESN'T OPEN THE DEAD END.
AND IT WILL MAKE OUR COMMUNITY VERY HAPPY AND AGREEING WITH THE NEIGHBORS TOO, AND SAYING, THIS IS A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS WHY YOU HAVE THESE THINGS IN PLACE FOR THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD TO PROTECT THINGS LIKE THIS.
AT THIS POINT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AGAIN.
UM, WE'LL TURN TO OUR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, KIM NICHOLSON, TO DO YOU WANNA RESPOND TO COMMISSIONER BALDWIN'S QUESTION ABOUT WHY WE MUST APPROVE IT? PLAT APPROVAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE VERY TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING BASED, AND STATE LAW RECOGNIZES THAT, AND IT'S THE STATE LEGISLATURE WHO HAS IMPOSED THAT REQUIREMENT THAT IF A PLAT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER TWO 12 OF THE STATE LAWS, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND CHAPTER 42, AND OTHER ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS, THAT THE CITY ADOPTS THAT A PLAT MUST BE APPROVED.
AND THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY USE THERE.
AND IT'S DESIGNED TO TAKE AWAY DISCRETION FROM WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE SOMETHING VERY TECHNICAL.
UM, WE HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THIS IS A RE PLAT, UM, THAT WAS FORMERLY RESIDENTIAL.
AND SO WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY THAT AS WELL.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE IS DISCRETION TO DO ANYTHING ELSE BEYOND WHAT OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES.
AND AS I NOTED BEFORE, UM, TWO, I BELIEVE TWO SESSIONS AGO, THE LEGISLATURE ADDED LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE TO BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT A VALID FINDING IN OUR CODE OR OUR REGULATIONS, A VALID REASON FOR DENIAL OF A PLAT SO THAT THE ENGINEER KNOWS WHAT THEY MISSED.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR, FOR MS. MICKELSON? YES.
AND WHEN DO WE HAVE DISCRETION ON A VARIANCE? I, I KNOW.
SO, SO YOU HAVE, YOU, YOU DO HAVE SOME DISCRETION WHERE SOMEONE COMES IN AND THEY DON'T COMPLY WITH YOUR CODE AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION OR A VARIANCE, THEN YOU CAN JUDGE WHAT THEY'RE, WHAT ARE THEY PROPOSING THAT IS IT AS GOOD AT GOOD OR BETTER THAN, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE AND, AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED THE FIRST GO ROUND.
WE APPROVED A VARIANCE THAT, AND, AND THE NEGOTIATION WAS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO CUT FUGATE THROUGH, BUT WE WANT A SHARED DRIVEWAY.
AND SO WE THOUGHT WE HAD A GOOD PLAN THAT WAY, BUT THE, THE DEVELOPER HAD REASONS AND, AND, AND MS. VIAL EXPLAINED THERE WERE SOME DIFFICULTIES IN PUBLIC WORKS AND IT, THE DETENTION REQUIREMENT ADDED COST TO THE PROJECT AND THEY ELECTED AS IS THEIR RIGHT TO BUILD IT THIS WAY.
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE BACK HERE AGAIN AND NONE OF US LOVE IT, BUT IT'S WHAT IT IS.
WITH THAT MADAM CHAIR, I HAD A QUICK QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER VICTOR, I HAD A QUESTION FOR MR. SMITH, JUST FOR MY IFICATION.
UM, FOR THIS PARTICULAR PLAT, THE STREET, THE SP GATE GOES THROUGH, IF IT OPENS UP, IS THE DEVELOPER REQUIRED TO DO DETENTION ALSO FOR THE STREET AND THEN THE LOT 10, IS THAT CORRECT OR DO THEY DO COMBINED DETENTION FOR ALL 10 LOTS OR? OKAY, SO AGAIN, RICHARD SMITH REPRESENTING, UM, HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS, THEY WOULD, THE DETENTION FOR THE STREET WOULD NOT BE A PART OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT DETENTION.
IT WOULD BE IN THAT STREET RIGHT OF WAY.
SO IT WOULD BE PART OF THE CITY'S, UM, EASEMENTS AND ALL THE DETENTION FOR THAT SECTION WOULD THEN BE WHEN THOSE, IN THOSE EASEMENTS, THEY COULD NOT, THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PUT THE DETENTION FOR THE STREET SEGMENT OR THAT SECTION OF RIGHT.
ONCE THEY DEDICATE, IT BECOMES A SEPARATE EASY OR A SEPARATE DETENTION, BUT IT, IT STILL REQUIRES DETENTION, BUT IT'S JUST NOT PART OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT OKAY.
IS WHERE THE OR THE DETENTION DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ON THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
NUMBER 10 IS SEPARATE FROM THE OTHER LOTS OR COMBINED THAT COULD BE COMBINED THAT IS
[00:50:01]
UP TO THE DEVELOPER AND THE BUILDERS TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY WANT TO PROVIDE ALL THE DETENTION FOR THOSE LOTS.UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, ON THE 1 0 1 IT SAYS THAT, UM, THE STREET, IF THERE'S PROPOSED ACCESS FROM AN UN UNDEVELOPED STREET, THEN THEY HAVE TO BUILD IT, BUT THOSE UNITS WOULDN'T BE TAKING ACCESS FROM THAT PORTION.
SO DO WE NEED TO TIGHTEN? YEAH, THEY WILL.
THAT'S THE LOTS NINE AND 10 WILL TAKE ACCESS FROM THAT STREET.
IT'S A SMALL ARROW THAT'S SHOWING THAT THEY, THEY'RE GONNA TAKE ACCESS FROM THAT STREET.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? YES.
IT, IT'S JUST A COMMENT TIED INTO GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING AND BUILDING AND, AND NOT TO TAKE ANY WAY AWAY FROM FROM CITY ENGINEERING OFFICE, BUT WE'RE GONNA BE FORCED LOOKING AT EXTENDING AND TYING IN A WATER LINE, MOST LIKELY THE INFRASTRUCTURE STORM SEWER ON HOW THEY'RE GONNA DO THAT.
UH, LIKEWISE, THEY MAY DEAL WITH WASTEWATER WHEN ALL SAID AND DONE, MAYBE THEY SEE WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE AND RECOGNIZE THE COMPLICATIONS AND, AND WHAT LENIENCY THEY WON'T GET FROM THE CITY IF THEY'RE LOOKING FOR SOME CONSIDERATION.
HOPEFULLY IT COMES BACK TO BE BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY.
UH, WE JUST HAVE TO SEE HOW IT PLAYS OUT.
BUT THERE ARE GONNA BE COMPLICATIONS FOR THIS TO GO AHEAD TO GO FORWARD.
I HOPE I'M HERE WHEN THAT HAPPENS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? UM, SO THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION CLERK SECOND GARZA CLARK SECOND GARZA.
UH, ITEM 1 22 HIGHLAND ESTATES.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMIT LOCATED EAST OF TC JESTER BOULEVARD AND ALONG DARLING STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REPLANT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
REVIEW BY LEGAL HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST IS NOT VIOLATE D RESTRICTIONS.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE PLAT STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
UH, ITEM 1 22, HIGHLAND ESTATES PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE CHAT? WE DO.
HI EVERYONE, THANKS FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
UM, I JUST HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS RELOTTING.
UH, ONE OF THE PREVIOUS SLIDES I THINK SHOWED THREE LOTS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.
THIS IS FOR RELOTTING IT INTO TWO, IS THAT RIGHT? DO YOU WANNA RESPOND, PLEASE? YES.
UM, I, I AM ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS HERE, SO I'M ACTUALLY IN LOT 8 0 1.
UM, AND OUR ELECTRICAL POLE FOR OUR PROPERTY IS, UM, ON THIS LOT ONE THAT'S SHOWN.
SO WITH THE REPL, WE'LL DO, DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THEY'LL BE MOVING THAT? UM, AND IF IT WOULD AFFECT OUR POWER LINES AT ALL? LIKE OUR, OUR, UH, ELECTRICITY SINCE WE WORK REMOTELY.
COMMISSIONER MODEST MAY HAVE SOME INFORMATION.
I COULD GIVE MAYBE JUST A, A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ON THAT.
SO CENTER POINT DOES HAVE SOME COMMENTS HERE ON THE PLA.
UM, ANY REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT OF THAT EASEMENT? THEY'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH CENTERPOINT AND, UM, GET APPROVAL AND ANY FACILITIES THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE MOVED WOULD BE AT THE DEVELOPER EXPENSE FOR SOME OF THAT.
SO THERE, THERE DOES APPEAR TO BE THAT THERE'S A FEW DETAILS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO, UH, WORK OUT THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH CENTERPOINT, SHOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT THEY WANTED TO DO.
BUT THAT WOULD ALL BE ON THE ONUS OF THE, THE DEVELOPER.
SO I WOULDN'T BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF THAT.
AND THEN I GUESS THEY CANNOT TAKE AWAY, GUESS THEY GIVE US A FREE SERVICE? YEAH.
AND THEY'D GIVE US A FAIR WARNING, LIKE IF THERE WERE GOING TO BE ANY SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS, JUST SO WE COULD PLAN ACCORDINGLY.
UH, WELL THE THEORETICALLY
JEFF, THAT CENTER POINT WOULD NOTIFY YOU.
UM, I'M, I'M A CONTRACTOR FOR THE GOVERNMENT, SO I KNOW THAT Y'ALL DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER ALL OF IT, UNFORTUNATELY.
AND THEN I WAS WONDERING TOO, SO THERE'S A STORM DRAINAGE, UM,
[00:55:01]
AND I, I HAVEN'T MEASURED IT MYSELF, UH, BUT IT IS LIKE ALMOST ON THE CENTER LINE OF THOSE TWO LOTS.UM, DO WE KNOW IF ANY OF THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED OR MOVED AT ALL? THE LOT DOES HAVE A TENDENCY TO FLOOD AND THEN THE STREET WATER DOES POUR INTO THAT, UM, STORM DRAINAGE.
DO WE, I I, WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT EACH OTHER HERE.
CAN I, WHERE IS THAT WOULD BE HANDLED DURING PERMIT? WE WANT, WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS GUY.
YOU CAN TELL YOU'RE IN DEMAND TODAY, SO THANK YOU.
THE SPEAKER WHO, WHO WE'RE TALKING TO RIGHT NOW.
UM, MS. PAULSON SAYS THAT THERE IS A STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
IS THAT IN THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY? I THINK THERE'S A STORM DRAIN IT.
I DON'T KNOW THE TERMINOLOGY WELL, BUT IT'S IT'S ON THE STREET.
SO MS. PAULSON, IT'S VIA CURB INLET FOR DETEN OR FOR WATER TO GO OFF THE STREET INTO THE STORM SOURCE SYSTEM, I BELIEVE IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES.
SO IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT, IF A DRIVEWAY OR SOMETHING WERE TO BECOME IN CONFLICT WITH THAT THEY COULD RELOCATE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE COST OF THE RELOCATION TO MOVE IT OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY, BUT IF THE DRIVEWAYS DON'T CONFLICT WITH IT, THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS AGAIN, THERE IS, OKAY.
QUICK ISSUE OF HOW CLOSE IS IT TO THE DRIVEWAY? IT CAN'T BE LIKE RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY.
BUT IF IT WAS FAR ENOUGH AWAY FROM THE DRIVEWAYS AND STUFF, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO RELOCATE IT.
AND THEY, THE DEPART, THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WILL BE REVIEWING ALL THOSE PLANS IN THE PERMITTING STAGES CORRECT.
TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION CORRECT.
THAT WOULD, WHEN THEY SUBMIT THEIR PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY ITSELF, IF THAT STORM INLET IS SHOWN IN THE IN CONFLICT, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT PAN PLANS TO THE CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE FOR A SEPARATE REVIEW TO RELOCATE THAT INLET OR TO DO A COMBINATION TYPE INLET.
THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO JUST REMOVE IT, RIGHT? THEY WOULD HAVE TO PUT A SUBSTITUTE PLAN IN OR DO SOME STUDY THAT SHOWS THAT IT WAS AN UNNECESSARY INLET.
IF THEY WERE TO STRAIGHT UP REMOVE IT, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO JUST REMOVE THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT REVIEW THROUGH THE BUILDING OFFICIALS, BUT WE WOULD, THEY WOULD LOOK AT THAT OVER IN THE PERMITTING CENTER AND KNOW THEY CANNOT JUST CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT OR TO REMOVE IT ON THEIR OWN.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED THROUGH REVIEW.
AND THEN THE, THE LAST QUESTION I HAD, AND IT MIGHT NOT BE ANSWERABLE, UM, IT IS JUST, DOES THE RE PLATTING INVOLVE ANY LIKE RELEVELING OF THE LOT OR IS IT JUST KIND OF FROM THE ACCESS POINT FROM THE STREET? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THIS LOT ONE AND TWO IS JUST ONE BIG GRASSY AREA FROM A BUILDING PERMIT STANDARD.
UM, RELOTTING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE OR FORCE THEM TO RE-LEVEL OR DO ANYTHING WITH THE LOT.
HOWEVER, WHEN THEY GO THROUGH PERMITTING, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SHOW THAT THE LOT IS GRADED APPROPRIATELY.
AND WE ACTUALLY, IN BUILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT, THEY HAVE THAT THE LOTS SHOULD GRADE SO THAT THE RUNOFF GOES TOWARDS THE STREET.
MS. PAULSON, DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR QUESTIONS? YES MA'AM.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 22 THAILAND ESTATES? THE APPLICANT IS, UM, ONLINE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT COMMISSION? WE APPEARS WE DO NOT.
UH, IF NO ONE ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 22 HIGHLAND ESTATES, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IS THERE A DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MODEST ALLMAN ALLMAN.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS COMMISSIONER DALTON.
I'LL BE ABSTAINING FROM THIS ITEM.
COMMISSIONER DALTON WILL ABSTAIN ON THIS ITEM.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 1 23 IS LAKEVIEW RETREAT, SECTION ONE, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE.
THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING AND CANNOT BE DEFERRED.
AGAIN, THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ETJ WITHIN FORT BEND COUNTY ALONG BELLOR BOULEVARD, EAST OF GRAND MISSION AND SOUTH OF THE WEST PARK TOLLWAY.
[01:00:01]
PROPOSES THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A LANDSCAPE RESERVE.THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES.
ONE TO ALLOW SHARED ACCESS TO THREE LOTS FROM BELL OR BOULEVARD VIA AN ACCESS EASEMENT.
AND TWO, TO ALLOW A LANDSCAPE RESERVE TO BE CONVERTED TO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS BY WAY OF PARTIAL REPL STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THESE REQUESTS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG BEL AIR BOULEVARD, EAST OF HARLEM ROAD.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES SHARED ACCESS ALONG BEL AIR WITH AN INTERNAL LOOP.
STAFF HAS CONCERNS THAT THIS LAYOUT WOULD LEAD TO VEHICLES BACKING OUT ONTO THE THOROUGHFARE FROM LOTS ONE AND THREE.
FORT BEND COUNTY HAS NOTED THAT THIS MEANS OF ACCESS DOES NOT CONFORM TO THEIR REGULATIONS, BUT ADDED THAT THERE IS A VARIANCE PROCESS THROUGH COMMISSIONER'S COURT.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING A VARIANCE TO REPL A LANDSCAPE RESERVED BY PARTIAL REPL.
THE INTENT OF THIS SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO PREVENT THE LOSS OF RECORDED OPEN SPACE WITHOUT SUPPORT BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS.
IN THIS CASE, HOMES WERE SOLD ON THE STREET WITH REFERENCES TO NEARBY GREEN SPACE IN THEIR LISTINGS.
THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS CHANGE TO THE PLAT BE WELCOMED BY ANY OF THE NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS.
IN FACT, THE COMMISSION HEARD ONE NEARBY PROPERTY OWNER EXPRESS OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THIS PLAT DOES, OR EXCUSE ME, THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT VIOLATE CONDITIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
FORT BEND COUNTY HAS NO RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS APPLICATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENYING BOTH, BOTH VARIANCES AND DISAPPROVING THE PLAT.
AND MADAME CHERRY MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 1 23 LAKEVIEW RETREAT IS CONTINUED.
IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING OR HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON LAKEVIEW RETREAT HEARING? NO RESPONSE.
SO YES, WE'LL CALL ON THE APPLICANT.
GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
MY NAME IS JENNIFER CURTIS WITH META PLANNING AND DESIGN.
UM, I THINK WE DISCUSSED, UM, THE BASICS OF THIS APPLICATION LAST TIME AND OUR POSITION HASN'T CHANGED.
UM, THE DEVELOPER ORIGINALLY THOUGHT THAT THE PROPERTY, UM, COULD NOT BE DEVELOPED.
UM, AND SO PLOTTED IT AS A LANDSCAPE RESERVE, BUT HAS NOW FOUND THAT IT CAN BE DEVELOPED AND WOULD LIKE TO DO SO.
UM, THEY'VE PROPOSED A DESIGN THAT WOULD HAVE AS MINIMAL AN IMPACT AS POSSIBLE ON THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS.
UM, NOT PROPOSING ANY DRIVEWAYS OR LEAVING A LANDSCAPE BUFFER ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING HOMES, UM, TO PRESERVE SOME OF THAT GREEN SPACE.
UM, THE DRIVEWAY TO THE THOROUGHFARE IS COMPARABLE TO WHAT THE ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW FOR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS GREATER THAN ONE ACRE TO FRONT ON A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE IF IT HAS A CIRCULAR DRIVE.
SO WE'VE PROPOSED A CIRCULAR DRIVE.
UM, SO WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE, UM, DOING THE BEST THAT WE CAN TO MEET THE INTENT OF, OF PRESERVING THE GREEN SPACE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PARTIAL REPL RESTRICTIONS PREVENT, AND ALSO FOR, UM, PROVIDING ACCESS IN A SAFE MANNER FOR THESE LOTS.
UM, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST, UH, A FAVORABLE BOOK VOTE.
AND I THINK THE, THE ONE PROBLEM THAT WE WOULD HAVE IN THIS IS THAT, UM, WE'RE STRUGGLING TO SEE WHERE THE HARDSHIP IS OTHER THAN A JUST A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
DO, DO YOU HAVE A STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT, WHAT YOUR HARDSHIP IS? JUST THAT, UM, THE LAND IS USABLE AND NOT BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP IT IS DEPRIVING THE DEVELOPER OF THE USE OF THE LAND.
UM, AND I WILL SAY, I'M SORRY.
UM, DURING THE DEFERRAL PERIOD, THE DEVELOPER DID REACH OUT DIRECTLY BY MAIL TO THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL STREET AND RECEIVE NO RESPONSE FROM ANY OF THEM.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
UM, OKAY, SO WE DETERMINED THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON LAKEVIEW RETREAT.
UH, WITH THAT, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND DISAPPROVE THE PLAT.
IS THERE DISCUSSION? IS THERE I COMMISSIONER? I'LL JUST SAY THAT IN ADDITION TO THE, YOU KNOW, NO FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, I, I BELIEVE STAFF COMMENTS ON THE SAFETY ASPECT ARE, FOR ME PERSONALLY, REALLY THE, THE ISSUE THAT I TAKE WITH THIS PARTICULAR PLAT, I, I DO SEE THAT LEADING TO POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUES IN THE AREA.
UM, SO REALLY BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY ISSUES, I, I WOULD SET A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE AND, UH, DISAPPROVE THE PLAT.
UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THE, OKAY, THE MOTION CARRIES.
[01:05:01]
CLARK.AND THE MOTION WAS TO DISAPPROVE AND DENY AND DISAPPROVE THE PLAT ITEM 1 24 MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WCID, ITEM 1 24 MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WCID NUMBER ONE, LIFT STATION.
NUMBER THREE, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
IT SITS ON THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF WILDERNESS ROAD IN PINE CANYON DRIVE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RELIGHT IS TO CREATE ONE RESERVE RESTRICTED TO LIFT STATION USE.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
LEGAL REVIEW IS STILL PENDING.
UH, WE HAVE RECEIVED NO EVENTS.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 24 MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
UH, LIFT STATION NUMBER THREE.
UM, I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 24? UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER.
SO I'LL LOOK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION TO DEFER ANNA AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNLESS THERE'S DISCUSSION MOTION.
IS DEFERRED PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED? 1 25.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 1 25 IS NEW AND MANOR PARTIAL REPL NUMBER 29.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS A 0.5 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF KERRWOOD LANE IN HOSKINS DRIVE NORTH OF LEY BOULEVARD AND WEST OF BLADELOCK ROAD OR EAST BLADELOCK ROAD.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE SIX SINGLE FAMILY NARROW FRONT LOADING LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICATION.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 25 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED IN ADVANCE.
IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 25? NEW AND MANNER HEARING NO RESPONSE.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IS THERE DISCUSSION? UM, COMMISSIONER RAMADA? I JUST COMMENT, I KNOW THIS THE SHALL APPROVE, BUT IT ALSO FEELS LIKE A MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR A SHARED DRIVEWAY.
UM, SO I'LL JUST GET THAT ON THE RECORD.
I DID REACH OUT TO THE APPLICANT TO ASK ABOUT THE POTENTIALITY OF A SHARED DRIVEWAY.
UH, YEAH, THE, UH, THE DEVELOPER DID BELIEVE THAT THE SO TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CONSIDERATION OF WHAT THEY WERE DEVELOPING, THIS WOULD BE THE BEST MODE FOR THEM.
SO UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS WHAT WE GOT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? SIGLER SECOND JONES.
UM, REMAINING ITEMS, UH, 1 26, 1 27, 1 28, AND 1 29 HAVE ALL BEEN WITHDRAWN.
[d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests]
US TO SECTION D VARIANCES.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM ONE 30 IS CARVER LANDING.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMITS ALONG IN EAST OF CARVER ROAD AND SOUTH OF SOUTH VICTORY DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SHARED DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT WITH 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND THREE PARKING SPACES WITH ACCESS TO CARVER ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO NOT EXTEND NORTH STAR STREET THROUGH THE SUBJECT SITE AND TO TERMINATE IT WITH AN ALTERNATE TURNAROUND INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED CUL-DE-SAC.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
NORTH STAR STREET IS 40 FEET WIDE PUBLIC STREET AND ABOUT 600 FEET LONG.
THAT STUBBS INTO THE SOUTHEASTERN PROPERTY LINE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PER CHAPTER 42.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO EXTEND THE STREET THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD CREATE AN IMPRACTICAL DEVELOPMENT EXTENDING NORTH STAR STREET WOULD CREATE A NON-STANDARD INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, SOUTH VICTORY DRIVE TO THE NORTH, CREATING PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS MULTIPLE LOTS.
TAKE VEHICULAR ACCESS TO NORTH STAR STREET.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO TERMINATE NORTH STAR STREET WITH AN ALTERNATE TURNAROUND INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED CUL-DE-SAC HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE PROPOSED TURNAROUND.
[01:10:01]
RECOMMENDS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM.CONDITIONS AND STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE.
AND THIS CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. WILLIAMSON? UM, I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 30 CARVER LANDING? IF NOT, UH, WE'LL LOOK TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE SCREEN.
UH, ANY DISCUSSION THERE? A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION POROUS PERL SECOND TICKLER.
ITEM 1 31 IS CENTER POINT ENERGY WALLACE STUBBS STATION NUMBER TWO.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS ALONG AN EAST OF NORTH WAYSIDE DRIVE AND SOUTH OF WALLACE ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE RESERVE RESTRICTED TO UTILITY PURPOSES AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE RESERVE TO HAVE INSUFFICIENT, INSUFFICIENT FRONTAGE ON NORTHWAY SIDE DRIVE.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW SUBSTATION FACILITY FOR ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION AND A DETENTION POND.
THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 60 FEET OF FRONTAGE LENGTH ALONG A PUBLIC STREET THAT IS AT LEAST A 60 FOOT, THAT IS AT LEAST 60 FEET WIDE FOR RESERVES OTHER THAN WHAT IS LISTED IN THE RESERVE TABLE IN SECTION 42 1 90.
HOWEVER, CENTER CENTERPOINT ONLY OWNS APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET OF FRONTAGE.
THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS BEING MET AND THAT THE PROPOSED USE OF THE SITE IS FOR UTILITY PURPOSES, WHICH WILL REQUIRE VERY MINIMAL TRAFFIC VOLUME ONLY FOR INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE.
HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS PROPOSES NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST.
THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CBC 1 0 1 FORM.
CONDITIONS AND STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENTS.
THIS CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO SIGNED UP TO WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 31 CENTER POINT? WE HAVE NOBODY IN THE CHAT.
UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT AND APPROVE.
IS THERE DISCUSSION MOTION MARS SECOND BALDWIN.
MADAM CHAIR, IF WE MAY CONFIRM DURING ITEM ONE 30, DID COMMISSIONER DALTON ABSTAIN ON THAT ITEM ON ONE 30? YES.
YEAH, I MEAN THERE WAS NO NEED FOR HER TO ABSTAIN.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS A TWO ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY, EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WEST OF HARDY TOLL ROAD AND NORTH OF 99 GRAND PARKWAY, AS INTENDED TO BE A DISPATCH CENTER FOR ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE VEHICLES AND TOW TRUCKS.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SINGLE RESERVE RESTRICTED TO COMMERCIAL USE AND IS REQUESTING ONE VARIANCE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ACCESS FROM A 30 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC STREET WITH APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET OF FRONT AND SET UP THE 60 FOOT WIDE MID, UH, WIDTH REQUIREMENT.
STAFF IS CONSIDERING NOT ONLY THE REQUIRED WIDENING, BUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CUL-DE-SAC FOR THE SUB STREET THAT WILL NOT BE EXTENDED CURRENTLY.
RICHARDSON STREET IS OF SUBSTANDARD WIDTH FOR ACCESS AT, AT 30 FEET WIDE AND HAS INITIALLY EXISTED AS AN ACCESS EASEMENT FOR THE SURROUNDING ESTATE LOTS.
ADDITIONALLY, RICHARDSON BEING THE SOLE POINT OF ACCESS FOR THE PROPERTY, UH, MANDATES THAT ANY TOWED VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH, ALL WITH 50 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAYS.
WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRING THE PLAT FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO COORDINATE WITH HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO CONSIDER VIABLE SOLUTIONS TO THE WIDENING AND CUL-DE-SAC REQUIREMENTS.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
QUESTIONS FOR MR. CILLO? CAN WE GET CLEAR EXACTLY WHAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS SO I KNOW IT'S, I MEAN, IT'S, YES, IT'S A 30 FOOT RIGHT AWAY.
AND WHAT WOULD THEY BE REQUIRED NOT TO GET THE VARIANCE, JUST THINKING DOWN THE PATH TWO WEEKS FROM NOW.
SO, UH, IF YOU, IF THE, THE CAN GO BACK TO THE ACTUAL PLAT, UM, WILSON.
SO AT THIS POINT, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DEDICATE THE 30 FEET OF FULL WIDENING.
SO RIGHT NOW, RICHARDSON IS ONLY A 30 FOOT WIDE WIDENING ON A SEC, COULD WE GET THE, UM, THE SITE PLAN BACK ON THE SCREEN? MADAM CHAIR? UH, GIVE US FEW SECONDS.
UH, THE COMPUTER CRASHED FOR, FOR THE PRESENTATION, SO GIVE US A FEW SECONDS AND WE'LL GET BACK TO IT IN A SECOND.
MR. CILLO WILL LOOK AT OUR PAPER NOTES IN FRONT OF US.
SO THEY'D HAVE TO DEDICATE 30 FEET OF THEIR PROPERTY.
SO IT'S A DEDICATION OF 30 FEET.
[01:15:01]
CORRECT.SO THEY ARE TAKING ACCESS FROM A 30 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.
UH, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DEDICATE THE 30 FEET AS WELL AS THE CUL-DE-SAC AS THIS WOULD BE AUB.
UH, IT SEEMS, UH, IT MAY APPEAR THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY CONTINUES FOR THE WEST, BUT THAT IS ACTUALLY A PRIVATE PROPERTY, UH, TRACT OWNED BY THE ESTATE TO THE WEST.
UH, AGAIN, THESE ARE ALL, UH, ESTATE LOTS.
AND WHEN YOU CAN SEE THE ACTUAL AREA HERE, UM, I GET, SO ALL IT WOULD JUST BE THESE, THE REST OF IT IS SURROUNDED BY ALL THESE, UH, RECORDED SUBDIVISIONS.
SO THIS STREET ONLY PROVIDES ACCESS TO JUST THESE FEW PARCELS.
UH, SO IT INITIALLY EXISTED AS AN ACCESS EASEMENT AND WAS AT SOME POINT IN HISTORY DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC.
UH, BUT HERE'S WHAT THEY WOULD NEED TO DO.
THEY'LL DEDICATE 30 AS WELL AS A CUL-DE-SAC, UH, WITH A 60 FOOT, UH, RADIUS.
THEY NEED TO COORDINATE WITH COUNTY ENGINEER WHERE THEY COULD POTENTIALLY, UM, MAYBE GET A VARIANCE TO HAVE A REDUCED CUL-DE-SAC OR ANOTHER VIABLE SOLUTION FOR THEM OTHER THAN WHAT IS, UH, ACQUIRE AT THIS POINT.
UH, BUT TO NOT DO ANYTHING WE, WE FEEL WOULD BE AN INSUFFICIENT UH, PATH.
AND THIS IS IN THE ETJ OF HARRIS COUNTY, CORRECT? CORRECT.
DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT DID.
UM, AND THIS, THIS IS A, FOR A STORAGE LOT FACILITY.
SO IN ADDITION TO THE TOW TRUCKS, WILL THERE BE CITIZENS COMING TO GET THEIR CARS? SO I WAS TOLD THAT THIS WOULD BE A DISPATCH CENTER.
SO THAT MEANS THAT THEY ARE, THAT MOST OF THE VEHICLES HERE WOULD ACTUALLY BE WORKING VEHICLES THAT WOULD THEN GO OUT TO, UH, DO ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE.
SO, BECAUSE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO AAA.
SO IT'S A PARKING, IT'S PARKING FOR THE TOW TRUCKS TRUCK.
AND, AND I DO, AND OF COURSE I THINK WITH THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME THAT MAY BE TOWED BACK TO THE CENTER, BUT EITHER WAY, THAT WOULD BE AN OCCURRENCE OF A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN THIS SMALL SUBDIVISION.
AND I, I MEAN, ARE THERE STATE REGULATIONS FOR THAT OR THERE'S A WEIRD LOCATION? THERE ARE.
THERE ARE STATE REGULATIONS AS FAR AS THE LICENSING OF TOW TRUCK OPERATORS AND DISPATCH AND SO FORTH.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IT'S AN ODD PROJECT.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO'S SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS OR ANYBODY? I HAVE NOBODY SIGNED.
IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 32? OKAY.
IF NOT, SAS RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER.
UM, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS, THINGS WE WOULD LIKE ANSWERS TO BEFORE NEXT TIME? HEARING NONE.
IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER? MOTION? CLARK.
IS THERE A SECOND? ALLMAN ALLMAN.
1 33 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN, AND THAT TAKES US TO 1 34 SHOPS AT SHEPHERD.
THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING AND CANNOT BE DEFERRED.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG JANICE ROAD, WEST OF SHEPHERD AND NORTH OF THE SIX 10 LOOP.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESERVE FOR THE PURPOSES 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 FEET.
STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWESTERN INTERSECTION OF JANIS AND NORTH SHEPHERD.
THE PAVED ROADWAY WITHIN SHEPHERD MEASURES APPROXIMATELY 85 FEET WIDE, FEATURING THREE THROUGH LANES IN EACH DIRECTION.
IN A CONCRETE MEDIAN, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 10 FOOT PEDESTRIAN ROME ALONG SHEPHERD AND A TWO STORY RETAIL BUILDING.
THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED INDICATES THAT PRIMARY ACCESS TO THE STRUCTURE WILL BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING FACING THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT.
THE APPLICANT ASSERTS THAT THE THIS 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 STANDARDS ARE ALSO APPLICABLE FOR NARROW THOROUGH FARES.
STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE APPLICANT MAKE REVISIONS FOR A WIDER PEDESTRIAN REALM TO ALLOW FOR GREATER COMFORT AND SAFETY.
CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE SITE CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAS ALSO REQUESTED A REVISED SITE PLAN SHOWING GREATER ACCESS AND INTERACTION WITH THE PEDESTRIAN REALM.
THE APPLICANT HAS MAINTAINED THAT THEY WISH TO PURSUE THEIR REQUEST AS SUBMITTED.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED MULTIPLE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS ITEM EXPRESSING CONCERN FOR REDUCED VISIBILITY, INCREASED TRAFFIC, AS WELL AS THE DESIRE TO NOT ALLOW VEHICULAR ACCESS TO JANICE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENYING THE VARIANCE AND APPROVING THE PLAT FOR THE CPC ONE ONE FORM CONDITIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.
QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER? I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 34.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE CHAT? IS ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON 1 34? IF NOT, UM,
[01:20:03]
WE DO HAVE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 34 SHOPS AT SHEPHERD? I'M SORRY.
I WAS HERE RIGHT THE LAST TIME.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT SIGNING THEN SIGNED ME THIS TIME.
UM, I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO LAST TIME.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT ITSELF.
UH, UH, WE'RE OPPOSED TO EVERYTHING MR. BUTLER SAID.
AND WHILE, WHILE THIS IS NOT IN YOUR JURISDICTION, WE'RE OPPOSED TO THE, THE MAIN ENTRANCE BEING MOVED TO JANICE ROAD.
WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL STREET WITH BIG DITCHES ON BOTH SIDES.
ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU FOR COMING.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 34? UM, OKAY.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THEN IS TO DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLAT.
SO, UH, ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR,
THE SETBACK WOULD JUST BE 25 FEET OR WHATEVER IT IS.
RIGHT? AND THE TYPICAL STANDARD SIDEWALK WOULD APPLY, RIGHT? THEY, THEY WOULD BASICALLY, THEY'D HAVE AN APPROVED PLAT WITH A CONDITION TO PUT A 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE LONG SHEPHERD RIGHT? AS OPPOSED TO SIX AND A HALF, BUT COULD STILL ENTER FROM JANICE AND EXIT ONTO SHEPHERD.
BOTH EXITS WOULD BE, I'M JUST WANTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GONNA GET.
BUT I'M IN FAVOR OF THE DENIAL.
I JUST WANTED THE INFORMATION OUT THERE.
YEAH, THERE ARE TWO, THERE ARE TWO ACCESS POINTS.
ONE ON SHEPHERD, ONE ON JANICE.
UM, JUST A QUICK POINT OF CLARIFICATION, COMMISSIONER BLAND.
SORRY, JUST A QUICK POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
HOW WIDE IS THE ACCESS POINT ON SHEPHERD? THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY ITSELF? YEAH, I DON'T HAVE THAT FIGURE.
UM, READY, UNFORTUNATELY THERE, THERE'S A SITE PLAN THERE.
I THINK IT'S TWO CAR WIDTHS, WHICH WOULD BE ROUGHLY 20 FEET.
24 FEET IS THE, UH, IS THE DEVELOPER PRESENT OR, OR WITH US? THEY'RE AWARE OF OUR RECOMMENDATION.
I REACHED OUT TO THEM THIS MORNING.
I BELIEVE THEY WERE GONNA BE ON VIRTUALLY, BUT I, I DON'T SEE THEM HERE.
AND THEY'RE AWARE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S OPPOSITION TO THE CORRECT.
UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? UM, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT MOTION? GARZA GARZA.
UM, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY ITEMS UNDER SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.
[f. Reconsiderations of Requirement]
UM, THAT TAKES US TO SECTION F RECONSIDERATION REQUIREMENTS.THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ETJ WITHIN HARRIS COUNTY, WEST OF GOSLING AND SOUTH OF RAYFORD.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE FOR PURPOSES OF CREATING A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO NOT EXTEND GLITZ PER WAY, NOR TERMINATE WITH A CUL-DE-SAC.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE CONSISTS OF A COMMERCIAL RESERVE THAT WAS GRANTED A VARIANCE IN 2007 TO NOT EXTEND A STUBS STREET FROM THE NORTH.
THE APPLICANT HAS GRANTED A SIMILAR VARIANCE THIS PAST JULY TO CREATE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ALONG PAES.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THIS VARIANCE AGAIN IN ORDER TO REPLANT THE SITE INTO AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE.
AS WAS THE CASE WITH THE PREVIOUS PLAT.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN A GRID SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS FOR ADEQUATE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND THE STREET EXTENSION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR INTERSECTION SPACING.
IN ADDITION, THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 140 FEET SOUTH OF AMWELL ROAD, WHICH FEATURES A CUL-DE-SAC.
THIS WILL ALLOW FOR A SAFE VEHICULAR TURNAROUND IN LIEU OF PROVIDING A CUL-DE-SAC WITHIN THE SUBJECT TRACT.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF CHAPTER 42, CONSIDERING THE FEATURES OF THE EXISTING STREET SYS SYSTEM.
HARRIS COUNTY'S EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION.
AND WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT IN THIS ITEM.
THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.
QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER? UM, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY IN THE CHAT OR LISTENING WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON AUBURN LAKES? STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLAT.
IS THERE DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR PERLE SECOND ALLMAN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY
[01:25:01]
AYE.MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS COMMISSIONER DALTON.
ONCE AGAIN, MY NAME IS TAMMY WILLIAMSON.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON'S ETJ AND NORTH HARRIS COUNTY, ALONG AND NORTH OF FM 29 20.
BETWEEN FLAVA ROAD AND HOLDSWORTH DRIVE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO RESERVES RESTRICTED TO MULTIFAMILY LOCATED IN THE NORTH AND EAST OF THE SITE, AND TWO RESERVES RESTRICTED TO COMMERCIAL LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THE SITE AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED RESERVES.
THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED IS FOR THE PROPOSED CUL-DE-SAC EXTENSION OF LONG CASTLE DRIVE, ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY TO HAVE A 50 FOOT RADIUS, WHICH IS LESS THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
LONG CASTLE DRIVE IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE EXTENDED DUE TO MULTIPLE PIPELINES, ALLOWING AN INCREASED MAXIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING.
BUT A TERMINUS THAT MEETS IDM STANDARDS IS REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD BE A 60 FOOT RADIUS CUL-DE-SAC.
THE CUL-DE-SAC PROPOSED FOR THE CUL-DE-SAC IS PROPOSED FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY WITH THE PEDESTRIAN GATE.
ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED 50 FOOT RADIUS CUL-DE-SAC BULB WILL BE AT THE TERMINUS OF A 60 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC STREET AND ADJACENT TO A MULTIFAMILY RESERVE, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON LAS LONG CASTLE DRIVE WILL STILL HAVE AMPLE TURNING MANEUVERABILITY ALONG WITH EMERGENCY SERVICE VEHICLES.
HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST.
THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS TO GRANT THE RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT AND REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THIS CONCLUDES PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? ANYBODY SIGNED UP IN THE CHAT? I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED IN ADVANCE.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 36? IF NOT, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN.
IS THERE DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION CLARK SECOND MORRIS.
ITEM 1 37 IS WEST DONOVAN COURT.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, CITY LIMITS WEST OF NORTH SHEPHERD DRIVE, SOUTH OF WEST TIDWELL ROAD AND NORTH OF PINE MOUNT DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A TYPE TWO PAE LOOP STREET CONNECTING MARIELLA STREET AND WEST DONOVAN STREET WITH 18 FOOT WIDE PRIVATE ALLEYS EXTENDING OUT, PROVIDING ACCESS TO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
THERE ARE TWO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED.
ONE TO EXCEED MAXIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG BOTH MARCELLA STREET AND WEST DONOVAN STREET.
AND TWO, FOR LOTS TO HAVE SOLE FRONTAGE AND ACCESS FROM A PRIVATE ALLEY.
STAFF REQUEST TO DEFER THE APPLICATION FOR TWO WEEKS FOR A QUICK REVIEW OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
THE LOTS ARE UTILIZING COMPENSATING OGHAM SPACE, THE CENTRAL RESERVE AND THE SMALLER AREAS.
AT THE ENDS OF THE PRIVATE ALLEYS, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FIVE FEET SIDEWALKS AND THREE INCH CALIPER TREES ALONG MARCELLA STREET AND WEST DONOVAN STREET.
ADDITIONALLY, ALL LOTS FRONTING ARE MARCELLA AND WEST.
DONOVAN WILL HAVE FRONT DOORS FACING THE PUBLIC STREET WITH DIRECT PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION.
THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE DEFERRAL IS TO COORDINATE WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND WITH THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE LIFE SAFETY AND FIRE ACCESS IS ACCEPTABLE.
THEREFORE, STAFF REQUESTS THAT THIS APPLICATION BE DEFERRED FOR TWO WEEKS.
WE HAVE RECEIVED THREE PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE CONCERNING WALKABILITY, STREET PARKING AND TRAFFIC FLOW AND IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SPECIFICALLY TO THE SCHOOL ON THE SOUTH.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS FIRST FOR MS. WILLIAMSON? IF NOT, THE FIRST SPEAKER IS STATE REPRESENTATIVE JARVIS JOHNSON.
HOW ARE YOU? GOOD TO ALL COMMISSIONERS.
IT'S CERTAINLY A PLEASURE TO BE HERE, BUT NOT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
UM, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH, UM, DEVELOPMENT AND CERTAINLY ENCOURAGING ALL THROUGHOUT, UH, THE CITY.
WE HAVE, UH, GROWN TREMENDOUSLY.
UH, THIS IS A PARTICULAR PLOT THAT I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT.
THIS IS THE VERY FIRST TIME THAT I'M SEEING THIS PLOT.
I'VE NEVER HEARD FROM THE DEVELOPER.
I DON'T KNOW REALLY WHAT'S GOING ON, UH, WITH THIS PARTICULAR, UH, PLOT OF LAND.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR A DIFFERENT SETBACK, UH, WHICH IS VERY CONCERNING TO ME.
MARCELLA AND I LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, BY THE WAY, A COUPLE OF HOUSES DOWN.
MARCELLA IS AN UNDEVELOPED STREET.
IT IS DRIVABLE, BUT IT'S DITCHES ON BOTH SIDES.
UH, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS CALLING FOR FRONTAGE
[01:30:01]
OR FRONT DOOR TO BE PLACED ON.MARCELLA, NOT QUITE SURE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IF THEY'RE GONNA HAVE SIDEWALKS, IF IT'S GOING TO JUST BE, UM, JUST A DITCH THAT'S SITTING THERE IN FRONT OF THEM.
SO I'M QUITE UNCERTAIN ABOUT WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL ENTAIL AND HOW IT WILL, UM, EVEN IMPACT THE, THE, THE NEW RESIDENTS THAT ARE MOVING IN.
IT WOULD BE A SHAME FOR SOMEBODY TO MOVE IN AND THEY CAN'T ACCESS THEIR FRONT DOOR, CAN'T EVEN HAVE GUESTS COMING OVER BECAUSE THERE'S A DITCH IN FRONT, IN FRONT OF THEIR FRONT DOOR.
UM, BUT I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE, THE TRAFFIC.
WE'RE GOING FROM A PLOT OF LAND THAT HAD NO MORE THAN 10 HOMES ON THEM TO NOW GOING TO ALMOST 60 ON DONOVAN IS, UM, ST.
AND THEN THERE IS A CORPORATION OR COMPANY BEHIND THAT, WHICH ALL ACCESS, UH, ON STREET PARKING.
THAT ON STREET PARKING IS ALREADY FULL, UH, DURING THE SCHOOL DAY.
UH, THOSE, THE STUDENTS AND THE PARENTS ARE COMING.
IT'S VERY, THE TRAFFIC IS EXTREMELY BAD WHEN I'M COMING HOME OR GO OR LEAVING, UH, DURING THE THREE O'CLOCK TO FIVE O'CLOCK HOUR TIP, WELL IS ALREADY BACKED UP.
MARCELLA IS AL IS ALSO A, A NIGHTMARE.
SO I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT AND THE TRAFFIC THAT WILL, THAT WILL TAKE PLACE, UH, WITH THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.
MUCH LIKE YOU PUT INTO PLACE ABOUT THE SHOPS ON SHEPHERD, UH, DENYING THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU SAID IT'S NOT ENOUGH, NOT PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY, THE SETBACK NEEDS TO BE A A LITTLE BIT BACK.
I AM SAYING THE SAME THING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR, UH, DEVELOPMENT.
WE DO NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, UH, THE IMPACT THAT IT WILL HAVE TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS.
THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN TWO OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON BETWEEN MARCELLA AND, AND, AND DONOVAN.
UH, WHICH AGAIN, IS VERY CONCERNING.
SO AGAIN, WHILE NOT TRYING TO THWART DEVELOPMENT, WANT DEVELOPMENT TO BE, UM, SUCCESSFUL, UH, SUSTAINABLE, UH, AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING ALL, UH, RESIDENTS IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, UM, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT A HIGH TURNOVER BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE MOVING FROM ALL OVER AND THEY GET TO HOUSTON AND THEY GO, OH, THIS IS A WALKABLE COMMUNITY, ONLY TO FIND OUT THERE'S NOTHING WALKABLE TOO.
AND I DON'T WANT HIGH TURNOVER IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO, SO VERY CONCERNING IN, IN THAT REGARD.
SO I HOPE, UH, AND, AND I'LL BE GOING BACK TO THE STATE IN TWO WEEKS, SO I UNDERSTAND THIS IS GOING TO BE DEFERRED.
UH, BUT I'LL BE AT IN THE STATE HOUSE IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.
SO UNFORTUNATELY I WON'T BE ABLE TO COME BACK.
SO I'M EXCITED AND HAPPY THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO HEAR MY, MY TESTIMONY IN REGARDS TO THIS.
UH, I DO, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE DEVELOPER, UH, BUT I DO WOULD LIKE, I WOULD LIKE LOVE TO SEE A DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT, A DIFFERENT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH 'EM, BUT MY REAL CONCERN IS THE SETBACK AND THEN THE, OBVIOUSLY THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC THAT WILL TAKE PLACE.
THAT MANY HOMES GOING FROM LESS THAN 10 HOMES TO NOW ALMOST 60 IS VERY CONCERNING.
UH, AND WITH THE IMPACT OF ST.
AND THEN WE'RE, AS WE'RE COMING OFF OF, UH, MARCELLA, SO VERY CONCERNING.
SO AGAIN, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR ENERGY IN REGARDS TO ALL DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
BUT I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS WOULD LOOK AT THIS A LITTLE MORE CLOSELY, UH, AND MAKE SURE THAT THE DEVELOPER CAN COME BACK AND GIVE A BETTER, UH, PLATTED PLAN THAT WOULD BE MORE, UH, FEASIBLE FOR ALL THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR VERY GREAT COMMENTS.
WE'LL TAKE 'EM UNDER ADVISEMENT.
UM, QUICK QUESTION, WILL THIS REQUIRE A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS? IT WILL NOT.
ON THE CPC FOR PUBLIC WORKS COMMENT, IT SAID THAT IF THERE WERE IF STATEMENTS, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS A CORRECT IF STATEMENT.
SO THERE'LL BE A, THE TYPICAL PERMIT REVIEW, BUT NOT, OKAY.
ALRIGHT, WELL, WE'LL PROCEED WITH THE SPEAKERS.
I HEAR THERE'S A QUESTION FOR ME.
SO WE I THINK WE GOT IT COVERED.
WE, YOU KNOW, IN A PINCH WE HAD TO, WE HAD TO WING IT WITHOUT YOU
BUT A FULL TIA WOULD NOT BE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY OR TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED.
BUT THE, THE REVIEW OF ACCESS AND THAT, THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE FACT THAT THESE ARE NARROW STREETS WITH DITCHES AND NOT REALLY, NOT REALLY, IT WOULD NOT BE, IT WOULD NOT BE LOOKING AT THAT PER SE.
THEY WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE DRIVEWAY AND HOW GETTING IN AND OUTTA THAT
[01:35:01]
DRIVEWAY WOULD IMPACT.AND THE NUMBER OF, THEY'D LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF TRIPS TO SEE IF IT MET THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF TRIPS FOR A TRAFFIC STUDY.
BUT IT'S 60 HOMES, IT WAS NOT GONNA MEET THAT THRESHOLD ON THE PEAK HOUR.
IS THERE, WHAT IS THE, THE THRESHOLD? THE T TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION SIR, THE THRESHOLD FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON IS 100 PEAK HOUR TRIPS.
SO THAT WOULD BE, IT COULD BE LOOKED AT AS EITHER 50 ENTERING AND 50 EXITING, OR IN A DIVISION, LIKE IN A PLOT LIKE THIS WHERE YOU'RE AT HOMES COULD BE LIKE 75 EXITING IN THE MORNING, 25 ENTERING OR JUST THE OPPOSITE IN THE AFTERNOON.
AND I CAN TALK TO YOU MORE ABOUT IT IN, IN REGARDS TO THAT.
BUT ARE WE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION IT'S REPRESENTATIVE IN THAT, IN THAT, UH, SAME VEIN, ARE WE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OTHER HOMES THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN THAT AREA? BECAUSE YOU'RE NO, IT'S OTHER HOMES ARE, RIGHT? YEAH, BUT IT, IT WOULD CON IT WOULD BE BASED ON WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD GENERATE.
AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, BECAUSE OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE, THERE ARE THREE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE, UH, BETWEEN DONOVAN AND UM, MARCELLA.
THEN AS YOU ADD THOSE ON, YEAH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ADDING MORE CARS TO THE STREET AND IT, IT MAY BE THAT WE NEED TO DO A TRAFFIC, AN AREA TRAFFIC STUDY OF THIS AREA.
IT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE TRIGGERED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT THAT I'M LOOKING TO THE DIRECTOR, IT MAY BE'S AN ANALYSIS WE'D NEED TO DO.
WE, WE ARE CURRENTLY DOING AN ANALYSIS IN A NUMBER OF AREAS THAT ARE EXPERIENCING HIGH DEVELOPMENT.
PARTICULARLY THERE'S ONE IN AKERS HOME THAT WE'RE JUST WRAPPING UP THIS, THIS MIGHT BE THE NEXT AREA WE LOOK AT BECAUSE OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.
UM, COULD I ASK, UM, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS, THE REPRESENTATIVE ASKED THIS QUESTION AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE GOT AN ANSWER FOR HIM IN YOUR SPEECH, WHAT WITH THE SETBACK REQUESTED SETBACK, WHAT WOULD THE, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE, HOW, HOW WOULD THAT PLAY WITH THE STREET, THE EDGE OF THE STREET, THE DITCH AND THE FRONT DOOR, SO TO SPEAK? SO TO ANSWER THIS, YOU TALKING, I'M ASKING HER TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
WE'RE WE WANNA MAKE SURE YOU'RE PAYING ATTENTION.
AND TO CLARIFY, SO THIS WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR REDUCED BILLING LINE.
BUT AFTER LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE, THEY ACTUALLY DO QUALIFY FOR THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD, UM, WHICH IS 42 1 57 C ONE WHEN VEHICULAR ACCESS IS AVAILABLE ONLY FROM THE REAR OF EACH LOT THROUGH AN ALLEY.
AND THAT LOTS HAVE FRONT DOOR THAT FACES THE PUBLIC STREET AND PROVIDES PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE LOTS.
SO THERE IS NO BUILDING LINE VARIANCE NEEDED ANY LONGER.
AND THEN FOR THE OTHER PART OF THE ION AND IS BUILD LINE 10 FEET, WHAT WAS THAT? WHAT IS THE BUILD LINE? FIVE FEET.
SO FIVE FEET BY THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD.
SO WITHOUT AION FIVE FEET FROM THE EDGE OF PROPERTY LINE.
AND SO NOT, NOT FROM THE ROAD.
SO THE SURVEY SHOWS THAT FROM THE EDGE OF PAVE TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS APPROXIMATELY 20 FEET ON MARSALA AND IT'S SMALLER ON DONOVAN, UM, 9.3 FEET FROM THE CURRENT EDGE OF PAVE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO THEN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET FOR THE BUILDING FACE.
AND EACH OF THE, EACH OF THOSE STREETS WOULD BE, WOULD HAVE A FULL REQUIREMENT FOR SIDEWALKS? CORRECT.
AND THEY WERE ALREADY PROPOSING FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS.
FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS AND THE FOUR FOOT SAFETY BUFFER.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ALLMAN.
BUT OKAY, YOU JUST SAID FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS.
AREN'T THEY REQUIRED TO BUILD SIX FOOT? NO, THESE ARE LOCAL STREETS.
WE, UH, IT CAN BE A CONDITION.
ANY OTHER, ANY COMMENTS? WE GOT MORE SPEAKERS BUT NO STREET DEDICATION REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THAT IS ONE OF THE VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED.
OH, THAT IS, IS THAT IT EXCEEDS INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG BOTH MARCELLA AND DONOVAN.
SO THE REQUEST IS NOT TO PROVIDE A NORTH SOUTH PUBLIC STREET.
AND IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT, WE MIGHT COULD GET SOMETHING.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL SOME MORE PUBLIC SPEAKERS.
UM, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS TIFFANY DAWSON.
SHE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT.
UM, CHARLENE JOHNSON, GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M PRESIDENT OF THE SHEPHERD PARK TERRA CIVIC CLUB.
AND DONOVAN AND MARCELLA ARE THE STREETS THAT YOU ACCESS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE WERE NOT MADE AWARE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THE VARIANCE THAT, THE VARIANCE THAT THEY'RE ASKING.
SO WE DO HAVE A CONCERN BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC THAT'S GONNA IMPACT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE DO COME IN AND OUT ON THOSE STREETS.
[01:40:01]
I KNOW YOU SAID YOU'RE GONNA PUT SIDEWALKS.IS THAT GONNA COVER OUR DITCHES? IS IT BECAUSE IT'S GONNA AFFECT OUR FLOODING AS WELL, SO WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AS WELL.
AND ALSO ARE THE SIDEWALKS, UH, THE FIVE FEET IS FROM THE STREET OR WHEN YOU ASK FOR THAT, IT'S FROM THE STREET, NOT FROM THE DITCHES.
SO THEY'RE GONNA HAVE THE SIDEWALKS COME ALL THE WAY DOWN.
THAT'S WHAT, THAT WAS OUR CONCERN ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS.
STREET PARKING IS ANOTHER CONCERN.
HOW MUCH PARKING, IF THEY HAVE GUESTS, THAT'S GONNA BE A CONCERN BECAUSE PEOPLE COMING FROM GOING TO ST.
PIUS AND PEOPLE COMING INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS A CONCERN.
THE CONGESTION THAT IT'S GONNA BRING, THE FLOODING, THE, UM, UH, MAJOR ISSUES THAT WE HAVE.
SO WE WOULD LIKE THE TRAFFIC STUDY.
WE WERE NOT GIVEN A LETTER, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE GONNA BE IMPACTED, WE WERE NOT MADE AWARE OF THE LETTER THAT SOME NEIGHBORS GOT.
WE DID NOT GET ANY, UH, INFORMATION ON, ON IT ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO WE HAD TO GO AND SEARCH THAT INFORMATION OUT FOR OURSELVES.
I NOW WERE THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS MET, THE, THE NOTIFICATION IS BASED ON A RADIUS OF THE DEVELOPMENT, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD IT'S THE STREET OVER.
I MEAN, EVEN ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS IS SPEAKING NOW IS HIS, HIS HOUSE IS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF THAT.
SO MAYBE IN THE DEFERRAL PERIOD WE SHOULD CHECK TO MAKE SURE THE NOTICE WAS PROPERLY GIVEN.
COMMISSIONER CLARK, JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF.
WAS THE, UM, IT WAS, IT SIGNED PROPERLY ON THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S HOW WE, MS. WILLIAMSON, WE DIDN'T SEE THE SIGN, BUT WE DIDN'T SEE THE LETTER.
BECAUSE THE SIGN WILL SAY BASICALLY WHO TO CONTACT, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO THAT'S WHAT SHE WAS MADE AWARE.
THAT'S HOW SHE DID BY THE SIGN.
AND WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF THE SIGN BEING POSTED ON BOTH MARCEL AND DONOVAN.
DID THAT CONCLUDE YOUR REMARKS, MS. JOHNSON? UH, YES, IT DOES.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS JAMES RASMUS, R-A-S-M-U-S.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, MADAM CHAIR AND TO THE, UH, COMMISSIONER.
UH, I'M, I'M ONE OF THE PERSONS WHO LIVES WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF THE PROPOSED, UH, PROJECT.
AND I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY TYPE OF NOTIFICATION OR WHATEVER.
NOW MAYBE I'VE BEEN, MAYBE I, I SAY SPOILED BECAUSE THERE WERE GROUPS THAT, THAT BUILT THINGS KIND OF IN CLOSE PROXIMITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THEY, THEY SENT RENDERINGS AND THEY ACTUALLY CAME TO MEETINGS.
THEY SHOWED US THE QUALITY OF THE HOUSE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE, AND ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO KNOW.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN AT THIS PROJECT.
AND IT'S KIND OF LIKE, UH, YOU'RE GETTING MARRIED, YOU WANT TO MARRY SOMEBODY EQUALLY YOLKED TO YOU.
OKAY? IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S COMPATIBLE TO WHAT WE HAVE.
NOW, WHEN, WHEN, WHEN PEOPLE AROUND US WOULD RUNNING OFF TO THE, UH, WOODLANDS, THE PAT LANDS AND ALL THESE DIFFERENT LANDS, WE WERE THE ONES WHO STAYED IN HOUSTON AND MADE OUR COMMUNITY GREAT.
AND THE ONLY THING WE ASKED OF YOU ALL TO BE OUR FIREWALL AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THE QUALITY OF LIFE CONTINUES AS IT ALWAYS HAS.
AND THE ONLY THING THAT I'M SAYING IS WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE.
I'M NOT TRYING TO BRING THEM DOWN OR WHATEVER.
BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, IF, IF, IF, IF WE ARE COMING UP WITH A, WITH A, UH, UH, WHAT I WOULD SAY A BED.
WE DON'T WANT A A HYUNDAI SITTING NEXT TO US.
SO, AND, AND, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I APPRECIATE IT.
WE'RE GONNA SEE IF WE CAN GET THE, THE APPLICANT, THE DEVELOPER TO GET IN TOUCH WITH YOU GUYS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS ROBERT JACKSON AND I LIVE AT 54 0 9 STROM STREET, WHICH INTERSECTS WITH MARCELLA.
AND AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
EVEN GETTING IN AND GETTING OUT, EVEN THOUGH I'M RETIRED, I'M STILL WORKING.
I NEED TO GET IN AND OUT, SO DO MY NEIGHBORS.
AND WE, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE VERY CONCERNED.
THERE HAVE BEEN, UH, TWO OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN.
ONE IS THERE NOW AND ONE THAT'S ALSO THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED AND THAT'S INCREASED TRAFFIC THAT'S GONNA BE COMING IN.
AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC THAT'S GONNA BE ON DONOVAN WITH ST.
PIUS HIGH SCHOOL AS WELL AS MARCELLO.
SO I WISH THAT YOU ALL WOULD DEFINITELY, UH, CONSIDER THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. THANK YOU, MR. JACKSON.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO IS SIGNED? YES.
[01:45:01]
DONNA POLLARD AND I'M, UH, DOMINICAN SISTER AND WE OWN ST.I'M ALSO THE HEAD OF THE SCHOOL AND, UH, SO WE'RE, WE'RE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AND I KNOW THE PEOPLE WHO'VE SPOKEN I KNOW ALL BUT THE LAST MAN WE'RE, WE'RE FRIENDS.
WE WORK TOGETHER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UM, I, WE DID NOT SEE THE ORIGINAL PLAT.
UM, IT SEEMS FROM THE, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE FIRST ONE, IT SEEMS BETTER, BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS AND ALL OF THE SAME ONES THAT HAVE JUST BEEN EXPRESSED.
BUT IN ADDITION, WHAT'S DIFFICULT FOR US TO SEE IS EVEN WHERE THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT FROM THE SUBDIVISION IS GOING TO BE ON DONOVAN AND ON MARSALA, FOR EXAMPLE, IN PERSPECTIVE TO WHERE OUR ENTRANCE AND EXITS ARE TO THE SCHOOL.
YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO WORK PRETTY WELL WITH OUR NEIGHBORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'VE BEEN HERE OVER 66 YEARS AND, UM, WE HAVE A TRAFFIC FLOW PATTERN, YOU KNOW, ONE WAY IN THE MORNINGS.
AND AS STUDENTS GET OUT IN THE AFTERNOONS, THEN BEFORE AND AFTER HOURS, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT AND IT'S A HIGHLY TRAFFICKED AREA AS THE, THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TOLD YOU.
WE HAD ANOTHER TWO OTHER, UM, DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE COME IN ALONG MARCELLA AND DONOVAN, OF WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE WERE NOT NOTIFIED PERHAPS 'CAUSE THERE WEREN'T ANY VARIANCES, ET CETERA.
BUT OUR CONCERN IS EXACTLY WHAT REPRESENTATIVE J JARVIS JOHNSON SAID.
WE WENT FROM 10 HOMES TO ALMOST 60 IN THESE OTHER TWO AREAS.
WE WENT FROM FOUR HOMES TO 30.
AND IT'S JUST ADDING MORE AND MORE.
WE REALLY NEED, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, FOR THE SAFETY OF THE STUDENTS, FOR THE SAFETY OF THE PEDESTRIANS.
A LOT OF OUR NEIGHBORS WALK IN THE MORNINGS AND IT JUST, IT'S VERY CONCERNING TO US ABOUT STUDENT STAFE SAFETY ABOUT THE REST OF OUR NEIGHBORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND I THINK IT NEEDS ALSO NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT WHERE THE ENTRANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION ARE IN REPRESENT IN, UH, AS WE LOOK AT WHERE THE EXITS AND ENTRANCES TO THE SCHOOL ARE, YOU CAN'T TELL FROM THE PICTURE THAT THEY'VE DRAWN.
UM, BECAUSE AS PEOPLE ARE ENTER ENTERING AND EXITING FROM THE SUBDIVISION, IF IT'S AT THE SAME PLACE WHERE THE ENTRANCE AND EXITS TO THE SCHOOL ARE, 'CAUSE THERE'S MULTIPLE PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS THAT'S GONNA PROVIDE A BOTTLENECK AND A PROBLEM FOR THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, OUR NEIGHBORS BEHIND US THAT DIDN'T GET THE, THE, UM, NOTIFICATION, THIS DOES IMPACT THEM GREATLY.
AND WE'RE NOT TO SAY WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT, IT'S, WE'VE GOTTA WORK AT A BETTER WAY AND LOOK AT A BETTER PATTERN WHERE, UH, SAFETY, YOU KNOW, STUDENT SAFETY, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY'S LOOKED AT, UM, ALONG WITH THE, THE IMPACT THAT, THAT THIS MIGHT HAVE ON THE TRAFFIC IN OUR AREA.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE AND SHARING YOUR COMMENTS.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKERS? OKAY.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON, UH, ITEM 1 37 WEST DONOVAN COURT? UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER AND WE'LL VOTE ON THAT IN A MINUTE.
MS. WILLIAMSON, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO JUST VERIFY THAT THE LETTERS WENT OUT PROPERLY ON THIS.
AND, UM, I THINK WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE UH, IS THE, IS THE DEVELOPER THE DEVELOPER PRESENT OR I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS VIRTUAL 'CAUSE SHE SPOKE AT ON ANOTHER APPLICATION.
IT, SO IS THE APPLICANT AVAILABLE? WHO IS THE APPLICANT? MARY AL.
ARE YOU AROUND STILL? UM, I, I WOULD ENCOURAGE, UM, THE STAFF TO GET THE, WHOEVER NEEDS TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE CIVIC CLUB ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
I THINK THE FACT THAT THEY HAVEN'T HAD ANY MEETINGS, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER COULD HELP FACILITATE THAT.
UH, I KNOW REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON WILL BE BUSY ELSEWHERE, BUT, UM, YEAH, NO, BUT I, I THINK, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER MIGHT BE, UH, HELPFUL IN GETTING A MEETING TOGETHER.
'CAUSE I I DO THINK THAT THE, THE APPLICANT, THE DEVELOPER NEEDS TO COMMUNICATE BETTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT WHAT THE, WHAT IS PLANNED HERE.
COMMISSIONER VICTOR? UH, QUESTION I'M SORRY.
UM, SO THERE'S 58 LOTS I BELIEVE THAT DOESN'T NECESSITATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE SECOND ACCESS.
CORRECT? ARE THEY JUST CHOOSING TO ADD? CORRECT.
SO THEY'RE JUST DOING THE PAE THAT WILL INTERSECT ON TWO PUBLIC STREETS, SO HAVE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS.
BUT IT'S NOT REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 42.
[01:50:02]
OKAY.UH, IT'S JUST, IT'S INTERESTING WITH THE SCHOOL THAT THEY THEN ADD THAT SECOND ACCESS ON DONOVAN IF THEY DIDN'T REALLY NEED TO DO THAT.
SO I WAS TALKING WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE EARLIER TODAY.
UM, IF THERE ISN'T A THROUGHWAY FOR FIRE APPARATUS TRUCKS, UM, THEY WOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH THE TURNAROUND TO GET BACK OUT.
SO THAT'S, SO THE REASON FOR IT.
OKAY, COMMISSIONER VICTOR? UM, MY QUESTION WAS ON THE MARCELLA, BECAUSE CLEARLY MARCELLA IS A SMALLER, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S NOT AS WIDE OF A STREET THAN DONOVAN.
UH, AND I UNDERSTAND WE CANNOT REQUIRE THE TIA THE TRAFFIC IMPACT, UH, ANALYSIS, BUT CAN WE, CAN WE MAKE THAT AS A CONDITION, AS PART OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST THAT HAVE THE I'M GETTING A NO IN MY EAR.
AGAIN, COMMISSIONER, UH, I THINK, UH, I THINK IT IS A SOLELY, UH, A FUNCTION OF AT THE PERMIT STAGE.
SO IT IS, IT IS SEPARATE FROM A PLAT APPLICATION AND A REQUIREMENT FOR A TIA, UH, IT, IT'LL BE HARD.
I CANNOT SAY THAT YOU, I I DON'T THINK I CAN SAY NO TO A CONDITION THAT YOU WANT TO PLACE.
HOWEVER, HOWEVER, WE HAVE SEEN AND UNDERSTOOD FROM THE PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES THAT WE JUST DON'T KNOW AS MANY DETAILS ABOUT THE PROJECT AT THE PLATTING STAGE.
THAT EVEN PUBLIC WORKS CAN DETERMINE IF A TIA SHOULD BE REQUIRED OR NOT.
AND, AND SO WE WILL BE PUTTING OURSELVES IN A PLACE WHERE WE HAVE LESS INFORMATION AND WE ARE REQUIRING, UH, A STRINGENT REQUIREMENT AT THE END.
SO YOU COULD STILL DISCUSS AND WE CAN HAVE MORE INFORMATION, WE CAN HAVE OUR PUBLIC WORKS FOLKS COME BACK AND TALK TO YOU ALL, BUT FROM THE PAST EXPERIENCE, I THINK WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DETERMINE TODAY THAT A TIA SHOULD BE REQUIRED OR NOT.
SO, AND ARE YOU SAYING THAT A BETTER ANALYSIS COULD BE DONE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND THEY HAVE A, AT THAT TIME THEY HAVE.
AND THEY HAVE A PROCESS AND IF IT IS NEEDED, IT'LL BE REQUIRED NO MATTER WHAT A CONDITION OR NOT.
IF IT'S REQUIRED, IT'LL BE, UH, ADMINISTERED AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING.
SO IT IS NOT, UH, ESSENTIAL TO DO IT RIGHT NOW.
IT THROUGH THE PROCESS IT'LL BE TAKEN CARE OF.
AND COMMISSIONER CLARK, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THOUGHT WE WENT OVER THIS LIKE A FEW MONTHS AGO AND IT WAS DECIDED WE CAN'T DO IT REQUIREMENT FOR A TIA EVEN IF WE WANTED TO DO IT.
THAT THAT'S NOT IN OUR PURVIEW.
AM I, AM I REM MISREMEMBERING? I'M, I'M REMEMBERING THAT AS WELL.
I, I THINK THE QUESTION MADAM CHAIR, IF I CAN ANSWER, AND I'M NOT SURE I'M REMEMBERING EXACTLY THAT WAY, BUT WE CAN'T REQUIRE IT ON IT.
I WE CAN'T REQUIRE IT OF AN APPLICANT IF IT'S NOT WITHIN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES OR THE IDM TO REQUIRE IT AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
I THINK THE, THE NUANCE HERE IS AS A CONDITION OF WHAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE REQUESTING ON THE VARIANCE FRONT.
UM, IS IT A REASONABLE CONDITION TO IMPOSE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE VARIANCE? I THINK IT'S A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT QUESTION AND I DO THINK THE IMPACT AND THE, THE LATER LOOK AT THAT DEVELOPMENT GETS IS WHEN IT, MR. CLARK, I ASKED THIS QUESTION BECAUSE WE JUST LOOKED AT THAT PROJECT ON ELLA AND WE HAD THE SAME TIA DISCUSSION ON THAT ONE AND ON JUAN A FEW MONTHS PRIOR TO THAT AND I UNDERSTOOD WE COULD NOT DO A TIA, SO I'M REALLY CONFUSED AND I WOULD LIKE TO SOMEONE SHOW ME, YOU KNOW, IN THE ORDINANCE OR IN THE LAW SO THAT I UNDERSTAND.
'CAUSE I I'M GETTING, YOU KNOW, MIXED SIGNALS.
AND WHEN YOU SAY WE CAN'T, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS OPPOSED TO PUBLIC WORKS CAN REQUIRE A TIA JOB TO DO THAT, WHETHER, YEAH, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT MS. MATER IS SAYING IS THAT THIS IS A, THIS, THIS IS A PROCESS THAT WILL TAKE PLACE DOWN THE ROAD, RIGHT? 'CAUSE IT'D BE LIKE US REQUIRING SPECIFIC DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT? IT'S JUST NOT IN OUR PURVIEW.
WE DON'T, WE'RE NOT EXPERTS ON THAT.
WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION TO DO THAT AND MAKE AN EDUCATED DECISION ON ANY OF THAT.
AND, AND IF I MAY COMMISSION, UH, WE WILL GET YOU, I I THINK WE CAN BRING YOU MORE INFORMATION.
I THINK I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT.
HOWEVER, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DISCUSSION TODAY, IT IS ALSO THAT EVEN IF YOU PUT A CONDITION OF T-I-A-T-I-A IS A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND THEN IN THAT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, EVEN IF IT IS DONE, THERE MAY NOT BE ANYTHING THAT WILL COME OUT OF IT.
SO YOU MAY HAVE A, YOU MAY HAVE PUT A CONDITION SAYING GO DO A TIA, BUT THEY WILL DO A TIA AND NOTHING HAS TO BE DONE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EVEN REQUIRE ANY IMPROVEMENTS.
SO THAT IS PROBABLY WHERE WE WOULD END UP.
[01:55:01]
WHY I THINK WE DISCUSSED ALL OF THAT AT THAT TIME.I, I ALSO, UH, I REMEMBER THAT THE REASON OF NOT DOING A TIA WAS BECAUSE NOTHING WILL COME OUT OF A TIA.
IS IT IN YOUR PURVIEW OR NOT? I, I WOULD DEFER TO LEGAL AND, AND HAVE A DISCUSSION AND GET THAT ANSWER, BUT IT'LL PROBABLY NOT GET US ANYWHERE.
READING THE COMMENTS OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE OFFICE FOR THE ENGINEERS TRAFFIC, THERE'S AN ACCESS MANAGEMENT FORM THAT HAS TO BE FILLED OUT.
AND DEPENDING ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THAT FORM MAY DERIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR TIA, WHICH IS STIPULATED EVEN IN THAT SECTION BELOW THAT.
BUT IF THAT'S ROUTE TAKEN, UNLESS YOU DO THE T IF THEY'RE REQUIRED, YOU DO ONE.
I MEAN, UNTIL YOU GET THE RESULTS, YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU HAVE TO DO IT TO KNOW WHETHER YOU KNOW YOU'RE UP OR DOWN.
OH, SO, UH, THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT FORM, YOU HAVE TO DO THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT TO KNOW IF YOU HAVE THE TIA, CORRECT.
COMMISSIONER ALLMAN, UM, COMMISSIONER JONES, I'M HAVING DONE NUMEROUS OF THOSE TRAFFIC, UM, INITIAL TRAFFIC, UH, FORMS, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANYTHING.
IT'S, IT'S BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF TRIPS.
THAT'S, THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT IT'S FOR.
UM, AND MR. MR. SMITH WILL CORRECT ME IF I GET IT, GET IT WRONG, BUT UM, IT DOESN'T, UM, IT'S BASICALLY TO SEE IF IT GENERATES ENOUGH, UH, TRIPS TO REQUIRE A TIA.
IT TALKS ABOUT THE ROADWAY RIGHT OF AND THE PAVEMENT WIDTH AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT ELSE, BUT IT'S VERY LIMITED INFORMATION.
UM, LET'S SEE, WHERE ARE WE HERE?
UM, I, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS.
UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER, I THINK WE'VE GIVEN YOU SOME ASSIGNMENTS IN THE MEANTIME.
ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? JUST THEY HAD QUESTIONED THE NUMBER OF GUEST PARKING.
IF YOU COULD BRING THAT BACK TO US IN TWO WEEKS AND THEIR COMMENT ABOUT THE ROADS LINING UP WITH THE ACCESS PORT LINING UP, IS THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? IS THAT JUST OUR RECOMMENDATION OR DOES THAT MAKE ANY IMPACT IF WE COULD JUST RESPOND TO THEM IN TWO WEEKS ON THOSE THINGS? YES.
AND WE KNOW YOU'RE WORKING WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL AS WELL.
UM, AND THEN I'M ASSUMING, OR IF YOU CAN CLARIFY WITH ME 'CAUSE OF THE PRIVATE ALLEY, THIS WOULD BE A GATED COMMUNITY.
MY ASSUMPTION IS, BUT I CAN YEAH.
YEAH, I JUST, I THINK IT KIND OF MATTERS IN TERMS OF POTENTIALLY, UM, TRAFFIC BACKING UP FOR A GATE TO WAIT IN FRONT OF A SCHOOL.
AND SO IT WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW THAT INFORMATION.
ANYTHING ELSE OKAY WITH THAT THEN? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER ITEM 1 37? MOTION BALDWIN.
THANK YOU SPEAKERS FOR SHARING YOUR INSIGHTS WITH US TODAY.
[Platting Activities G - I]
THAT TAKES US TO SECTIONS G, H AND I.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS, G, H AND I AS ONE GROUP PLEASE.
SECTION G EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 38 THROUGH ONE 50 SECTION H.
NAME CHANGES CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 51 AND 1 52 AND SECTION I.
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CONSISTS OF ITEM 1 53, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUEST 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 RECOMMENDATION.
I THINK WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE ABSTENTION.
UH, COMMISSIONER DALTON WILL BE ABSTAINING ON ITEM 1 52 AND THAT'S IT.
IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ALL ITEMS IN SECTIONS GH AND I? CLARK? IS THERE A SECOND? GARZA GARZA.
UH, WE HAVE NO ITEMS UNDER J ADMINISTRATIVE OR K DEVELOPMENT PLATS WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS.
[II. Establish a public hearing date of February 2, 2023]
TO ROMAN NUMERAL TWO, UM, WHICH IS TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 2ND, 2023 ON THE FOLLOWING, CRESTVIEW VILLAS FOSTER PLACE, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER 34 LYONS COURT PARTY ESTATES, STERLINGS SHIRE ESTATES, AND WEST CLAY GREEN.IS THERE A MOTION TO ESTABLISH FEBRUARY 2ND FOR THE HEARINGS?
[02:00:02]
BARK SIGLER.[III. Consideration of an Off-Street Parking Variance at 2101 N Shepherd Drive (Jacqueline Brown)]
UH, ROMAN NUMERAL THREE CONSIDERATION OF AN OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE AT 2101 NORTH DRIVE, MS. BROWN.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF SIX 10 EAST OF TC JESTER AND ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH SHEPHERD DRIVE, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A PARKING VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FROM 207 SPACES TO 193.
FOR A NEW MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER FOR LEGAL REVIEW.
AND THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. BROWN? WHAT'S LEGAL GONNA REVIEW? WHAT IS LEGAL GONNA REVIEW
DID YOU HEAR THE QUESTION? I THINK YOU'RE MUTED.
I WOULD'VE, UM, REFERRED TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
I, WE NEED TO WAIT TO GET THE CONFIRMATION THAT EVERYTHING'S OKAY TO MOVE FORWARD, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
UM, I, I AM NOT AWARE THAT WE'RE WAITING ON ANYTHING FOR LEGAL REVIEW, BUT WE WILL CERTAINLY DOUBLE CHECK.
I, UM, WELL, I TAKE IT WE'RE NOT IN A POSITION TO CONSIDER THIS TODAY, SO IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER MOTION GARZA.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT WITH A COMMENT.
UM, 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS GIVE MY SPEECH EVERY DAY THAT YOU LOSE ON DEVELOPING A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, IT COULD BE 5,000 TO TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A DAY.
AND SO WHEN I LOOK OVER AND I'M WAITING FOR LEGAL TO EXPLAIN AND SHE'S CONFUSED THAT, THAT CONCERNS ME.
SO IF WE COULD PLEASE DIPTY MS. MUTTER, JUST MAKE SURE WHEN WE SAY LEGAL'S GONNA REVIEW OR SOMEBODY ELSE IS GONNA REVIEW, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE REVIEWING SO WE CAN DISCUSS IT.
YEAH, I, I DON'T FIND ANYTHING IN EMAILS THAT WE ASKED OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO LOOK AT DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE THE LEGAL REVIEW.
DOUBLE CHECKING HERE, SO, RIGHT.
WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
THAT WILL TAKE US TO ROMAN NUMERAL FOUR, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE BLOCK RENEWAL FOR THE 1300 BLOCK OF EDWARDS STREET.
DID WE VOTE? NO, WE A MOTION GARZA CLARK.
WE HAD A MOTION TO DEFER GARZA A SECOND.
OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES THE ITEMS DEFERRED.
[IV. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Special Minimum Lot Size Block Renewal for the 1300 block of Edwards Street, south side – MLS 15REN (Abraham Zorrilla)]
ITEM FOUR, PUBLIC HEARING.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR THE RENEWAL OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT SPECIAL MINIMUM OUT SIZE FOR THE 1300 BLOCK OF EDDO STREET SOUTH SIDE BETWEEN HICKORY STREET AND GLIA STREET.
PREVIOUSLY, THE MINIMAL OUTSIZE ORDINANCE FOR THE BLOCK WAS PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 18TH, UH, 2002.
THIS APPLICATION WAS PRESENTED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND IT WAS DEFERRED FOR THREE WEEKS.
STAFF RECOMMEND RECOMMENDS THAT PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARD THE APPLICATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
ACCORDING TO OUR ANALYSIS, THE, THIS APPLICATION AREA CONSISTS OF SIX SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
FOUR OF THE SIX SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS HAVE A MINIMAL OUT SIZE OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WERE PROVIDED NOTICE STATING THAT THE PROTEST OF THE APPLICATION MUST BE FILED WITHIN A 30 DAY PERIOD.
THE APPLICATION IS LOCATED IN THE WR BAKER EDITION SUBDIVISION, NORTHSIDE BIG BLOCK SUBDIVISION, WHICH WAS PLATTED IN 1824.
ALTHOUGH THE CURRENT ORDINANCE DOES NOT, UH, REQUIRE EVIDENCE OF SUPPORT FOR THE ORDINANCE, UH, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 1315 EDWARDS STREET, EXPRESSING, UH, HIS SUPPORT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 1317 GOLET STREET, ALSO EXPRESSING HIS SUPPORT TO THE APPLICATION.
I ALSO MENTIONED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THAT I SPOKE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 1311 EDWARDS.
SHE WAS THE ORIGINAL APPLICANT, UH, 20 YEARS AGO.
SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS IN SUPPORT OF THIS
[02:05:01]
RENEWAL APPLICATION.WITH THAT MADAM CHAIR, WE ARE READY TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE FIRST SPEAKER IS, UH, GILBERT CHAVEZ, MR. CHAVEZ, AND THAT'S C-H-A-V-E-Z.
REMEMBER ME, WHAT, THREE WEEKS AGO? YEAH.
Y'ALL NEED A STRETCH BREAK OR ANYTHING? OH NO.
SO THANK YOU TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALSO THANK YOU TO ABRAHAM ZILLA AND THE ENTIRE TEAM FOR, UH, THE SUPPORT AND EDUCATION AND LIGHTENING ME ABOUT THE PROCESS.
UH, THE BACKGROUND, THE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM FOR THE 1300, UH, SOUTH SIDE BLOCK OF EDWARD STREET.
UM, WE CAN REFER TO THAT MAP 'CAUSE I ATTACHED IT AS WELL, OR BRING IT UP ON THE SCREEN.
AND, UH, IT ONLY APPLIES TO SIX PROPERTY OWNERS.
I OWN TWO OF THOSE LOTS AND ONLY FOUR OF THOSE ARE THE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM.
UH, MR. ABRAHAM'S REAL TALKED TO THE RESIDENTS DURING THE HOLIDAY PERIOD.
I WAS TRYING TO TRACK DOWN EVERYONE AND TALK TO THEM, AND IT WAS HARD.
WE HAD THE GREAT FREEZE AS WELL.
BUT I FINALLY GOT AHOLD OF MR. EMMANUEL COIA OF THE, UH, 1317, THE ONE IN THE UPPER HAND, RIGHT HAND CORNER.
AND HE SAID, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M INDIFFERENT TO THE RENEWAL.
BUT AFTER LISTENING TO MY, UH, ANALYSIS, MY RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER AND NOT RENEW THE UH, APPLICATION, HE SAID, I CAN CHANGE MY MIND.
I SAID, WE NEED TO TALK TO, UH, ABRAHAM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
AND I BELIEVE HE DID REACH OUT TO ABRAHAM BY NOON THIS TODAY AND INDICATED HE WOULD BE SENDING AN EMAIL AT, UH, TWO O'CLOCK THIS AFTERNOON.
I SAID, WHERE'S YOUR EMAIL? HE GOES, I'M BUSY.
I THINK, UH, ABRAHAM'S BEEN MONITORING HIS EMAILS AND IT HASN'T COME THROUGH.
BUT ANYWAY, UH, THE TIMELINE AND SO FORTH.
UH, THE CITY OF HOUSTON MINIMUM LOT SIZE ORDINANCE, PROCESS, THE EXPIRATION, AND THEN THE RENEWAL.
FROM MY VIEW, IT DOES NOT CONSIDER BALANCING THE OVERALL FIDUCIARY ROLE, BALANCING THE INTEREST OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE CITY AS A COMMUNITY.
IT APPEARS TO BE MORE OF A PROCESS THAT'S MORE, AND I'M TRYING TO BE CAREFUL WITH MY WORDS.
WE GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS AND JUST DO IT VERSUS, UH, INCLUDING DUE DILIGENCE AND ANALYSIS.
A MACRO VIEW, A BIG PICTURE VIEW.
THE ORDINANCE RENEWAL PROCESS IS NOT PRUDENT.
DOES NOT CONSIDER THE EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOOD OVER TIME.
I HEARD IT WENT BACK TO 1824 AND, UH, THEN, UH, THE ORDINANCE WAS PUT IN PLACE IN 2002.
RECENT DATA INDICATES 81% OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOT ARE LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
19% ARE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN CHANGING ON THE WEST SIDE OF EDWARDS STREET, TWO BRAND NEW APARTMENT COMPLEXES, UH, SAWYER YARDS, ART HOUSE, APARTMENTS, 334 UNITS, AND BELL ROCK SAWYER YARDS APARTMENTS, 327 UNITS, ABOUT HALF A MILE, EIGHT TENTHS OF A MILE DOWN THE STREET.
AND THEN ONE BLOCK FROM EDWARDS ONLY ONE BLOCK OVER ON APRIL 1ST OF 22.
THE PLAT APPLICATION 2022 DASH OH 5 28.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED 4.4 ACRES, 191,000 SQUARE FEET OF LAND AS UNRESTRICTED RESERVE TO A DEVELOPER PLANNING TO BUILD A MID-RISE BUILDING WITH SEVERAL HUNDRED RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
SO THE CONCERN IS HOW CAN THE CURRENT PROCESS ALLOW A DEVELOPER TO OBTAIN APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT SEVERAL HUNDRED UNITS THAT IMPACTS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
YET THE ORDINANCE PROCESS, RENEWAL PROCESS DOES NOT FACILITATE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS TO HAVE A FAIR AND EQUITABLE REVIEW.
THAT INCLUDES AN ANALYSIS CONSIDERATION OF DATA, FACTS AND EMERGING TRENDS.
THEREFORE, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE DO NOT RENEW THE ORDINANCE, BUT CONSIDER THE ORDINANCE SECTION FOUR TWO DASH 2 0 7 E THREE TERM AND EXPIRATION APPLICATION TO RESEND APPLICATION TO RENEW PER THE ATTACHED.
AND I ATTACH A COPY OF THAT ONE PAGE.
AND THE QUESTION IS, DO WE HAVE ANY FLEXIBILITY? DO I HAVE ANY FLEXIBILITY OR ANY WAY TO COMPROMISE? THANK YOU.
UM, LET ME JUST SEE IF WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS AND WE'LL, WE'LL GET THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE CAN HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.
I'LL ASK IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. CHAVEZ FROM THE COMMISSION.
IT APPEARS NOT SO STAY WITH US.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED
[02:10:01]
UP.IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE BLOCK RENEWAL FOR THE 1300 BLOCK OF EDWARDS? IF NOT, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
MR. ZARIA, DID YOU WANNA RESPOND OR, UH, WELL, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT I DID SPEAK WITH THE, UH, PROPERTY HONOR OF 1317 GOLI STREET THIS AFTERNOON.
HE STATED THAT HE SPOKE WITH THE PROTESTOR, MR. UH, GILBERT.
UH, HE DIS HE SAID THAT HE THINKING ABOUT CHANGING, UH, THE SUPPORT TO AN OPPOSITION.
HOWEVER, HE DIDN'T, UH, WASN'T CLEAR YET.
SO HE STATED THAT IF HE CHANGED HIS MIND AND INSTEAD OF SUPPORTING, HE WILL BE IN OPPOSITION, HE WILL SEND ME AN EMAIL BEFORE 1:00 PM TODAY.
I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY EMAIL FROM SINCE THEN.
AND CAN WE GET CLEAR TO, WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM 1319 AT ALL, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? THE, THE OTHER CORNER.
YEAH, THAT'S THE, UH, THAT'S THE APPLICANT.
THAT'S THE APPLICANT WITH A RENEWAL.
AND HAVE WE HEARD FROM 1315 AND 1311.
1315 SENT AN EMAIL AS WELL AS, UH, SUPPORT IS IN THE PC REPORT.
AND 13, 11, THAT'S THE LADY I SPOKE ON THE PHONE THAT I HAVEN'T, WHO'S, WHO'S, YES.
SO IN SUMMARY, HOW MANY SUPPORTS IS YOUR MIC ON? OH, I'M SORRY.
IT IS, BUT IT'S JUST TOO HIGH FOR ME.
SO, UM, IN SI IF YOU WOULD SUMMARIZE FOR ME, LIKE HOW MANY SUPPORTS DO WE HAVE AND HOW MANY, AND I, HOW MANY PROTESTS? SO WE HAVE TWO PROTESTS, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP.
AND THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS, UH, HAVE, UH, SHOW SUPPORT BALDWIN.
UM, SO I, SHOULD WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT WE'VE KIND OF BEEN, WE STARTED THINKING ABOUT LAST WEEK ABOUT WHAT OUR, UM, SO THIS IS A RENEWAL.
THIS IS INTENDED TO BE MORE OF A MINISTERIAL PROCESS UNLESS THERE IS A PROTEST.
IF THERE IS A PROTEST, IT COMES TO THE COMMISSION.
AND THEN MS. NICHOLSON, CAN YOU, WE HAVE A LITTLE BROADER AUTHORITY OF SCOPE THAT WE CAN CONSIDER WHEN THERE IS A PROTEST.
IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT, CORRECT.
SO RENEWALS OF THESE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OR MINIMUM BUILDING LINE ARE DESIGNED TO BE LESS ONEROUS ON THE, THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS OR REAPPLICATION PROCESS.
SO IT PROVIDES THAT THE DIRECTOR MAY ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE IF THERE ARE NO PROTESTS, AS WITH AN ORIGINAL APPLICATION.
UM, IF THE DIRECTOR CANNOT ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE IT.
AND LET ME BACK UP JUST A HALF A STEP.
THE ADMINISTRA OR THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL INCLUDES THE EXCLUSION OF SEVERAL ITEMS THAT YOU WOULD LOOK FOR NORMALLY IN AN, IN AN ORIGINAL APPLICATION.
UM, I HAVE TO CHEAT SHEET HERE TWO, BUT, UM, IN Q3 AND FIVE, BUT YEAH, WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT THOSE ARE.
SO THAT'S THE INVENTORY OF THE LOTS AND THEIR USE, UH, EVIDENCE OF SUPPORT, PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF SUPPORT AND A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE APPLICATION MEETS THE CRITERIA THAT THE COMMISSION IS SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER UNDER, UNDER SECTION 42 DASH 2 0 4.
SO IF IT COMES TO YOU, BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE ADMINISTRATIVELY COM, UM, APPROVED, THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES THAT THE STANDARDS OF, UM, IT SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES FOR THE APPLICATION.
SO AGAIN, GOING BACK TO EVIDENCE OF SUPPORT, ALLOWING YOU TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT, UH, THOSE OTHER THREE ITEMS. SO HENCE WE ASKED STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT HE HAD, UM, CONFIRMATION OF, OF OTHER SUPPORT, IF ANY.
AND I'VE HEARD HIS PRESENTATION.
I JUST WANTED TO, I EDUCATIONALLY FOR ALL OF US THAT THAT'S THE DEAL.
AND I'LL ASK DIRECTOR WALLACE BROWN, HAVE WE, HAVE YOU APPROVED A LOT OF THESE ADMINISTRATIVELY? THE, UM, UH, HAVE I APPROVED A LOT OF THESE ADMINISTRATIVELY
AND YES, THIS IS THE FIRST MINIMAL OUTSIZE THAT A RENEWAL THAT WITH A PROTEST, WE HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL OF THESE APPLICATIONS.
AND ANOTHER INSTANCE, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS DECIDE TO APPLY FOR A NEW ONE SO THEY CAN HAVE THE SINGLE FAMILY LAND USE RESTRICTION.
AND IF THE COMMISSION FOLLOWS YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND SENDS THIS TO CITY COUNCIL, MR. CHAVEZ, YOU STILL HAVE
[02:15:01]
A RECOURSE TO, TO TALK TO YOUR, THE CITY COUNCIL AND SHARE YOUR OPINIONS THERE.UH, COMMISSIONER MODEST, UM, QUESTION FOR STAFF OR MAYBE LEGAL, SO PLEASE REMIND ME BECAUSE THIS WAS AN OLDER ONE.
DO THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO DUPLEX THIS? UM, BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S A RENEWAL.
IT WAS ESTABLISHED 20 YEARS AGO.
IT DOESN'T HAVE THE SINGLE FAMILY LIKE DUE RESTRICTION.
SO THEY CAN, THEY CAN EVEN, UH, MAKE IT MULTIFAMILY AS, AS WELL.
AND AND, AND THE REASON WHY I WANTED CLARIFICATION 'CAUSE UM, THE PROTESTOR YOU MENTIONED A COMPROMISE.
AND QUITE FRANKLY, THAT IS POTENTIALLY A COMPROMISE, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T LIMIT YOU TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ONE ON THAT THAT LOT.
SO, WELL THAT ALSO SINGLE FAMILY IS DEFINED AS UP TO TWO UNITS.
I, I WAS GONNA ADD, GOING TO ADD MADAM CHAIR IF I MAY, THAT YES, AS, AS WAS STATED, THE PREVIOUS, THE, THE ORIGINAL OF THIS ORDINANCE HAD NO LAND USE RESTRICTION AS A RENEWAL.
IT'S COMING FORWARD WITHOUT A LAND USE RESTRICTION.
SO THAT GIVES YOU MORE OPTIONS FOR WHAT YOU CAN DO ON THE PROPERTY.
IT JUST THAT THEY HAVE TO BE, YOU CAN'T SUB CAN'T, YEAH.
YOU CAN'T SUBDIVIDE THEM FURTHER.
UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? UM, SO, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, MR. ZARIA, DO YOU WANT TO JUST RESTATE THAT FOR US? OF COURSE.
UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION TO FORWARD THE APPLICATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? CAN I ASK A QUESTION? OF COURSE.
UM, COMMISSIONER CLARK, I WAS ABSENT LAST MEETING, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ONE, BUT DO YOU HAVE AN AERIAL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF, UH, BELIEVE, UH, IN THE THIRD SLIDE? NO, NOT JUST THAT BLOCK.
OH, OH, THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ON, ON SLIDE THREE, UH, I HAVE A VISUAL OF THE AREA, RIGHT? IT'S HARD FOR ME TO GRASP THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH JUST LOOKING AT SIX, SIX OR SEVEN LOTS I WAS ASKING.
NO, THIS IS, THIS IS A SLIDE WHERE IT HAS, IT SHOWS OTHER MINIMAL LOTS OKAY.
ORDINANCES IN PLACE IN THE, IN THE SAME AREA.
UM, CAN WE GET THAT UP OR HE'S TRYING, I CAN SEE IT THERE, BUT IT'S WILSON, COULD YOU, UM, GO TO SLIDE THREE PLEASE? HERE WE GO.
SO THE, UM, RIGHT RED IS WHERE THE, UH, RENEWAL ORDINANCE IS LOCATED.
THEY ALSO RENEWAL A MINIMUM BILLING LINE, UH, 2022.
AND THE OTHER AREAS IN DARK RED IS, UH, EXISTING, UH, MINIMAL OUTSIZED ORDINANCES.
I'M SORRY, WE'RE, WE'RE FINISHED THE PUBLIC SPEAKING TIME.
SO IN TRYING TO, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
IN TRYING TO DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, DID YOU JUST LOOK AT THE BLOCK OR DID YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE, WHAT DID YOU LOOK AT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE MINIMUM OUTSIZE BLOCK? WE JUST LOOK AT THE, AT THE BLOCK? YEAH, I'M SORRY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYONE ELSE, Y'ALL HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF HEARING THIS TWO WEEKS AGO, BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THAT DEPICTS THE CHARACTER OF THAT PARTICULAR AREA.
I SEE A LITTLE BIT OF EVERYTHING THERE.
UM, I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO, WELL, GO AHEAD.
WELL, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, REMEMBER THIS IS DONE.
THE ORDINANCE WAS CHANGED OVER YEARS TO MAKE IT, FRANKLY, EASIER FOR VOLUNTEERS.
AND WHAT WE FINALLY CAME UP WITH WAS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD, A CITY BLOCK, NORTH OR SOUTH, TO PROTECT JUST THEIR BLOCK, JUST THEIR BLOCK BASE.
SO UNLIKE, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, THE ORDINANCE ONE IS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN, YOU HAD TO DO A HUGE AREA, THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS ALLOWS, SO THE CHARACTER IS DIFFERENT.
IT'S, IT'S SUBJECTIVE FROM, FROM BLOCK TO BLOCK AS YOU WELL KNOW.
BUT THE IDEA IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ONCE AT THAT STREET, THAT BLOCK AND ONLY THAT BLOCK, AND MR. CHAVEZ HAD SAID THAT THEY WERE BUILDING, UH, YOU KNOW, CONDOS OR APARTMENTS MM-HMM
THOSE AREAS DO NOT HAVE THIS RESTRICTION ON THEM.
SO YES, THEY CAN BUILD THOSE THINGS OUTSIDE OF THAT.
IN, IN MY PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD, WE DO HAVE MINIMUM LOT AND UH, UH, AND SETBACK.
SO I HAVE TOWN HOMES COMING UP ALL THE WAY AROUND EASTWOOD, WHICH IS GREAT.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE THEM NEXT DOOR TO US.
AND THAT'S WHAT THESE PEOPLE WANT.
AND I THINK YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THE REASON THAT WE HAVE THIS PROGRAM IS THAT PEOPLE ARE UPSET ABOUT MM-HMM
DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING AROUND
[02:20:01]
THEM AND WANT TO CREATE AN ISLAND.AND, AND I UNDERSTAND RESPECTFULLY, I UNDERSTAND ALL THESE COMMENTS.
I'M A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON, BUT I JUST SAID, WA I AM A PROPERTY OWNER AND I HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND 35% OF THESE PROPERTY OWNERS DON'T WANT THIS.
I HAVE HEARTBURN WITH THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE, WE'RE TAKING AWAY.
AND I GET THE PROGRAM AND I UNDERSTAND WHY.
AND I'M NOT AGAINST NEIGHBORHOODS PROTECTING THEMSELVES, BUT I LIKE IT WHEN THEY HAVE 90 TO A HUNDRED PERCENT BACKING.
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SAY, OH YEAH, SURE.
THAT ONE BLOCK, EVEN THOUGH THE CHARACTER DOESN'T FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
'CAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT NECESSARILY ONE BLOCK.
AND I UNDERSTAND ALL THE REASONS, SO Y'ALL DON'T HAVE TO EDUCATE ME, BUT I JUST NEED TO SAY, I, I HAVE HEARTBURN TAKING AWAY PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH 35% IN PROTEST.
THIS, IT'S A HARD, IT'S A DECISION.
AND I WOULD AGREE, COMMISSIONER MAD IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE BECAUSE IT'S AN EXISTING PROTECTION, IT WAS IN PLACE WHEN THE PROTESTOR BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, SO HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS BUYING.
SO I JUST PUT IT AT THERE, WHAT I MISSED, BUT I KEPT SAYING YOU DIDN'T WATCH THE MEETING TO CATCH UP.
UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR STAFF RECOMME.
IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE ALLMAN? IS THERE A SECOND? MODEST? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
COMMISSIONER UP ALREADY ONCE I HAVE THAT.
JONES AND CLARK, DID YOU GET THAT? MS. GEER? OKAY, GREAT.
[V. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Special Minimum Lot Size Block for the 5300 Block of Calhoun Road, west side – MLS 823 (Abraham Zorrilla)]
FIVE PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE BLOCK.AND THIS IS NOT A RENEWAL, THIS IS A NEW ONE FOR THE 5,300 BLOCK OF CALHOUN ROAD WEST SIDE.
ALL RIGHT, MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, UH, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT ITEMS, ITEMS FIVE AND SIX TOGETHER, IT WOULD PLEASE ME TO, FOR YOU TO PRESENT THAT PLEASE.
BUT I'M ASK, I'M LOOKING AT LEGAL.
CAN WE, DO WE HAVE TO HAVE TWO SEPARATE HEARINGS? I WOULD HOLD TWO SEPARATE HEARINGS.
SO YOU CAN PRESENT, BUT WE'RE IN OUR BRAINS ARE ON FIVE.
SO IF I WOULD LIKE, I CAN DO BOTH, UM, IF THAT WORKS.
SO ITEM FIVE, UM, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAD RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF, UH, UH, 34,303 SQUARE FOOT.
A SPECIAL MINIMAL OUTSIZE BLOCK FOR THE, UH, 5,300 BLOCK OF CALHOUN ROAD, WEST SIDE BETWEEN AND RIVERSIDE, RIVERSIDE TREE PARK LANE, AND NORTH ROSENE DRIVE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARD THE APPLICATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
THE APPLICATION AREA CONSISTS OF FIVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, A MINIMAL LOT SIZE OF 34,303 SQUARE FEET EXIST ON FOUR OF THE LOTS IN THE APPLICATION AREA.
THE APPLICANT PROVIDED EVIDENCE OF SUPPORT FROM OWNERS OF FIVE OF THE SEVEN LOTS, REPRESENTING 99% SUPPORT OF THE AREA.
NOTIFICATION WAS MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE APPLICATION AREA, AND TWO TIMELY WRITTEN PROTEST FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS RECEIVED BY STAFF.
UH, IT'S HARD TO SEE, BUT THERE IS A SMALL 200, 200 SQUARE LOTS.
IT'S, WELL, WE CAN CALL IT SIX.
IT'S, IT HAS A TAX ID AND IT'S A LOT.
WHAT I WAS, UH, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A SUPPORT OF, UH, FROM OWNERS OF THE FIVE OF THE SEVEN LOTS REPRESENTING 99% OF THE TO TOTAL AREA NOTIFICATION WAS MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE APPLICATION AREA AND TWO TIMELY BREEDING PROTESTS FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS RECEIVED BY A STAFF.
THE APPLICATION IS WITHIN THE RIVERSIDE TERRACE, SECTION 15 SUBDIVISION PLOTTED IN 1938.
THE EARLIEST HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN IN THE 1930S.
WITH THAT CHAIR, WE ARE READY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ROMAN FIVE, WHICH IS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE BLOCK IS OPEN.
[02:25:01]
HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP IN ADVANCE.IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK OR? OH, THERE IS SASHA KATA.
YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SPELL THAT A LITTLE SLOWER.
K-A-L-A-P-A-T-A-P-U-P-U MM-HMM
AND FIRST NAME WAS? SASHA ASHA.
GO RIGHT AHEAD, MR. I'M GONNA LET YOU PRONOUNCE YOUR LAST NAME.
UH, ON BEHALF OF, UH, 46 15 RIVERSIDE TREE PARK LANE, UH, AND RESERVE TRACK A, UH, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST, UH, FOR FOUR REASONS.
NUMBER ONE, THERE IS ONGOING LITIGATION INVOLVING SOME OR ALL OF THE LOTS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED, UH, REGARDING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
AND THEREFORE, UH, WE FEEL THAT IT, IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE LOTS WHILE THAT LITIGATION IS PENDING.
UH, THE SECOND REASON IS THAT, UM, THIS CALHOUN ROAD HAS BEEN DESIGNATED A TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICT, UH, BY, UM, BY THE CITY IN A, IN A PRIOR ORDINANCE.
AND THEREFORE, UH, IT'S UNCLEAR HOW AND WHETHER, FIRST OF ALL, WHETHER THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, UH, RESTRICTIONS REQUESTED WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IN LIGHT OF THE TOD DESIGNATION.
UH, AND IT'S UNCLEAR HOW THE TWO WOULD INTERPLAY AND WE WOULD REQUEST MORE INFORMATION ON THAT, ON THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE.
UM, THE, UH, I I FURTHER NOTE THAT IN REVIEWING THE, THE MATERIALS FOR THIS HEARING, THE APPLICATIONS THEMSELVES ARE INCOMPLETE IN A NUMBER OF MATERIAL RESPECTS.
I KNOW THAT, UM, MR. ZILLA JUST MENTIONED THAT ALL OF THESE LOTS WERE IN RIVERSIDE TERRACE, UH, SECTION 15, BUT I, I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS THE CASE, AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO ONE OR MORE OF THOSE LOTS.
UM, AND SO I, I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT ISSUE AS WELL AS WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE IN THE RIVERSIDE TERRACE, HOA OR ANY OTHER HOA WAS CONSULTED PRIOR TO THIS HEARING, UH, TO DISCUSS, UM, APPROVALS.
UH, AND THEN THE LAST, THE, UM, THE RESERVE TRACK DAY, WHICH IS LISTED AS VS AT THE VERY SOUTH END OF CALHOUN ROAD.
UH, THAT'S NOT A COMPLETE BLOCK.
IT'S NOT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT, AND IT, IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE BLOCK AND THEREFORE IT, IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS, UM, IN THESE RESTRICTIONS.
UM, I'M GONNA, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS, BUT LET ME GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE BLOCK APPLICATION? UH, I, HELLO? OH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? JUST HOLD ON ONE MINUTE.
WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S HERE PRESENT WITH US IN THE ROOM.
WE'RE GONNA CALL HIM FIRST GO.
COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD PLEASE? MY NAME IS, UH, ELWIN LEE, AND I'M A RESIDENT IN THAT GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD, ALTHOUGH I'M NOT A RESIDENT OR A PROPERTY OWNER OF THE PROPERTIES IN SUBJECT HERE.
UH, I LIVE VERY CLOSE THERE ON NORTH ROSA.
AND, UH, I'VE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE, UH, 1979.
I'VE BEEN PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIC CLUB THERE.
I PARTICIPATED IN ALL THE, THESE RESTRICTIONS RENEWED.
UH, WHAT HAPPENS OVER HERE IMPACTS THE CHARACTER OF THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SIZES OF THE LOTS.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTS PRIMARILY OF LARGE HOMES, UM, ON BIG LOTS.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SOUTH THERE ON THAT, UH, SO-CALLED PLAT, THERE ARE EFFORTS BY PEOPLE TO, UM, INSERT, UH, A GREATER DENSITY.
UH, SO, UH, UH, I I, I'M SURPRISED IN SUPPORT OF THIS MINIMUM LOT SIZE SO THAT WE CAN PRESERVE THE CHARACTER.
WHAT IS A VERY HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, HAS BEEN FOR A LONG TIME.
IT'S A MULTIETHNIC NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE'RE PROUD OF THAT AND WE WOULD LIKE THE CHARACTER TO BE MAINTAINED.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? THANK YOU.
UM, OKAY, UH, WHO IS THE PERSON WHO, UH, WHO RESPONDED WHO'S VIRTUAL? OKAY.
AND, OKAY, GO AHEAD AGAIN, MR. DOUGLAS.
I'M SURPRISED BECAUSE I DID CALL IN AND SIGN UP TO, TO SPEAK.
I LIVED IN THE 5,300 BLOCK OF,
[02:30:01]
OF CALHOUN ROAD.I'VE BEEN THERE FOR OVER 40 YEARS.
UH, THAT AREA, AS DR. LEE JUST INDICATED, WAS DEVELOPED AS A DEED RESTRICTED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA.
JUST LIKE WITH MOST DEED RESTRICTIONS IN HOUSTON, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ZONING, WE HAVE TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO DEED RESTRICTIONS, WE ARE DISCOVERING THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME CONFUSION, SOME AMBIGUITY, SOME PROBLEMS IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE WE ARE GOING THROUGH NOW BECAUSE THERE'S SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THAT, THOSE SEVEN LOTS ON CALHOUN ROAD.
UH, WE ARE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANNA CHANGE THE WHOLE AMBIENCE OF WHAT IS A ALMOST 85-YEAR-OLD SINGLE FAMILY DEED RESTRICTION NEIGHBORHOOD.
MOST OF THOSE LOTS ARE, AS DR. LEE JUST INDICATED, A LARGE, I LIVE ON A ACRE LOT.
UH, AND, AND MOST OF THE TWO ADJOURNING LOTS NEXT TO ME ARE APPROXIMATELY AN ACRE.
THAT WAS A WELL-DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS I SAID, FOR OVER 85 YEARS NOW, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CHANGE NOT ONLY THE COMPLEX OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT AND CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT.
AND I'M NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT, I'M TALKING ABOUT CREATE A LOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.
WE KNOW THAT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH HOUSTON IS THAT WE'VE ADDED SO MUCH, SO MANY, SO MUCH ADDITIONAL CONCRETE, AND THAT AREA CAN'T TAKE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL CONCRETE.
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IF WE BRING IN ALL THESE TOWNHOUSES, THE PARKING, THE FLOODING, UH, ALL THESE OTHER CONCERNS THAT THERE IS ABOUT INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WITHOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT IT.
SO WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO SEE ANY DESIGNS, UH, ANY, UH, CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THIS ONE SINGLE LOT.
WE'VE HEARD THAT THEY WANNA PUT 17 TOWNHOUSES ON, UH, AN AC AND A HALF WHERE WE ARE ONE RESIDENT ON AN ACRE.
SO WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
WE ARE TRYING TO CORRECT SOMETHING, UH, AT LEAST NOT CORRECT SOMETHING, BUT AT LEAST, UH, THERE WAS SOME AMBIGUITIES IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
AND SO I SUPPORT, UH, THIS MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND, AND THINK THAT THE CITY OF HOUSTON, I'VE SUGGESTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE CITY OF HOUSTON NEEDS TO HELP MAINTAIN RESIDENTS RATHER THAN DESTROY RESIDENTS.
AND FOR 85 YEARS WE'VE TRIED TO MAINTAIN THIS, THIS, UH, RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE THINK THAT, UH, THIS MINIMUM LOT SIZE WOULD GO A LONG WAYS IN HELPING US MAINTAIN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS ONE OF, I THINK ONE OF THE HIGH QUALITY NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR BEING WITH US TODAY.
AND, UH, AND YOU ARE THE APPLICANT, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, I AM ONE OF THE APPLICANTS.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON AT THE PUBLIC HEARING? THERE IS RUSSELL JACKSON, R-U-S-S-E-L-L JACKSON, J-A-C-K-S-O-N.
UH, IF YOU CAN HEAR ME, WE CAN.
I AM THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE WEST MCGREGOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
A QUESTION WAS RAISED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, UH, WAS AWARE OF THIS APPLICATION.
AND THE ANSWER EMPHATICALLY IS YES, AND WE WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT IT AS WELL AS SUPPORT THE WHOLE NOTION OF TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THIS OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, IT'S TRUE THAT THERE IS SOME LITIGATION, BUT IT IS NOT PART OF THE DECISION HERE.
UH, OBVIOUSLY, UH, WE WILL BE LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE ATTEMPT TO PUT 17 TOWN HOMES ON A, UH, A SINGLE, UH, ACRE LOT.
UH, BUT THAT'S FOR ANOTHER DAY.
BUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUESTS, WE ARE FULLY ENDORSING IT AND, UH, WE'LL BE, UH, HOPEFULLY HEARING POSITIVE, UH,
[02:35:01]
RESPONSE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
UH, ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING? RUDOLPH PEARSON.
UM, I ACTUALLY, UM, LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.
I'M ON THE, UH, ROSENE STREET.
I JUST WANTED TO, UM, FORMALLY SUBMIT MY SUPPORT FOR, UH, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE RESTRICTIONS.
UH, THAT HIGH DENSITY, UM, ESPECIALLY BETWEEN TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IS JUST TOTALLY AGAINST THE TOTAL, UM, CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY IN ADDITION TO, UM, A LOT OF LEGITIMATE CONCERNS REGARDING FLOODING AND SOME OF THE, YOU KNOW, EXTRA CARS AND VEHICLES RIGHT IN THIS PARK AREA.
SO I JUST WANTED TO, UM, MAKE MY, UM, REQUEST ON NOTE.
I'M SORRY I WAS DISTRACTED FOR A SECOND.
DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR REMARKS, MR. PEARSON? UH, YES, IT DOES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US.
KEN, IS IT KENLEY? KENNY? IT'S KENNY.
UM, THANK YOU GUYS FOR LETTING ME SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE, UH, WEST MCGREGOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
I AM THE ELECTED 2023 TREASURER.
UM, HOWEVER, AND ALSO I AM THE CO-APPLICANT ON THE APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND HAVE WORKED WITH, UM, ABRAHAM ZILLO IN MAKING SURE THAT THE APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED WAS COMPLETE AS A WHOLE.
AND WE'VE RECEIVED FROM NORTH ROSE NEED, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOP OF THE A, THE TOP OF THE MAP FROM NORTH R NORTH ROSE E DRIVE, ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE NEXT CORNER OF ROSENE DRIVE, UM, WITH PROBABLY ABOUT 95% OF THE ACTUAL RESIDENTS THAT LIVE ON THAT BLOCK AT 5,300 BLOCK OF CALHOUN ROAD TO ACTUALLY REQUEST THAT WE ADHERE TO THE, AGAIN, BACK TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, A MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND A MINIMUM LINE SETBACK.
UM, SO THE APPLICATION IN ITSELF WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FROM MY UNDERSTANDING.
UM, THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED AS A WHOLE AND WE RECEIVED THE ACTUAL SUPPORT, THE, THE NEEDED SUPPORT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE INFORMATION WAS, UM, WAS ADHERED BASED ON THE REQUEST IN THE CITY.
UH, I ACTUALLY LIVE RIGHT BEHIND THE ACTUAL RIVERSIDE GREENS PASS, UH, OR RIVERSIDE TREE PARK LANE OR WHATEVER IT'S CALLED AS OF RIGHT NOW.
AND AGAIN, WE WERE NOT INFORMED.
NONETHELESS, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL APPLICATION IN ITSELF.
UH, WE'RE TRYING, AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ADHERE TO THE, THE WEST MCGREGOR ASSOCIATION, UM, DE RESTRICTIONS.
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE KEEPING THIS AS LIKE, UM, DR. DEAN DOUGLAS ACTUALLY SAID FOR THE PAST 85 YEARS HAS BEEN AN ACTUAL HOME TO, UM, EVERYONE.
UM, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP THIS AS A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND I DO FULLY SUPPORT THE ACTUAL APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED, UM, ON OUR BEHALF.
I, I'M THE 2023, UH, PRESIDENT FOR THE WEST MCGREGOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, UM, AS MR. JACKSON, UM, AND MR. JOHNSON HAVE SAID WE, THE, THE HOAS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION AND JUST AGAIN, REFLECTING THAT THESE PARTICULAR LOTS ARE NOT PART OF ANY PENDING LITIGATION.
UM, COMMISSIONER, I JUST WANTED TO, UM, ALSO LEND MY SUPPORT.
I AM ALSO IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I'M A PROPERTY THAT IS ADJOINING THE 17 PROPOSED, NOT PROPOSED, BUT THE 17 TOWN HOMES.
I ALSO JUST WANT, UM, THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT TO KNOW THAT THIS IS A VERY SENSITIVE ISSUE TO OUR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE WE WERE NOT GIVEN NOTIFICATION REGARDING THE ORIGINAL PLAT APPLICATION FOR THE 17 TOWN HOMES, WHICH I DO KNOW THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE ADDRESSING HERE.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW THE EMOTIONS BEHIND THIS AND THE SENSITIVITY.
AND ALSO JUST TO SAY THAT I AM IN SUPPORT AS WELL.
THANK YOU MS. LOVE IN ANY MORE SPEAKERS.
WE HAVE NO OTHER SPEAKERS SIGNED UP IN THE CHAT.
IS THERE ANYONE WITH US OR LISTENING WHO WANTS TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING IF OH YES.
GOOD AFTERNOON, GO RIGHT AHEAD.
UH, I'M GONNA SPEAK ON BEHALF OF
[02:40:01]
THIS, FIRST OF ALL IN SUPPORT OF THE EFFORT THAT'S GOING FORTH.AND I WANNA SPEAK AND SAY THIS BECAUSE, UH, APPROXIMATELY A YEAR AGO I WAS LOOKING FOR A LOT IN THIS AREA TO DEVELOP AND BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON.
AND THAT LOT WHERE YOU SEE THAT STREET, WHAT IS THAT RIVERSIDE THREE, WHATEVER IT IS, UH, THAT WAS THE LOT THAT WE NOTICED THAT WE WANTED TO BUILD OUR HOUSE ON.
AND WE SAW, WELL, IT WASN'T FOR SALE, MAYBE IT'LL COME FOR SALE.
WE TRIED TO INVESTIGATE, SEE WHO OWNS IT, WHATEVER, COULDN'T FIGURE OUT ANY INFORMATION.
ALL OF A SUDDEN WE SEE THAT ALL THE TREES ARE BEING TORE DOWN.
TREES THAT HAVE BEEN UP FOR 70, 80, 90 YEARS ARE BEING TOTALLY REMOVED FROM THE LOT.
THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE SEE, UH, SOME DEVELOPMENT SIGNS GOING UP.
AND I WAS KIND OF DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE ANY SIGNAGE ABOUT A PUBLIC HEARING OF REPLANTING THIS FROM WHAT IT WE THOUGHT IT WAS TO WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT NOW.
AND WE WANTED TO BUILD A HOUSE THERE BECAUSE WE THOUGHT IT WOULD GO GOOD WITH THE MAKEUP AND THE LANDSCAPE OF THE CURRENT AREA THAT'S THERE NOW.
AND TO SEE THAT THESE TOWN HOMES ARE TRYING TO GO IN THERE IS VERY DISCOURAGING.
I KNOW THIS IS, ISN'T ABOUT THAT, BUT I HOPE IT DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE TO SEE A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE GO THERE AND TO CONTINUE, UH, THE LANDSCAPE OF THE CURRENT AREA, I THINK IS VERY BENEFICIAL TO THE AREA AS A WHOLE.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WITH US WHO WANTS TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ROMAN NUMERAL FIVE? UH, HEARING NO RESPONSE, THE PUBLIC HEARING ON FIVE IS CLOSED AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UM, I THINK WE HAVE SOME, SOME THINGS TO DISCUSS.
SO, AND I'M GONNA GO BACK TO, UM, MR. KAPA PO'S COMMENTS.
UM, SO CAN WE ASK OUR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, MS. MICKELSON, TO FIRST DISCUSS THE TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICT DESIGNATION, THE DOD DESIGNATION? CERTAINLY, UM, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, UM, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ITEMS AND OTHER ISSUES PRESENTED AS WELL, AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT I AM INCLINED TO ASK YOU ALL TO CONSIDER A DEFERRAL OF THIS ITEM SO THAT WE CAN LOOK AT SOME OF THESE ISSUES, SOME OF WHICH I'VE JUST HEARD TODAY.
SO, UM, BUT IN ANSWER TO THE TOD QUESTION, UM, WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE WALKABLE PLACES ORDINANCE AND THE, THE PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS FOR ADOPTING TOD CALHOUN STREET WAS DESIGNATED A TOD ONE OF THE LIMIT LIMITATIONS ON DESIGNATING A STREET, A TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT STREET, IS THAT THERE, IT NOT INCLUDE, IT DOES NOT AT THAT TIME INCLUDE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
THE ORDINANCE IS SILENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A MINIMUM LOT SIZE COULD BE THEN THEREAFTER ESTABLISHED.
UM, THAT WAS JUST NOT PART OF THE REGULATION.
SO THE DESIGNATION OF THIS AREA AS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE, UM, BLOCK WOULD NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE STATUS OF CALHOUN AS A TOD STREET.
I DON'T THINK THE ORDINANCE PROHIBITS YOU ALL FROM, FROM PLACING A MINIMUM LOT SIZE BLOCK ON A TOD STREET.
IT JUST ANTICIPATES THAT WE WON'T START THAT WAY.
I HOPE IT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION.
AND I, I THINK THE LITIGATION QUESTION IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEYOND US AT THIS POINT.
MAYBE SOMETHING THAT WE NEED A DEFERRAL ON OR IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER.
THERE IS LITIGATION, UM, ONGOING, UM, OVER THIS DEVELOPMENT OVER WHETHER OR NOT THIS AREA IS PART OF SECTION 15 RIVERSIDE TERRACE AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT APPLY TO ANY OF THOSE LOTS, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT WAS SUBDIVIDED.
AND, UM, SO I'D LIKE A I THAT THAT'S PART OF THE REASON CITY IS NOT A PARTY TO THAT LITIGATION.
UM, COMMISSION IS NOT A PARTY TO THAT LITIGATION EITHER.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT THE CONCERN FROM ANY EXPOSURE ON OUR FRONT.
BUT, UM, IT DOES BRING UP SOME INTERESTING QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS BEING DONE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT LITIGATION.
AND I'D LIKE SOME TIME TO CONTEMPLATE THAT.
AND THEN HE, HE'LL, HE ALSO, UH, SAYS THAT RESERVE TRACK A, WHICH I ASSUME IS THE PROTEST BLOCK DOES NOT, IS A RESERVE AND NOT A, NOT A LOT.
SO DOES THAT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON WHETHER IT CAN CORRECT AND THAT THAT WILL BE ANOTHER ASPECT.
I DON'T THINK IT NECESSARILY SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS A RESERVE UNDER THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT COMMISSIONER CLARK, I'M, I'M KIND OF GLAD YOU SAID THAT BECAUSE IN LOOKING AT THIS, IT'S, IT'S LESS THAN 60 FEET DEEP
AND IF WE DO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE LOT, UH, BUILDING LOT SETBACK, WE'LL RENDER THIS PROPERTY COMPLETELY USELESS.
[02:45:01]
WELL, AND IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE? I KNOW WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S TO TAKE AWAY EVERYONE'S RIGHTS.I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS PROPERTY IS ALREADY SUBDIVIDED INTO LOTS AND RESERVES, UM, THEY ARE VESTED IN THAT PLAT AS IT IS.
AND I THINK THAT THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE MINIMUM BUILDING LINE WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT ON THOSE LOTS.
THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THOSE, BUT, OKAY.
YES, COMMISSIONER, BUT COULD WE GET CLARITY IF IN FACT WHAT'S DEFERRED ON THE 67 FOOT BUILD LINE WITH REGARDS TO TOD, WHICH WOULD TRUMP THE OTHER ONE? BECAUSE THERE IS CERTAINLY A REDUCED SETBACK ON THE TOD DESIGNATION, WHICH WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE TOD DESIGN PURPOSE.
SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE HAVE A CONFLICT? CORRECT.
I'D BE HAPPY TO TO INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF THE ANALYSIS.
WELL, I'M NOT SURE WHEN, WHEN, UH, THE APPROPRIATE TIME IS TO BRING THIS UP 'CAUSE IT'S A A TO UM, A DIFFERENT SUBJECT.
BUT NOW THAT I'VE GOT LEGAL IS LOOKING AT THIS AND THIS AND THIS, UM, ADD TO MY LIST.
WHEN, WHEN LAST TIME WHEN WE CONSIDERED THE, UM, WE WERE LOOKING AT THE RENEWAL, YOU KNOW, EDWARDS, I'M GOING BACK TO THAT.
THERE WAS A BIG DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA INCLUDED WHEN I READ THE ORDINANCE.
TO ME THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS, WAS, UM, INTENDING IT TO BE THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT JUST THE APPLICATION AREA, NOT THE OVERALL BIG PICTURE AREA, BUT IT WAS, TO ME THE ORDINANCE DEFINED IT VERY NARROWLY.
AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO WEIGH IN ON THAT PLEASE.
DO YOU WANT HER TO WEIGH IN IT NOW? OR, OR, WELL, WHATEVER SHE PREFERS.
IF SHE WANTS TO LOOK AT IT AND GIVE AND WEIGH IN IT NEXT WEEK OR TWO WEEKS, THAT'S FINE.
WHY DON'T WE WEIGH IN ON ALL OF THIS TOGETHER IF I COULD.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER, MA AND I, I FEEL LIKE I'M GONNA THROW ANOTHER ONE ON YOU.
UM, THE DEFINITION OF A BLOCK FACE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IS IF THE, THE PLOT TO THIS, LIKE I I'M GONNA CALL IT SOUTH, I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S AT, BUT THE 17 PLA, IS THAT A PRIVATE STREET? AND THEN IF IT IS, WHY IS IT CONSIDERED, OR WHY IS THAT THE BREAK IN THE BLOCK FACE? I'M KIND OF A LITTLE CONFUSED OF THAT IF I'M BEING A LITTLE HONEST.
SO BECAUSE IT STREET, THE DEFINITION OF STREET INCLUDES, UM, THE BLACK FACE IS DE DEFINED BETWEEN AND CORRECT STAFF.
THIS, UM, IS DEFINED AS BEING BETWEEN TWO STREET STREET IS DEFINED AS PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER GARZA.
LAST ONE IS, SO THEY WERE DISCUSSING THAT THE FACT THAT THEY HAD DE RESTRICTIONS AND THAT THERE WAS SOME AMBIGUITY IN SOME PLACES.
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF MAKING THAT CLEAR? ONLY AS IT REGARDS TO LOT SIZE OR SETBACKS? BECAUSE I WOULD THINK THAT DEED RESTRICTIONS, IF WE SET A 30 AND THE DEED RESTRICTIONS SAY 65, THE 65 IS WHAT HOLDS BECAUSE OF IF THEY'RE DEED RESTRICTIONS VERSUS THE ORDINANCE.
WELL, THEY HAVE 30 AND WE CAN BE, WE CAN RESTRICT 67 DE WE DO IT ALL TIME AT HEIGHT.
THE BE 10, BUT YOU GOTTA BUILD NO, NO, NO.
WELL, I, I WOULD SOME CLARITY JUST WITH REGARDS TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, IF WE CAN GET SOME YES, THANK YOU.
I WE WILL ADD THAT WE GET CLARITY.
ANY FURTHER DISTINCTION? JUST ONE MORE QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER COURT LOOKING AT THE STREET, 'CAUSE I HAD THE SAME QUESTION AS COMMISSIONER MORRIS, BUT I'VE SPOKEN A LOT SO I DIDN'T WANT TO SPEAK UP ANYMORE.
IS THERE A DEFINITION FOR THE STREET? IS THERE A WIDTH THAT IT GOES BY? 'CAUSE PRIVATE STREETS ARE ALWAYS MUCH SKINNIER.
BUT THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO LOOK AT.
I MEAN, I DO THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT IN THE FUTURE.
WE SHOULDN'T GO TO A PRIVATE STREET LIKE THIS.
UM, IT, IT SOUNDS AS IF WE ARE, UH, IN AGREEMENT ON THE DEFERRAL.
SO I THINK MAYBE WHAT WE'LL DO IS, UM, ASK FOR A MOTION TO DEFER ROMAN NUMERAL FOUR AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THEN WE'LL DEAL WITH NUMBER FIVE.
CAN'T READ ROMAN NUMERALS BECAUSE IT'S SO LATE.
IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER FOR ROMAN NUMERAL FIVE BALDWIN? IS THERE A SECOND? GARZA GARZA.
[02:50:01]
IT IS DEFERRED.WE'LL BE ADDRESSING THIS AGAIN IN TWO WEEKS.
[VI. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Special Minimum Building line Block for the 5300 Block of Calhoun Road, west side – MBL 262 (Abraham Zorrilla)]
UM, THANK YOU.AND THEN ON TO ROMAN SIX, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL MINIMUM BUILDING LINE BLOCK FOR 5,300 BLOCK OF CALHOUN, CALHOUN ROAD, WEST SIDE, UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN.
DO WE, UM, WE, I ASSUME WE WILL BE HAVING A RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER THIS AS WELL.
AND, BUT SPEAKERS ARE FULLY ABLE TO SPEAK TODAY AND AGAIN IN TWO WEEKS.
SO WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR FOR ANY, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK NOW.
SO DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED IN THE CHAT? ANYONE IN THE ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ALSO ON ROMAN NUMERAL SIX, WHICH IS ON THE BUILDING LINE, A HEARING, NO RESPONSE.
IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION? HELLO? HELLO? YES, I, I I JUST MAKE A QUICK COMMENT.
CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? JAMES DOUGLAS.
AND I, I LIVE AT 53 18 CALHOUN.
AND THE COMMENTS I MADE ON FIVE, I ALSO MAKE ON SIX AND I DID OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. DOUGLAS.
UH, YES, I JUST, SAME AS MS UH, DOUGLAS, THE, TO THE EXTENT THIS IS A DIFFERENT HEARING, RAISE THE SAME, UM, OBJECTIONS THAT WE RAISED ON 0.5.
AND WE WILL BE, UH, LOOKING FURTHER INTO THIS IN THE DEFERRAL PERIOD.
ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? IF NOT, THEN, IS THERE A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL FOR ROMAN NUMERAL SIX AND CONTINUANCE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING? BALDWIN, BALDWIN, SECOND CLARK.
CLARK? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
I'M SORRY WE COULDN'T DEAL WITH THAT TODAY, BUT I KNOW.
WELL, I THINK IT'S, IT BEHOOVES US ALL TO GET IT RIGHT.
THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS ROMAN NUMERAL SEVEN PUBLIC COMMENT.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE CHAT? UM, WE DO NOT NEED TO ACT ON ROMAN NUMERAL EIGHT.
SINCE COMMISSIONER HINES IS WITH US, THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS ADJOURNMENT.
IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOTION.