* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:02] IT [Call to Order] IS TWO 30 ON THE NOSE. IT'S THURSDAY, JUNE 22ND. THIS IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION. UH, WE'RE CALLED TO ORDER. I'M THE CHAIR, MARTY STEIN. WE'RE TRYING TO GET IT COOLER IN THE ROOM, SO BEAR WITH US. UM, I'M GONNA CALL THE ROLE TO VERIFY WE HAVE A QUORUM. THE CHAIR IS PRESENT. VICE CHAIR GARZA. PRESENT, PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ALLMAN. PRESENT. PRESENT, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN WILL BE ABSENT. COMMISSIONER CLARK PRESENT VIRTUALLY IS PRESENT VIRTUALLY. COMMISSIONER COVAR PRESENT, COMMISSIONER VAR. PRESENT, HES PRESENT. PRESENT DAMIEN HINES. PRESENT, PRESENT. COMMISSIONER JONES WILL BE ABSENT. COMMISSIONER MA PRESENT IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER NELSON IS NOT PRESENT. COMMISSIONER POROUS PERLE. PRESENT IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ROBBINS WILL BE ABSENT. COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG WILL BE ABSENT. COMMISSIONER SIGLER PRESENT IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER TAHIR, PRESENT IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER VICTOR WILL BE ABSENT. UM, COMMISSIONER RA BLAND. WELCOME BACK. AFTER MATERNITY LEAVE IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER KANE IS NOT PRESENT. COMMISSIONER DALTON IS NOT PRESENT. AND COMMISSIONER MANKA NOT PRESENT. COMM AND DIRECTOR OF MARGARET WALLACE BROWN. PRESENT. PRESENT. OKAY. WE HAVE 13 MEMBERS WHO HAVE RESPONDED TO ROLL CALL. SO YEAH. UH, PLAN ACCORDINGLY THIS AFTERNOON. OKAY, TO EVERYONE ELSE JOINING US, WELCOME. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A SPECIFIC ITEM AND YOU ARE HERE, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU GO UP TO THE FRONT DESK, GET A LITTLE RECTANGLE PAPER AND FILL IT OUT SO WE CAN PLACE YOU IN THE CORRECT ORDER. UM, ALL STAFF'S RECOMMEND. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS WERE, UM, POSTED ON THE WEBSITE, UH, THIS AFTERNOON. AND ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED BEFORE NOON YESTERDAY ARE INCLUDED IN THAT PACKET, WHICH WE ALL HAVE ACCESS TO. UM, IF YOU ARE CONNECTED BY PHONE OR COMPUTER, AGAIN, PLEASE KEEP YOUR DEVICE MUTED UNTIL IT'S TIME TO SPEAK, WHICH MEANS UNTIL YOU'RE CALLED ON. AND, UH, YOUR CAMERA AS WELL. IF, UH, UNTIL IT'S YOUR TURN TO SPEAK, ONE ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE, UH, THE BULK OF THE AGENDA. UM, UNDER VARIANCES, 1 38, SAN JACINTO RIVER AND RAIL POWER FACILITY HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. THERE'LL BE NO OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THAT. AND WITH THAT, WE GO TO [Director’s Report] THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. DIRECTOR MARGARET WALLACE BROWN AND COMMISSIONER MON HAS JOINED US. WE HAVE 14. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME'S MARGARET WALLACE BROWN. I'M SECRETARY TO THIS COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE 10 STUDENT INTERNS THAT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IS HOSTING THIS SUMMER. WHEN I CALL OUT YOUR NAMES, IF YOU ALL WOULD COME FORWARD VERY QUICKLY, WE'RE GONNA TAKE ONE PHOTOGRAPH AND, AND, UM, TRY TO DO THIS QUICKLY. BUT I WANNA RECOGNIZE EACH ONE OF YOU. UH, TIMOTHY ASTON, ALEJANDRO MONTEON, FAHA, QUASI K ELLA SPARKS, MIGUEL ESTRADA, NICHOLAS SMOTHERS, DAVIAN THOMPSON, NAISH, VAL, AND ETTE ON TRON. WELCOME EVERYBODY. WHILE THEY'RE DOING THAT, I'M GONNA GO ON WITH MY REPORT. UM, I DO WANNA LET YOU KNOW THAT THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IS IN THREE WEEKS ON JULY 13TH. SO PLEASE DON'T COME HERE IN TWO WEEKS. UH, PLATS DEFERRED TODAY WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO BE DEFERRED AGAIN AT THAT JULY 13TH MEETING. STAFF WILL GIVE SPECIFICS TO THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ON RELEVANT PLAT ITEMS. THE MAJOR RAFA AND FREEWAY PLAN, OPEN HOUSE WAS HELD ON JUNE 14TH, AND I WANT YOU TO MARK YOUR CALENDARS FOR THE NEXT MTFP MEETING, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THURSDAY, JULY 27TH AT 1:00 PM IN THIS COUNCIL CHAMBER. IT'S A SEPARATE MEETING BEFORE THE DAY'S REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT TWO 30. SO WE WILL REMIND YOU AS THE DATE GETS CLOSER, BUT, UM, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MEETINGS THAT DAY. AND THEN FINALLY YESTERDAY, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CHAPTER 42 AND CHAPTER 26 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, THE LIVABLE PLACES INITIATIVE, AND HEARD FROM OVER 50 SPEAKERS ON IT. WE APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S INPUT AND WANNA, ESPECIALLY THANK CHAIR STEIN AND COMMISSIONER BALDWIN FOR ATTENDING THE HEARING. UM, WE, UH, IT WILL GO TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION IN LATE LATER IN JULY. SO, UM, WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THAT. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UH, THEN I WILL CALL ON COMMISSIONER TAHIR FOR A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. UH, THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. UM, LIKE EVERY SUMMER [00:05:01] I PICK ONE OR TWO STUDENTS TO WRITE A PAPER FOR ME. AND THIS SUMMER, UH, I HAVE PICKED, UH, STUDENT ARI ZI. HE IS, UM, AN AMAZING STUDENT. HE'S A RISING SENIOR AT MEMORIAL HIGH. HE'S A VALEDICTORIAN. HE'S A TOP JUNIOR AWARD RECIPIENT. HE'S MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY MATH HONOR SOCIETY, UH, A SPANISH HONOR SOCIETY. THE LIST GOES ON. UH, HE WILL BE WRITING A PAPER FOR ME, SO I JUST WANT HIM TO BE HERE AND ATTEND THE MEETING. THANK YOU. WELCOME. UM, OKAY [Consideration of the June 8, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes] WITH THAT WE GO TO CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 8TH, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, WHICH ARE IN YOUR PACKET. UH, IF THERE ARE NO ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES, IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? MOTION GARZA GARZA MAD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. UH, PLATING [Platting Activities A & B] ACTIVITY ROMAN NUMERAL ONE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS RM LEE. SECTIONS A AND B ARE PRESENTED AS ONE GROUP, WHICH INCLUDES CONSENT AND REPLANT ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION. SECTIONS A AND B ARE ITEMS ONE THROUGH ONE 13 SECTION A. CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 61 AND SECTION B REPLANT ITEMS ARE NUMBER 63 62 THROUGH ONE 13. 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 ITEMS NOT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION. THANK YOU. UH, I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE SIGNED IN ADVANCE. DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE CHAT WHO WANTS TO SPEAK? NO. UM, THEN COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY ITEMS WE NEED TO TAKE SEPARATELY? COMMISSIONER HEI? YES, MADAM CHAIR, I NEED TO ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS 3 7 8 9 28 49, 50, 51 AND 55. OKAY. COMMISSIONER SIGLER? YES. ITEM 7, 8, 9, 21 AND 22. OKAY. UM, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK, WE CAN UH, PROCEED WITH VOTING ON SECTIONS A AND B AND WE WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ALL ITEMS IN SECTIONS A AND B SAVE. AND EXCEPT FOR ITEMS 3, 7, 8, 9, 21, 22, 28, 49, 50, 51 AND 55. IS THERE A MOTION FOR PER SECOND TAHIR? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. AND THEN ON THE REMAINDER, WHICH AGAIN IS 3 7 8 9 21. 22. 28, 49, 50, 51 AND 55, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION GARZA GARZA SECOND MON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. NOTE THAT COMMISSIONERS, HE AND SIGLER ABSTAINED. UM, WITH THAT [c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Arum Lee, Dorianne Powe-Phlegm, Devin Crittle, Wilson Calvert, Aracely Rodriguez, and John Cedillo)] WE GO TO SECTION C, PUBLIC HEARINGS. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS DORIAN POE FLE. ITEM ONE SIX. ITEM ONE 14 IS CIE PRY PLAT NUMBER ONE AND EXTENSION. THE SITE IS LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF ALAMEDA GENO ROAD AND ALAMEDA ROAD AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS. THE REASON FOR REPL IS TO CREATE 31 LOTS AND TWO RESERVES. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING THREE VARIANCES. HE IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO REPL A LANDSCAPE AND AND INCIDENTAL UTILITY RESERVE INTO LOTS, REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE CITY AND NOT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THESE REQUESTS. THE PLAID WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS ALL THE VARIANCES. THE SUBJECT SITE IS A PARTIAL REPLY OF LOTS AND RESERVES OF ALTE SUBDIVISION THAT WAS RECORDED IN 2002 22. THE APPLICANT IS REPLIED IN MULTIPLE LOTS TO LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE, RESERVES INTO LOTS AND AND EXTENDED BOUNDARIES OF THE ALANTE SUBDIVISION TO INCLUDE THE REMAINDER OF A CALL, 1.1, ONE POINT 16 ACRES TRACK AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ALAMEDA ROAD, GENO ROAD, AND ALAMEDA ROAD AT THE ING AND RAILROAD. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO CREATING LOTS ALONG A TYPE 2 28 FOOT PAE PER CHAPTER 42 DASH 180 6. AN ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE IS REQUIRED PER THE ORDINANCE FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. ALTHOUGH THIS IS A REPL AND THE PLAT IS CREATING A NEW SUBDIVISION. THE PLAT IS AN EXPENSE AS AN EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING SITE THAT CONSISTS OF 186 LOTS AND THE NEW SUBDIVISION WILL ONLY ADD SIX ADDITIONAL LOTS TO THE SITE. ONLY ONE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE WILL BE REQUIRED. THAT IS ALREADY BEING PROVIDED AT THE SITE WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAT. AND THE SIZE OF THE LOTS ARE SIMILAR [00:10:01] AND CONDUCIVE TO THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT PROPERTY IS UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP AND THE OWNER IS REPLYING A PORTION OF THE LOTS AND NOT THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION 'CAUSE SOME LOTS ARE UNDER CONTRACT. IF THE ENTIRE ANTE SUBDIVISION WAS REPLA, THE VARIANCES WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WOULD NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS FILED SEPARATELY AND THE USE IN PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THIS REQUEST. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT FOR THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. MADAM CHAIR, IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM ONE 14 ALIANTE IS OPEN OR CONTINUED. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. WE HAVE NO ONE IN THE CHAT. IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING OR WITH US WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 14? HEARING NO RESPONSE TO PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION THEN FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? A SIGLER SECOND ALLMAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JOHN PHILLIPS LIO. ITEM ONE 15 IS AMMOS STREET ESTATES. THE SUBJECT SIDE IS AN OVER 15,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS SPANNING BETWEEN LA HALL STREET AND AMMOS STREET EAST OF STREET HIGHWAY 2 88 AND SOUTH OF YELLOWSTONE BOULEVARD. THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS CREATE EIGHT NARROW FRONT LOADING SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. THERE ARE NO BRANCHES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. AND THE PLAT HAS MET NOTIF ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS REVIEW BY LEGAL IN CASE THAT THE PLAT WILL NOW VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OF THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. AND WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICATION. HOWEVER, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT FOR THREE WEEKS TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION AS THERE ARE SOME DISCREPANCIES WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY INFORMATION AND WITH AND DEDICATION MAY BE REQUIRED. MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ONE 15 AMMA STREET ESTATES IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED. WE HAVE NO ONE IN THE CHAT. ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ONE 15? UH, HEARING NO RESPONSE? I'LL TURN TO THE COMMISSION. WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR DEFERRAL. UM, IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECOND MODEST. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. THE ITEM IS DEFERRED. UH, ONE 16. ITEM ONE 16 IS BAR ACRE REPL NUMBER ONE. THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A NEARLY 35,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION EAST ALONG HAMISH ROAD, SOUTH OF BOJO ROAD AND EAST OF SHAW ROAD. THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE. THERE ARE NO, THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. AND THE PLAT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS REVIEW BY LEGAL IN CASE THAT THE PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILES SEPARATELY. AND WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICATION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASE THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ONE 16 BARR ACRE IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED AND THERE'S NO ONE IN THE CHAT. ANYONE LISTENING OR HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ONE 16 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 GARZA GARZA. SECOND RA. BLAND RA. BLAND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ITEM ONE 17 CANDY LAND ITEM ONE 17 IS CANDYLAND. THE SITE IS LOCATED WEST ALONG TMORE STREET, WEST OF SOUTH MCGREGOR WAY AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS. THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE ONE LOT AND REMOVE A THREE FEET INTERIOR BUILDING LINE. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. THIS PLAT WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION. PER COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, DR. CAROLYN EVANS SHABAZZ'S REQUEST STAFF AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS MET WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER AND HER STAFF AND DISCUSS THIS PROJECT. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CCP C 1 0 1 FORM. CONDITIONS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. THIS IS A SHALL APPROVE ITEM. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM. CONDITIONS STAFF HAS RECEIVED ADVANCED COMMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTH MCGREGOR CIVIC CLUB AND SEVERAL EMAILS THAT THIS PLAT IS IN VIOLATION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS [00:15:01] AND COMPLAINTS OF PARKING ISSUES AND OPERATING THE BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL BUSINESS FROM A HOME. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I MAY CONTINUE. I'M SORRY. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. OKAY. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM, UH, ONE 17 CANDY LAND IS CONTINUED. WE HAVE QUITE A FEW SPEAKERS AND I JUST GOT HANDED A BUNCH, I THINK THAT ARE DUPLICATES OF PEOPLE WHO'D SIGNED IN ADVANCE. SO LET ME KIND OF GET A HANDLE. I'LL JUST START PUTTING OUT NAMES. FIRST SPEAKER IS ELIZABETH BRAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M ELIZABETH BRAY AND I'M IN OPPOSITION TO THIS. UM, FIRST OF ALL, WE BELIEVE THIS IS IN VIOLATION OF OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS. WE'VE HAD NUMEROUS DEED RESTRICTION VIOLATIONS BY THIS PERSON, AND WE ALSO SEE THIS AS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING MASQUERADING AS A RESIDENTIAL ONE. THERE ARE MANY SPEAKERS BEHIND ME WHICH WILL EXPAND ON THIS AND WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL NOT APPROVE THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS LIONEL CASTRO. LIONEL CASTRO. IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. UM, UM, MASON BRAY. OH, THAT'S ME. . OH, I'M SORRY. OKAY. UH, AL LLOYD. MR. LLOYD, NOT PRESENT. UH, LYNN HENSON LLOYD CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBERS. I'M LYNN HENSON. I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I WANT TO SAY FOR THE RECORD, I AM A STAFF MEMBER OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BUT HAVE TAKEN OFF ON VACATION TODAY TO, UH, VOICE MY OPINION AS A RESIDENT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. I AM OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT ONE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE DE RESTRICTIONS. UM, AND I'LL LIST A NUMBER OF OTHER REASONS WHY, UH, THE COMMUNITY, MANY OF WHOM ARE HERE AND WHOM, WHOM HAVE SIGNED AN OPPO OPPOSITION OF THIS PROJECT. AND WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO, UM, I BELIEVE THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S OFFICE, THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. IF YOU DRIVE AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU'LL SEE THE LOOK AND FEEL IN THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY, UH, FROM SOUTH MCGREGOR WITH MILLION DOLLAR LARGE HOMES TO THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH ARE ONE STORY SMALLER HOMES. THIS CHARACTER IS, UM, CURRENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THIS PROPOSED PROJECT AND I AM PROPOSED TO IT. UM, HI. I'M SORRY. PLEASE MUTE YOUR PHONE OR YOUR COMPUTER. WE HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER SPEAKING RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. UM, THOSE THAT BUY INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN EXISTING HOMES OR THAT BUILD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HONOR THIS CHARACTER. ALSO, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF, UM, PEOPLE THAT HAVE SIGNED. I DO WANT TO STATE THAT I BELIEVE THIS IS A SUPER MAJORITY, WHICH SPEAKS IN, UM, CONCERT WITH ONE ANOTHER. THERE'S, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS 96% SINGLE FAMILY. WE ALSO SUPPORT THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY WITH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE APPLICATION THAT WAS PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL AND PROVIDES LAND USE RESTRICTIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY. I WANT TO GIVE THIS TO BE DISPLAYED. UM, THE HOMEOWNER GAVE ME THIS IMAGE DOCUMENT, CAMERA PLEASE. AND STATED THAT THIS IS WHAT WILL BE BUILT ON THE HOU ON THE LOT. UM, THIS IMAGE ITSELF DOES NOT SHOW ADEQUATE PARKING. SO I QUESTION THE INTENT OF THE PROJECT AND ASK YOU NOT TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ARM PRESENTATION PLEASE. ARM MICHAEL LEE. R MICHAEL LEE. HE'S COMING HERE. OKAY. IS YOUR OVERHEAD PROJECTOR WORKING? YES, SIR. MR. DOCUMENT. CAMERA PLEASE. MR. LEE. I HAVE GOT TWO. UM, YEAH. GIVE IT TO THAT GENTLEMAN NEXT TO YOU AND THEN COME RIGHT FORWARD. LOOKS LIKE THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER DIDN'T, IT DIDN'T SHOW UP. OKAY, COME. THERE WE GO. THERE WE GO. IT'S OVER THERE, MR. LEE. OKAY. SO YOU CAN SEE IT, BUT I CAN'T. OKAY. I'M AN ARCHITECT AND I'VE LIVED IN RIVERSIDE TERRACE SINCE 1979. UM, AND I'VE CAREFULLY LOOKED AT THE PLANS FOR THIS PROJECT. UH, THE ARCHITECT WHO DESIGNED THE PROJECT HAS FALSIFIED SEVERAL DOCUMENTS. ONE IS THE DETENTION REQUIREMENTS RIGHT NOW. HE DECIDED THAT THE LOT COVERAGE IS ONLY 48%, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY 71% THAT SHOWS ALL THE PARKING. HE ADMITTED A LOT OF ISSUES WHEN HE SUBMITTED THOSE, THAT AFFIDAVIT TO THE CITY THAT STATED THAT THIS WAS [00:20:01] NO RESTRICTIONS. HE FALSIFIED THAT DOCUMENT. IN ADDITION, HE APPLIED FOR AN R THREE RESIDENCE, WHICH IS IN A DEED RESTRICTION, WHICH IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH AN R TWO RESIDENCE, WHICH IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT CAREFULLY LOOKING AT THE PLANS, IT'S NOT EVEN AN R THREE, IT'S MORE OF A THREEPLEX OR FOURPLEX. THERE ARE FOUR KITCHENS, SIX SITTING ROOMS, NINE BEDROOMS, AND 11 BATHROOMS. . THESE ARE THE FACTS. OKAY. AND, UM, I BROUGHT, I BROUGHT PLAN PLAN B . THEY KINDA SHOW THAT TO YOU, BUT IF YOU SEE THIS CHECKERBOARD, THIS IS HOW THE HOUSE IS CHOPPED UP. AND IF I SHOW YOU THIS EVIDENCE, THIS IS THE YELLOW IS THE, IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. THE BLUE IS NON PERIAL SURFACES. SWIMMING POOL WAS NOT INCLUDED. THIS LARGE PARKING LOT WAS NOT INCLUDED. SO THE, THIS SHOULD GO BACK TO PUBLIC WORKS AND BE REEVALUATED BECAUSE IT'S NOT EVEN AN R THREE. OKAY? ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR, FOR BEING WITH US TODAY. ALRIGHT. UH, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MICHELLE, UH, YAHU. MICHELLE YU. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR MEETING US ALL AFTER LAST NIGHT'S SEVERE WEATHER IN THIS HOT AC HERE. SO MY NAME IS MICHELLE ROHAR. I LIVE IN THE L LEE FOREST, UM, WHO WE AFFECTIONATELY CALLED THE ELF NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS FOR A DIFFERENT ITEM. OH, A DIFFERENT ITEM. AN ERROR. OH, SEPARATED. OH, OKAY. NO PROBLEM. THANK THOSE ARE READY FOR HELP. I DO NOT HAVE ANYBODY ELSE SIGN. I'M RIGHT HERE. I AM SIGNED UP FOR, UH, MARTY. AND SO IS SHARON. EVERYTHING BACK THERE. I, ALL RIGHT. I'M SO TIRED OF COMING TO PLANNING COMMISSION. I SWEAR Y'ALL, WHEN Y'ALL WELCOME OUT AND LIKE MICHAEL SAID, IF IT WALKED LIKE A DUCK, CLUCK LIKE A DUCK, IT IS A DUCK. THIS IS NOT A SINGLE FAMILY. NINE BEDROOMS, FOUR KITCHENS. MOST OF THE HOUSES IN OUR COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY THE OLD ONES, ARE STILL STANDING, HAVE TWO KITCHENS, ONE KOSHER, ONE FOR REGULAR COOKING, THUS, AND THAT NOT NO FOUR KITCHEN AND SEVEN LIVING ROOMS. YOU SEE, THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT IS THAT Y'ALL NEVER GO BACK AND SEE WHAT THEY REALLY BUILD. AND ALL THEY GOTTA DO IS PUT UP THE WALLS AND IT'LL BE WHAT THEY INTENDED TO BE. A MULTI-FAMILY, WHICH VIOLATES OUR MINIMUM LOT SIZE APPLICATION AS WELL AS OUR D RESTRICTIONS. I CAN'T EVEN BELIEVE WE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. AND THE ONLY WAY THE CITY COULD GET THEIR MONEY FOR, FOR, FOR THE DETENTION WAS IF THEY ADOPTED HARRIS COUNTY'S DETENTION RULES, WHICH THEY DID. SO TO HAVE A 71% IMPERVIOUS COVER AND YOU ALL DON'T REQUIRE ANY DETENTION, NOR THE GROUND. I CAN'T EVEN BELIEVE Y'ALL WOULD EVEN TALK ABOUT APPROVING THIS. PUTTING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AT RISK FOR FLOODING. Y'ALL KNOW, THE CLOSER YOU LISTEN TO BAYOU, JUST LIKE MY LAND, YOU FLOOD, NOW THAT THEY'VE WIDENED BY YOU. 'CAUSE THEY DON'T WANNA UPSET THE MEDICAL CENTER WHERE YOU THINK THE WATER GONNA GO. SO WHO GONNA BE HER DETENTION PONDS? THE NEIGHBOR TO THE LEFT, THE NEIGHBOR TO THE RIGHT. I CAN'T EVEN BELIEVE WE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION, MARTY. Y'ALL KNOW BETTER AND Y'ALL SHOW NO BETTER. BUT THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE IS THAT Y'ALL KNOW BETTER, BUT YOU DON'T DO BETTER. THE FACT THAT WE HAD TO COME HERE AND FIGHT FOR A RIVERSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT WHERE YOU USE THE DEAD MAN'S POWER OF ATTORNEY AS ONE OF THE SIGNATURES SHOWS ME WHERE YOU ARE AND YOU WON'T SUPPORT FOR LIVABLE PLACES. HELL, I CAN'T TRUST YOU. YOU TRYING TO MAKE MY HOUSE UNLIVABLE. THANK YOU. OKAY. AUDIENCE, WE HAVE A RULE ABOUT CLAPPING. YOU CAN DO THIS, BUT WE DON'T DO CLAPPING. OKAY? UM, OKAY. WE ARE HONORED TO HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, CAROLYN, EVAN SHABAZZ WITH US. HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. OF COURSE. I'M VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON HERE AND I I WANT TO GREET YOU THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND FOR OFFERING YOURSELVES UP VOLUNTARILY TO HEAR THE CONCERNS. BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T LIKE MY HANDS TIED AND, AND I FEEL LIKE MY HANDS ARE TIED BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON IN MY COMMUNITY. WE [00:25:01] ARE UNDER ATTACK. I MEAN, WE ARE HERE ONE MONTH TALKING ABOUT, UH, HISTORIC DISTRICTS. AND NOW WE ARE HERE TALKING ABOUT A REPL THAT WAS PUT OUT THERE AS SOMETHING THAT OTHER THAN WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY PLANNING. AND SO, YOU KNOW, UH, AS COUNCIL MEMBER, I HAVE TO LISTEN AND I ALWAYS END UP ON THE SIDE OF MY CONSTITUENTS. AND THE POINT IS, WE HAD MEETINGS. I HAD MEETINGS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT. AND LEGAL, BECAUSE I'M GONNA TELL YOU, I STARTED TO KEEP MY EARPIECES ON BECAUSE I'M WAITING ON A CALL FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR WHOEVER THAT CAN TURN THIS AROUND. BUT CERTAINLY, I, I JUST WANNA SAY THAT IT'S VERY DISTURBING BECAUSE I'M SURE THAT EACH OF YOU CARES ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF YOUR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS. BUT I HAVE TO SAY THAT WE HAVE TWO DEED RESTRICTION WORKSHOPS. WE PLAN TO HAVE MORE AN ENGAGED LEGAL COUNSEL BECAUSE I'M GONNA FIGHT, BUT I GOTTA HAVE TEETH IF I'M GONNA BITE, I MUST HAVE TEETH. AND SO WE'RE GONNA SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS MAY GO THROUGH THIS TIME, BUT WE WANT EVERYBODY, PUT EVERYBODY ON NOTICE THAT WE ARE ON NOTICE AND WE ARE NOT ASLEEP. WE ARE VERY WOKE. AND WE ARE GONNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE AT THE FOREFRONT OF THIS SO THAT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN IN CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION. I'M NOT AVAILABLE TO TAKE YOUR CALL AT THE MOMENT. DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN, PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME, NUMBER, POSSIBLY YOUR PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAVE COME FORWARD. UH, YOU HAVE CERTAINLY VOICED THEIR CONCERNS. I THANK TAMMAR BELL, MR. LLOYD. THEY CAME TO THE MEETING THAT WE HAD ON YESTERDAY. I BELIEVE IT WAS. THE DAYS ARE RUNNING INTO EACH OTHER. BUT AGAIN, I KNOW YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT I HOPE THAT AT SOME POINT, SOMEBODY'S CONSCIENCE MAY TOUCH THEM TO SAY, WHAT DO I WANT FROM MY OWN NEIGHBORHOOD? AND WE LOVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE LOVE IT. WE PRESERVE IT. WE DO AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO KEEP IT CLEAN AND TO KEEP IT MOVING. AND SO I AM GONNA STAND HERE AND MAKE IT A MATTER OF RECORD THAT I DO NOT AGREE WITH WHAT'S, UM, PROBABLY GONNA COME TO PASS. BUT I IMPLORE MY CONSTITUENTS, LET'S WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING. 'CAUSE WE ARE NOT GIVING UP. WE KNOW WE ARE IN A PRIME LOCATION AND WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE THOSE THAT ARE COMING FOR US, BUT WE ARE NOT GONNA STAND AND FALL ASLEEP ON THIS. WE'RE GONNA MOVE FORWARD. AND WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE DISTRICT D OFFICE, WE'RE GONNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S LEGAL COUNSEL. AND HAS THERE EVER BEEN AN AN OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO REVIEW WHAT HAS COME DOWN REGARDING LEGAL? BECAUSE PERHAPS THERE NEEDS TO BE AN OUTSIDE COUNSEL BEFORE YOU MAKE A DECISION TO, TO DO THIS. BECAUSE I, I BELIEVE THAT, THAT THE BLACK MENS WANT TO FOLLOW THE RULES, SO TO SPEAK, AND WOULD BE WILLING TO PULL THEIR APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THE RULES. SO IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY, I KNOW THERE'S A 30 DAY WINDOW, BUT CERTAINLY IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET OUTSIDE COUNSEL, TO REVIEW, TO SEE WHAT SOME OF THE CONSTITUENTS HAVE BROUGHT TO LIGHT? LET ME, BECAUSE ONCE IT'S DONE, IT'S DONE RIGHT. AND IF, IF YOU'RE, IF THAT CONCLUDES YOUR REMARKS, I'M GONNA ASK OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO RESPOND TO JUST, JUST KIND OF WHAT YOU SAID. UNLESS YOU DO, WAS THAT IT FOR YOU, MS. MICKELSON? OH, SO DON'T GO, DON'T GO AWAY MAD. JUST GO AWAY. NO, NO, JUST HOLD ON. STAY RIGHT THERE. I'M GONNA GO AWAY MAD. I WANNA MAKE SURE YOU'RE FINISHED. I WANNA MAKE SURE THE COUNCILWOMAN IS FINISHED AND OH, I'M DONE. THANK YOU KIM. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR ENGAGEMENT AS WELL. OF COURSE, OF COURSE. BUT DON'T LEAVE THE PODIUMS TO STAY. OKAY. YEAH, GO AHEAD. OKAY. I I ALMOST DON'T KNOW WHERE TO START, EXCEPT THAT THIS IS WHY LAND USE IS SO FASCINATING BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SO PASSIONATE ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. IT'S THEIR PROPERTY, IT'S THEIR HOME, IT'S THEIR LIVELIHOOD. UM, THIS IS ALWAYS A DIFFICULT SITUATION. YOU ALL HAVE SEEN THESE KIND OF ISSUES WITH RELAS BEFORE. UM, LET ME KIND OF WORK FORWARD THROUGH THE PROCESS COUNCILWOMAN IF I CAN. AND I, I PROMISE I'LL, I, I'LL PRETTY SURE I'LL GET TO ALL OF YOUR, ALL OF YOUR POINTS AND YOUR QUESTIONS. BUT, YOU KNOW, RE PLATTING, UH, PLATTING IN GENERAL IS DESIGNED TO BE A TECHNICAL PROCESS THAT IS ENGINEERING BASED. IT'S MINISTERIAL IN NATURE. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC EVEN HEARD, UM, COUNCIL, UH, CHAIR, EXCUSE ME, CHAIR STEIN SAY, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A SHALL APPROVE. THIS IS A MUST APPROVE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT STATE LAW REQUIRES, BECAUSE THIS IS DESIGNED TO SHOW JUST WHAT IS ON THE GROUND, [00:30:01] THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY, ANY EASEMENTS, ANY BUILDING LINES, ET CETERA, THAT ARE REQUIRED. UM, SO IT'S REALLY IS A CHECKLIST BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ZONING IN HOUSTON, WE ARE ALSO OBLIGATED IN REPL SITUATIONS TO REVIEW DEED RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IN A REPL IS UNDER STATE LAW THAT A REPL MAY BE RECORDED, MAY BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, AND RECORDED EVENTUALLY IN THE, IN THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS. UM, IF IT DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO REMOVE OR VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, UM, OR RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE FILED SEPARATELY OR ON THE FACE OF A PRECEDING PLAT, WE DON'T HAVE THAT ISSUE. HERE WE HAVE THE QUESTION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS. AND STATE LAW FURTHER PROVIDES THAT COUNSEL MUST OR COMMISSION MUST APPROVE A REPL THAT COMPLIES WITH ALL THE, ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. I'M SORRY, IT IS ON, UM, COMM AUDIO ALSO REQUIRE, ALSO PROVIDES THAT, UH, COMMISSION MUST APPROVE THE REPL IF IT COMPLIES WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW. CHAPTER TWO 12 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND OUR LOCAL ORDINANCES WRITTEN UNDER THAT CODE, WHICH FOR US IS CHAPTER 42. UM, WE LOOK AT THEREFORE BOTH OF THOSE ISSUES FROM THE DEED RESTRICTION SIDE AND OUR ORDINANCE SIDE. AND THAT INCLUDES THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE ORDINANCE, WHICH I'LL, I'LL ADDRESS IN JUST ONE SECOND. BUT LET ME ALSO ADD THAT IT'S STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES THAT ONCE AN APPLICATION, ONCE AN ITEM HITS YOUR AGENDA, IT MUST BE ACTED ON WITHIN 30 DAYS. SO WE HAVE THIS VERY SHORT TIME WINDOW, AND GENERALLY THAT MEANS WE CAN DEFER FOR TWO TO TWO, UH, COMMISSION MEETINGS. BUT WE'RE GOVERNED BY THE THREE WEEK RULE BECAUSE OF THE 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY. SO THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO FURTHER DEFER THIS PLAT. SO WE'RE, WE HAVE A SHORT TIME WINDOW, WE HAVE A MANDATORY APPROVAL IF IT COMPLIES WITH ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS. AND YOU'VE HEARD FROM STAFF THAT IT MEETS ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS. LET ME ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE. UM, WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS PLAT AFTER REVIEWING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND AS SUBMITTED ON THE GROUND, REMEMBER, A PLAT IS ON THE GROUND. THIS DOES NOT VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS. IT IS BEING PLATTED RE PLATTED AS A LOT, WHICH UNDER OUR CODE RESTRICTS IT TO SINGLE FAMILY USE. UM, AND IT MEETS ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF, OF CHAPTER 42. WITH REGARD TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE. IT IS GOING TO EXCEED THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT IN THIS AREA. THAT ALSO REQUIRES A LIMITATION FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE. THIS IS BEING REPLANTED AS A LOT, THEREFORE RESTRICTED TO SINGLE FAMILY USE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS AND THERE IS A REQUEST INTO DEED, REFOR DEED RESTRICTION ENFORCEMENT REGARDING THE CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE PLACEMENT OF A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ON ONE OF THE LOTS. AND THAT IS A SEPARATE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS IN SO FAR AS IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THAT MINIMUM LOT SIZE BECAUSE IT'S NOT BELOW THAT MINIMUM SIZE AND IT'S NOT BELOW. UM, AND IT'S, IT'S BEING DESIGNATED FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE. IT DOESN'T VIOLATE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AT THIS POINT. AND THAT'S WHAT YOUR REVIEW IS LIMITED TO HERE. THERE MAY BE FUTURE PROBLEMS WITH IT. NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PROPERTY. UM, THEY ARE UNDER REVIEW, I UNDERSTAND FROM HPW AND THE PERMITTING CENTER THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SENT BACK, UM, THAT AN ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF THE DRAINAGE AND DETENTION REQUIREMENTS HAS BEEN SENT BACK. SO THEY, THEY ARE AWARE OF THIS ISSUE AND ARE LOOKING AT IT. AND IF ANY QUESTIONS COME UP ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY USE, EITHER IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS, UM, OR IN SUBSEQUENT ACTUAL USE, THEN THAT WILL BE NOTED AND, AND ENFORCED AS SEPARATE MECHANISM. BUT ON THE FACE OF IT, AT THIS POINT, IT'S THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT'S OPINION THAT IT DOES NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS NOR THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO THE COUNCILMAN'S POINT. SO I DON'T FORGET IT REAL QUICKLY. UM, WE ALWAYS CAN, I SUPPOSE, ASK FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL REVIEW. UM, I LIKE TO THINK WE HAVE VERY GOOD ATTORNEYS REVIEWING THESE WHO HAVE DONE SO FOR MANY YEARS, UM, IN, IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SO I WOULD GENERALLY FIND THAT NOT, NOT NECESSARY, [00:35:01] UM, BUT TIMING, THAT 30 DAY SHOT CLOCK DOESN'T PERMIT US TO DO IT AT THIS POINT. UH, MS. NICHOLSON, I KNOW FREQUENTLY THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S LEGAL COUNSEL. SO WE, WE DO WHAT YOU TELL US MOST OF THE TIME. UM, NOTHING PRECLUDES THE RESIDENTS WHO OBJECT TO THIS FROM GETTING OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO REVIEW IT. AMEN. AND TO TAKE ALL KINDS OF OTHER TYPES OF ACTION. I REALIZE THAT PUTS, YOU KNOW, THE ONUS ON ON YOU IF WE, IF, IF THIS IS A SHALL APPROVE FOR US AND, AND WE MUST APPROVE THIS PLAT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE AREN'T A LOT OF OPTIONS. AND I THINK ALSO THE PERMITTING SIDE, IT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF DIFFICULTY ATTAINING PERMITS FOR THIS, FOR WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE INTENDED INTENDED PROJECT. SO I THINK THIS, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIS TO, TO BE PULLED BACK OR CHANGED. UM, I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE GONNA HAPPEN TODAY. UM, OR IN THIS, IN THIS ROOM BY THIS BODY, THE APPLICANT. OH, YES, GO RIGHT AHEAD. I JUST WANNA SAY, UM, SO THAT IS ENCOURAGING. YES. YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES. ABSOLUTELY. UH, AND SOMETIMES I HATE, I MEAN, LEGAL COUNSEL, I, I, I CERTAINLY TRUST WHAT THEY SAY. I'VE MET WITH THEM ON MANY OCCASIONS AND I, BUT I HATE THE IDEA THAT THEY ARE JUDGE AND JURY. UH, AND SO I HOPE THAT WE CAN SEEK OUTSIDE COUNSEL BECAUSE INTERPRETATION IS INTERPRETATION. AND SO THE PASSION IS HERE. I KNOW THE PRAYERS ARE HERE TO PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND, AND I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, ATTORNEY MELANIE MILES IS HERE. I WANT TO, SHE COULDN'T MAKE IT. SHE COULDN'T MAKE IT. SHE COULDN'T MAKE IT. BUT I WANT TO TELL HER PUBLICLY THAT SHE HAS BEEN AN ASSET ON EVERY HAND REGARDING ALL OF THE FIGHTS THAT WE HAVE HAD. AND SO, UH, THE CHARGE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOW IS TO PERHAPS SEEK OUTSIDE COUNSEL. UH, WE'RE GONNA HOPE THAT, UH, THE PERMIT PROCESS FROM YOUR MOUTH TO GOD'S EARS WILL HAVE, UH, A PROBLEM. AND NOT THAT WE DON'T WELCOME THEM AS NEIGHBORS. I HAVE MET THEM, I KNOW THEM. UH, AND I THINK THAT THEY'RE GREAT PEOPLE. BUT WHEN YOU MOVE INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU CERTAINLY NEED TO RESPECT WHERE YOU ARE MOVING AND THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT YOU ARE MOVING TO. AND SO I THANK, THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU, KIM, ALWAYS. I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY THAT HAS STEPPED FORWARD TO TRY TO WORK WITH THIS COMMUNITY BECAUSE WE ARE IN A FIGHT. YEAH, THAT'S BE CLEAR. AND AND THANK YOU EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU. YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL, I THINK WE WISH WE COULD AFTERNOON. WE WISH WE COULD DO MORE TO HELP YOU. ME TOO. 'CAUSE I JUMPED BACK THERE AND VOTE. YEAH. , LET ME, UM, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK THE APPLICANT. OH YEAH. I WAS GONNA ASK IF THE APPLICANT MS. OWENS? NO, NO, MS. JOHN, THIS LADY SHARON EVANS. WAS SHE SIGNED UP BEFORE THAT? Y'ALL SKIPPED HER. NO, BUT THE, I LAST THE APPLICANT SIGNED UP IN ADVANCE. SO I'M CALLING MS. OWENS. I CAN GO LAST. OKAY. OKAY. WHO'S NEXT THEN? WHO IS IT? I'M EVANS. OH, YOU'RE COMING. OKAY. COME ON. HI. WELCOME. HI, HOW ARE YOU? SHARON EVANS. BROOKS. OKAY. MS. EVANS BROOKS. THANK YOU. YES. ON BEHALF OF THE RIVERSIDE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, WHICH REPRESENTS SOME 900 HOMES, WE ARE HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT OUR NEIGHBORING SISTER SOUTH MCGREGOR CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS AGAINST THE REPL OF THE PROPOSED ARDMORE PROPERTY IN RIVERSIDE TERRACE. YEARS AGO, THE SOUTH MCGREGOR NEIGHBORHOOD DECIDED UPON ITS NEIGHBORHOOD'S CHARACTER BY ADOPTING AND MAINTAINING ITS LONGSTANDING DEED RESTRICTIONS. WE BELIEVE THE CITY OF HOUSTON'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS OUT OF LINE AND SHOULD BE HANDS OFF AND NOT EVEN CONSIDER OVERRIDING THE WILL OF HOMEOWNERS. IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, OUR RIVERSIDE TERRACE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN UNDER ATTACK BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS THAT ARE IN BLATANT DISREGARD OF DEED, RESTRICT DEED AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE RESTRICTIONS, AS WELL AS THE DESIRES OF OUR COMMUNITY IN A CITY IN WHICH ALMOST ANYTHING GOES IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT. DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE THE ONLY PROTECTION THAT WE AS HOMEOWNERS HAVE TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HOMEOWNERS, UM, HEAR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SAY IT WANTS TO PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOODS. YET WE ARE WAITING TO SEE WORDS ALIGNED WITH POLICY. WE IMPLORE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO DENY THIS APPLICATION AND SUPPORT OUR SISTER SOUTH MCGREGOR NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, IN ITS OPPOSITION. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED RIVERSIDE CIVIC ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS. [00:40:01] OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. UM, OKAY. UM, UH, SHAUNA BLACKMAN? YES, MA'AM. UM, AGAIN, MY NAME IS SHAUNA BLACKMAN. UM, GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. HELLO. YEAH. UM, AND I'M THE ACTUAL HOMEOWNER. UM, AND I THINK THAT CLEARLY THERE IS, UH, SOME MISUNDERSTANDING. THERE ARE, THERE ARE TWO PROPERTIES HERE. AND, UM, ONLY ONE OF THEM IS QUESTIONABLE AS FAR AS IF IT IS EVEN A PART OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS PLACED BY THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION. UM, AND SO, AND I WANNA REMIND YOU GUYS OF THAT. AND SO ALL OF THIS TALKING ABOUT FIGHTING FOR WHATEVER IT IS, THE PRESERVATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. LET ME REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE HOUSE ON THIS STREET THAT HAS BEEN RENOVATED OTHER THAN MINE IN FIVE YEARS. AND I BOUGHT THIS HOME IN 16. SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PROPERTY PRESERVATION AND ME DECIDING TO PUT A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS POOL IN MY HOUSE, I'M HELPING YOU ALL. SO FOR YOU ALL TO COME AT ME AND ATTACK ME, I'M DOING NOTHING BUT IMPROVING THE PROPERTY VALUE. SO I'M GONNA UNDERSTAND Y'ALL PROBLEM. AND IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, THEN YOU, YOU, YOU HAVE MY ADDRESS, YOU AROUND HERE TAKING PICTURES AND EVERYTHING ELSE, KNOCK ON THE DOOR. BUT TO TELL ME THAT BASICALLY I'M, UH, MODIFYING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I DON'T THINK SO. I, I BOUGHT TWO HOUSES AND IT'S RENOVATED ONE THAT WAS SITTING THERE DECREPIT. SO I DON'T THINK SO WHEN WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE, THE, THE MAKEUP OF THIS STREET AND HOW OLD THESE HOUSES ARE AND THE LAST TIME THEY'VE HAD A ROOF AND THE LAST TIME THEY'VE BEEN RENOVATED AND ALL OF THAT. AND, AND THANKS TO ME YOUR PROPERTIES ARE WORTH MORE THAN THEY WERE FIVE YEARS AGO. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE SIGNED EXCEPT THE APPLICANT. UM, JOYCE OWENS, ARE YOU THERE, MS. OWENS? GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JOYCE OWENS AND I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL SUPER NEIGHBORHOOD PRESIDENTS UNDER MAYOR BROWN. SO I TRULY EMPATHIZE WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND WANTING TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROJECT, UM, I DIDN'T KNOW ALL OF THIS WAS INVOLVED IN IT. MRS. UH, BLACKMAN, UM, SHE'S PROPOSING WHAT SHE SAID LAST WEEK. SHE IS TRYING TO, UH, SHE'S PUTTING TWO HOUSES TOGETHER BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO MOVE HER SICK AND ELDERLY PARENTS HERE, I DON'T KNOW WHO CAN SAY IF THERE'S A LIMIT ON KITCHENS, BATHROOMS OR WHATEVER, WHATEVER A PERSON LIKES, IF THEY CAN AFFORD IT, MAYBE THEY SHOULD HAVE IT. BUT I WOULD ASK YOU TO APPROVE TODAY. I DON'T SEE WHERE IT'S IN VIOLATION OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, AS LEGAL HAS SAID. AND EVEN WHEN I TALK TO THE COMMUNITY, MY RESPONSE WHEN THEY CALLED ME WAS WHATEVER LEGAL SAYS, IF LEGAL SAYS IT'S IN VIOLATION, WE'LL WITHDRAW. IF LEGAL SAYS IT'S NOT, THEN WE'LL MOVE FORWARD. AND I LEFT THAT TO LEGAL AND I'M, HOPEFULLY, HOPEFULLY THAT WILL SETTLE SOME THINGS RIGHT THERE. HOWEVER, I AM COMMITTED TO FOLLOW THIS PROCESS PAST PLATING. I'M GONNA GO BACK AND MEET WITH THE ARCHITECT AND THE CITY ON THE PUBLIC WORK SIDE. THE LAST TIME I CHECKED ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS HAD APPROVED THE PLANS EXCEPT FOR PLANNING. AND IT WAS BECAUSE OF THAT THREE FOOT BUILDING LINE BETWEEN THE HOUSES. BUT I AM COMMITTED TO GOING. UM, AND FOLLOWING THAT THROUGH THE PERMITTING PHASE, ALSO, I DID CHECK WITH THE STATE AND NO APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR A BOARDING HOUSE. AND IF YOU SAW THE NEWS A COUPLE WEEKS AGO OF THE CHURCH THAT WAS DOING A BOARDING HOUSE AND THEY GOT SHUT DOWN 'CAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE PROPER PERMITS AND WHATNOT. SO I'M, I'M, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE WORD GOT ON THE STREET, THAT'S WHAT SHE WAS DOING, BUT AS SHE HAS SPOKEN, I BELIEVE YOU JUST HAVE TO BE FAIR, WE MIGHT NOT LIKE IT, BUT I BELIEVE IN BEING FAIR, UH, AND, AND LETTING PEOPLE USE THEIR LAND. SO I WOULD ASK YOU TODAY TO CONSIDER APPROVAL FOR THE APPLICATION. OKAY? THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, MS. OWENS. UM, OKAY, IF, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON, UH, CANDY LAND ITEM ONE 17 HEARING NO RESPONSE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. AND WE'LL TURN TO THE COMMISSION FOR SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. COMMISSIONER TAHIR, UH, MY COMMENT IS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ALSO POINTED OUT ALL HOMEOWNERS AND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS CAN SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT. THEY ALSO HAVE A RIGHT TO TAKE THIS TO COURT. SO ANY DECISIONS THAT WE TAKE, OR EVEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVES CAN BE CHALLENGED IN A COURT OF LAW. SO YOU HAVE A LOT OF REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO [00:45:01] YOU. AM I CORRECT? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER TAHIR. AND, AND WHEN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP, I, YOU KNOW, I DID MEAN TO NOTE, AS HAS OFTEN ALSO BEEN SET OF THIS COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A REPL, IF THERE ARE VALID DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY, DON'T OVERRIDE THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS. SO YES, IT, IT COULD BE REVIEWED BY A COURT. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER? MODEST? UM, THIS IS FOR MS. MICKELSON. SO IT ALSO SEEMS LIKE PERHAPS THERE IS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT MULTI-GENERATION LIVING IN A SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS MULTI-FAMILY, UM, OCCUPANCY. WHAT'S THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF THAT, IF YOU DON'T MIND? UM, BECAUSE YEAH, 'CAUSE I CAN SEE HOW IT COULD BE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT JUST MAYBE PERHAPS BUILT TO ACCOMMODATE MULTI-FAMILY OR MULTI-GENERATIONAL LIVING. RIGHT. UM, BUT LIKE WHAT, WHERE'S THE LINE THERE BETWEEN, IS IT A, A RENTAL? I MEAN, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT BEING RENT. LIKE WHAT, WHAT'S THAT DEFINITION? I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS A CLEAR ONE IN LAW THAT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE. THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY. AND AS WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE, BEYOND THE DEFINITION IN CHAPTER 42, WHICH IS FOR, UH, UP TO A DUPLEX THAT ANTICIPATES TWO SEPARATE OWNERS OR TENDENCIES, IF YOU WOULD. UM, WE DON'T REALLY REGULATE. IF I DECIDED I WANTED 15 KITCHENS, I SUPPOSE I COULD HAVE IT. UH, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE DON'T REGULATE THAT IN THE, IN THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY. YOU KNOW, AS WAS BROUGHT UP, THERE'S OFTEN AT LEAST DUAL KITCHENS. PEOPLE TODAY HAVE BACK KITCHENS AND FRONT KITCHENS. AND CAN I ADD SOMETHING TO THIS DISCUSSION PLEASE? OKAY. UH, I MYSELF LIVE IN A MULTI-GENERATIONAL KIND OF A HOME, AND I ONCE, UH, INQUIRED ABOUT THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A FAMILY. AND I WAS TOLD IN TEXAS, A FAMILY COULD BE SIBLINGS LIVING TOGETHER WITH THEIR PARENTS AND THEIR SPOUSE'S PARENTS. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE'S NO DEFINITION OF SINGLE FAMILY, BUT THAT'S HOW SOME TEXAS COURTS HAVE DEFINED SINGLE FAMILY. WELL, AND THERE'D BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY WHERE YOU WERE PROFITING FROM RENTING, CORRECT? YEAH. AND THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE ON A RESERVE IF THIS WERE A COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY TYPE OF, UH, DEVELOPMENT AS OPPOSED TO A LOT FOR SINGLE FAMILY. IT'S JUST A HOUSE. OKAY. JUST BY DEFINITIONS IN OUR CODE COMMISSIONER GARZA. AND THEN, UM, MY QUESTION REALLY THAT THE, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN LAID OUT. IT'S VERY, VERY CLEAR TO ME HOW WE'RE GOING TO VOTE, HOW I NEED TO VOTE, WHETHER I LIKE IT OR NOT, BASED ON ORDINANCE AND, AND REGULATIONS BY THE STATE. BUT MY CONCERN HAS BEEN THAT THE, THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE THAT'S BEING USED FOR BUSINESS AND WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY OSTENSIBLY BEING USED FOR BUSINESS, WHEN THIS IS RESTRICTED TO SINGLE FAMILY, WHAT, UM, OPPORTUNITIES DO WE HAVE TO CHECK ON THAT? IS THAT PART OF PERMITTING? WOULD THAT BE CHECKED ON LATER? OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY DON'T WANT COMMERCIAL IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION. SINCE IT SEEMS THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE IS BEING USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS OWENS CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION VERSUS LEGAL. MS. OWENS IS HAPPY TO, TO GO THERE. SO LET'S GO THERE FIRST. THANK YOU, MS. OWENS. THANK YOU. THERE IS AN RV, MS. BLACKMAN DOES OWN AN INSURANCE COMPANY. SHE HAS TWO LOCATIONS IN HOUSTON AND ABOUT, I DON'T WANNA OVERSTATE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S 400 OR 4,000. SHE HAS A LOT OF EMPLOYEES. SHE HAS A WHOLE FLEET OF TRUCKS AND VANS AND WHATNOT. THERE IS A, A VAN, UH, RV, I BELIEVE THAT'S PARKED ON HER PROPERTY. HOWEVER, IT IS ON THE LOT THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. SO I WILL ASK HER AND WORK WITH HER TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT REMOVED. THANK YOU SO MUCH MS. OWENS. THANK YOU'RE WELCOME. OKAY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER RV IS NOT USED FOR? I I HAVE A COMMENT. I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I'M SORRY, MS. BLACK. I'M SORRY. MS. BLACKMAN, WE, THE PUBLIC HEARING'S CLOSED. THIS IS FOR THE TIME FOR THE COMMISSION TO DELIBERATE. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER HEINZ. UH, YEAH, JUST FOR MY CLARIFICATION AND, AND EVERYONE'S EDUCATION, I GUESS, UM, I, I DON'T KNOW IF PUBLIC WORKS COULD COMMENT ON, UH, IT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW, BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO HEAR THE TECHNICAL ITEM REGARDING, UH, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. UH, I THINK I HEARD, YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS HAVE MADE, MADE APPROVALS EXCEPT THIS, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS MADE ABOUT IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, WHERE ARE WE ON, ON ON THAT ITEM? GOOD, MR. SMITH? GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. MADAM CHAIR. UM, I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE ARE IN THE REVIEW OF THIS AND [00:50:02] . OKAY. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IT HAS BEEN APPROVED THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS BY EACH OF THE DEPARTMENTS EXCEPT FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. BUT WHAT THEY WOULD BE LOOKING AT IS FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER WOULD BE ANYTHING THAT IS NON, UH, DRAINABLE. SO LIKE IF YOU HAVE CONCRETE DOWN, IF YOU HAVE ASPHALT DOWN WHERE THE SLAB OF THE HOUSE IS, THE ROOF OF THE HOUSE, THINGS LIKE THAT, WHERE WATER'S NOT GONNA SOAK INTO THE GROUND WOULD BE CONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS COVER. AND WE DO HAVE A 65%, BUT THERE IS SOME OTHER QUALIFICATIONS IN WHICH I BELIEVE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES UNDER A CERTAIN SIZE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT THEY MAY NOT HAVE TO HAVE FULL DETENTION. BUT I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND RESEARCH THAT TO GIVE YOU AN EXACT ANSWER ON IT. THAT'S 15 . IS, DOES THAT CONCLUDE OR DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HINES? I JUST, OKAY, HOLD ON. WE'LL GIVE YOU TIME. UM, THE LOT. CAN YOU TURN YOUR MIC ON? SORRY. THAT'S INTERESTING. THE LOT, I THINK THE, THE CUTOFF IS LESS THAN 15,000 SQUARE FEET. 15,000. YEAH. AND THIS IS A 0.3689 ACRE LOT. WHAT IS IT? UH, 43, 6 50 AN ACRE. I DON'T, THAT'S LIKE 16,000 SQUARE FEET, ISN'T IT? NO, NO, NO. THE, THE LOT HAS BEEN, THE PLANNING STAFF IS SAYING THAT THE LOT IS 13,000 SQUARE FEET. OKAY. DID SOME BAD MATH HERE. . SO THERE GOES THE CLARIFICATION ON THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, COMMISSIONER VAR, I JUST WANNA PIGGYBACK ON COMMISSIONER HEINZ'S QUESTION. UM, I HEARD ONE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS SAYING THAT IF I HEARD CORRECTLY THAT MAYBE THE PLANS HAVE CHANGED OR THE PLANS ARE INCORRECT. I THINK IT WAS AN ARCHITECT THAT WAS SPEAKING, UM, AND SAYING THAT THERE, UM, AND THAT WAS ONE OF HIS POINTS WAS THAT, UM, THERE WAS A PARKING PAD THAT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE, UM, PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AND THEREFORE THAT THAT INCREASED THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS. AND I'M, I'M JUST WONDERING, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU OR FOR, UM, UM, FOR MS. NI NICHOLSON, BUT, UM, WHAT RECOURSES THERE, IF THERE IS, IF THE PLAN IS NOT CORRECT OR ACCURATE, HYPOTHETICALLY? WELL, I'LL SPEAK FROM THE PUBLIC WORK SIDE. IF WHEN THE REVIEWERS, OR I'M SORRY, WHEN THE INSPECTORS GO OUT AND INSPECT, THERE ARE CHANGES TO THE PLAN SETS. THOSE PLANS MUST BE SENT BACK IN FOR, UM, RECORDATION AND ANY CHANGES OR ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAN SET WOULD BE LOOKED AT. SO IF THERE IS MORE IMPER, SAY THE IMPERVIOUS COVER EX EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT THAT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO THE, THEY WOULD NOT BE ISSUED A FINAL, UM, ON THAT PROJECT UNTIL THEY MET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. SO IF THEY WERE GONNA PUT NO DETENTION IN AND THEY EXCEEDED THE 65% AND THEY WERE GONNA BE REQUIRED TO PUT IN DETENTION, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT BEFORE THE INSPECTORS WOULD SIGN OFF ON IT TO FINAL THE PROJECT, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY WOULDN'T GET THEIR FINAL ON THAT PROJECT AND IT WOULD BE AN OPEN PROJECT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THAT WAS DONE. THEY WOULD HAVE TO RESUBMIT, UM, THE CHANGES TO HAVE THOSE RE REVIEWED AND THEN ANY CORRECTIONS MADE. SO WE DO LOOK AT IT INSPECTIONS. AND THE QUESTION ABOUT AN R THREE VERSUS AN R TWO, COULD EITHER OF YOU SPEAK TO THAT PLEASE? I CAN'T SPEAK ON THE R TWO AND R THREES, I APOLOGIZE. BUT DO, IS THAT, IS THAT A QUESTION FOR PLANNING? IT'S, IT'S REALLY A BUILDING PERMIT TYPE OF OCCUPANCY QUESTION. OH, OKAY. IF I CAN. SO AGAIN, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE WITH YOUR PLAT, BUT IT IS A PERMITTING QUESTION. AND R THREE IS A RESID TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL USE THAT IS USUALLY CONGREGATE LIVING OR BO BOARDING HOMES OR SO FORTH. AND I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS SUBMITTED UNDER THAT APPLICATION, BUT APPARENTLY THERE ARE PLANS PENDING. AND, UM, HPW, UH, PERMITTING CENTER STAFF I KNOW IS LOOKING INTO THAT. I HAD A CONVERSATION YESTERDAY WITH CHRIS BUTLER ABOUT THAT. I KNOW DRAINAGE IS BEING RE-REVIEWED. HE HAS ALREADY SENT THAT PART BACK OVER, UM, FOR RE-REVIEW BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED. SO, SO PERMITTING IS TAKING A VERY CLOSE LOOK AT THOSE ISSUES. OKAY. SO THAT'S GOOD. YES. THEY UNDERSTAND THE, THE SENSITIVITY OF THE I THINK SO. OKAY. SO I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT REAL QUICKLY IF I MAY. UM, IF IT HAS GONE BACK TO REVIEW, EVEN THOUGH THE PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED, PLANNING HAS NOT, THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED. AND SO IF THEY FIND DEVIATIONS [00:55:01] OR THEY FIND THAT SOMETHING WAS DONE IN ERROR, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PULL BACK APPROVAL ON CERTAIN ASPECTS. SO IF THE DRAINAGE BECOMES AN ISSUE THAT THERE IS CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS OR THAT THERE'S CHANGES MADE, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE COMMENTS BACK TO THE APPLICANT AND SAY, HEY, WE FOUND AN ERROR IN THIS AND HERE'S WHAT WE THINK YOU NEED TO CORRECT TO GET THIS APPROVED. AND WE MOVED IT FROM APPROVED TO NON-APPROVED. YEAH. COMMISSIONER HYS? YEAH, JUST, UH, JUST SOME FURTHER CLARIFICATION. THE, UH, COMMISSIONER HINES WAS ASKING ABOUT IF YOU LOOK, I MEAN YEAH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DIMENSIONS OF THE LOT, WHICH ARE A HUNDRED, IT'S 120 FEET BY ONE 15 AND THAT'S, THAT'S 13,800. THAT'S, SO THAT'S LESS THAN 15,000 SQUARE FEET. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE COVER SHEET OF THE APPLICATION, IT DOES SAY THE TOTAL ACREAGE IS 0.368 AND THAT'S OVER. THAT'S, THAT'S 16,000 SQUARE FEET. SO JUST ASKING FOR SOME CLARIFICATION THERE. I I, I'M GONNA ASSUME OR PRESUME HERE THAT THIS 0.368 IS INCORRECT. OKAY. SO I WAS JUST LOOKING AT WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC WORKS WAS FOR, THERE ARE PROJECT HOLDS ON THIS, BUT IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL REMODEL EDITION. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S LISTED AS AN R THREE, BUT IT IS LISTED AS A SINGLE FAMILY REMODEL IN ADDITION IN OUR SYSTEM. BUT IN ANSWER TO COMMISSIONER ISH'S QUESTION ABOUT THE DISCREPANCY THAT I'M GOING, I DON'T KNOW, I'D HAVE TO LOOK BACK ON THAT ONE, BUT HANG ON. GOOD. A MEMBER MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION, MY NAME IS DIPTI MATH. THIS THE, WE COULD, WE COULD GET A CLARIFICATION FROM THE APPLICANT. THE SITE APPEARS TO BE 120 BY ONE 15 AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 13,800. CORRECT. BUT IF YOU, SO MAYBE THE ACREAGE PROVIDED HERE IS WRONG. IS WHAT I'M ON THE 1 0 1 FORM ON THE PLAT ITSELF. IT LOOKS WRONG EVEN ON THE SCREEN. THAT'S THE PLA THEY SUBMITTED. YEAH. OKAY. SO IF THE SITE IS 120, 115 BY 120, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 13,800. UM, SO APPLICANT CAN CLARIFY WHAT DOES THE SIZE OF THE LAND, UM, AND YES, THE 1 0 1 FORM SHOULD BE CORRECT CORRECTED. COMMISSIONER HEINZ, DID YOU HAVE MORE? I I DON'T HAVE ANY. IT'S, I THINK WE POINTED OUT THERE'S A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE 1 0 1 FORM AND THE PLOT. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO CHECK. COMMISSIONER MODEST, I JUST WANNA MAYBE BE CAREFUL BECAUSE VERY OFTEN WE REVIEW AN APPROVED PLAS LONG BEFORE THE PERMITTING PROCESS HAS STARTED. IT JUST HAPPENS THAT THIS PROJECT HAS STARTED THE PERMITTING PROCESS, BUT I DON'T MAYBE WANNA GET ANYBODY CONFUSED THAT THE TWO ARE TIED TOGETHER. ONE CAN BE DENIED BECAUSE OF THE OTHER. UM, SO I KIND OF JUST WANT US TO BE A LITTLE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT. 'CAUSE I FEEL LIKE THE CONVERSATION IS TYING THEM TOGETHER. BUT VERY OFTEN WE WOULD BE REVIEWING AND APPROVING THIS PLAT WITH, WITH NO PERMITS HAVING, HAVING STARTED. THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT TIED TOGETHER. SO I JUST KIND OF WANNA NOT CONFUSE THE AUDIENCE THAT, THAT WE CAN DISCUSS PERMITTING AS PART OF THE PLAQUE. REALLY. I MEAN, IT'S GOOD TO KNOW THAT INFORMATION. ABSOLUTELY. BUT WE CAN'T DENY THE PLA BECAUSE OF A DISCREPANCY ON A PERMITTING. ABSOLUTELY. IT'S, THAT'S NOT OUR JOB. RIGHT. OKAY. ANY, ANY, OH, COME FORWARD. MS. OWENS, DID YOU HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION? OKAY, SO I'M TRUSTING MY CALCULATOR AND I'M LOSING MY VOICE. SO WHEN I, WHEN I DIVIDED THE 13,800 DIVIDED BY 43 5 6 AT 0.316 ACRES, SO IT'S 13,800 SQUARE FEET, 0.3168 ACRES. BUT THAT, DID THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? NO, WHAT WE WERE POINTING OUT IS THAT THERE'S A DISCREPANCY, UM, RELATIVE TO THE GRAPHIC THAT SHOWS THE PLOT. RIGHT? THERE'S THE ACREAGE THAT IT SHOWS AND THEN THE FORM ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE APPLICATION, IT ACTUALLY STATES, UH, A DIFFERENT ACREAGE. WE WILL MAKE SURE WE GET THAT CORRECTED ON THE FINAL SUBMIT ON THE CCPC MODEL ONE, NOT SAYING THAT IT'S A YOU GUYS ISSUE OR IF IT'S A, I'M SURE IT'S A TYPO. PLANNING DEPART MAYBE, BUT WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR POINTING IT OUT. WE APPRECIATE IT. DID THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? WE GOOD? I THINK SO. MR. SMITH, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? YES, MA'AM. UM, I JUST GOT MORE INFORMATION HERE THAT THE PROJECT AT 55 14 ARDMORE STORM HAS NOT APPROVED IT AT THIS TIME. SO THE FACT THAT PLANNING STILL HAS, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT HAS NOT GONE, OR THAT STORM HAS WITH, HAS MARKED IT FROM, IF THEY DID FOR SOME REASON THOUGHT IT WAS APPROVED, IT IS NOT ACTUALLY APPROVED THROUGH THE STORM GROUP YET. SO THEY STILL ARE REVIEWING IT AND THAT THEY WERE LOOKING BACK OVER THE PROJECT AND THEY THOUGHT THAT THERE MAY BE MORE THAN 65% [01:00:01] IMPERVIOUS COVER. SO IF THERE IS, IT WOULD REQUIRE ATTENTION. OKAY. AND JUST TO REITERATE, COMMISSIONER MORRIS'S VERY GOOD POINT. THAT'S, THAT IS A SEPARATE PROCESS. WE'RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT IT TO, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC. YEAH. THAT, THAT IS THE INTENT OF THAT PROCESS TO CATCH THOSE ITEMS. IF IT DOES OR DOES NOT MEET A CERTAIN RIGHT, UH, CRITERIA, THEN IT, YOU KNOW YEAH. LEFT OR RIGHT, BUT THAT, THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROCESS RIGHT THERE AND AGREED. BUT WHAT WE WERE POINTING OUT THAT IS THE, ON THE APPLICATION THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY, RIGHT? YEAH. AND DOES THIS MISTAKE ON THE 1 0 1 FORM, IS THAT A PROBLEM WITH THE APPLICATION OR I THINK IF WE HAD A GROSS ERROR ON THE 1 0 1 FORM, A DIFFERENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ADDRESS AND SO FORTH, I MIGHT ARGUE THAT THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH ERROR TO, TO UH, HAVE THAT DENIAL. THIS SOUNDS TO ME LIKE A TYPO THAT DIDN'T GET CAUGHT IN THE ROOM. OKAY. AND WE HAVE A, A COMMITMENT THAT SUBMISSION OUT OR REVIEW WE CAN GET, WE CAN MAKE A NOTE, I THINK TO CORRECT THAT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. YEAH. COMMISSION ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THEN IS, UH, TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION GARZA GARZA. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. MAD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED THE MOTION? CARRIE? I OPPOSED. PARDON ME. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE NOW ON ITEM ONE 18. GOOD QUESTION. AFTERNOON MEMBERS, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS, I'M SORRY. I, I THINK THIS IS FOR LEGAL. I, UM, WHEN WE OPPOSE, DO WE HAVE TO GIVE A REASON WHY WE OPPOSE? I PREFER THAT BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, IF, IF A PLAT OR RE PLAT APPLICATION IS DENIED, WE MUST BE ABLE TO HAVE STAFF POINT TO A SPECIFIC REASON THAT, UM, IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OR STATE LAW THAT IT, IT VIOLATES. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO PERHAPS WE SHOULD GO BACK FOR LEGAL REASONS TO, FOR YOU TO STATE THE REASON. YEAH, I MEAN, I, I THINK MY CONCERNS ARE AROUND THE A I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT DISCREPANCY ISN'T SUBSTANTIAL. I THINK THAT'S MY PRIMARY CONCERN. UM, AND, AND I DO HAVE SOME OTHER CONCERNS AS WELL WITH MAYBE WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED IF, IF IT'S FACTUAL IN OR NOT. BUT, UM, THIS IS A HARD ONE. THIS IS SUCH A GRAY AREA AND I HAVE TRULY STRUGGLED WITH IT AND I'M TRYING TO LISTEN TO BOTH SIDES, BUT I THINK IN THE END IT'S HARD FOR ALL OF US. YES. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THIS ALL PROBABLY TASTED LIKE VINEGAR IF YOU HAD TO VOTE. YES, ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. ONE 18. SORRY FOR THE INTERRUPTION. IT'S OKAY. SO GOOD. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS ELLI RODRIGUEZ. ADAM ONE 18. CARTER ESTATE. WE PLA NUMBER ONE. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY, EAST OF STATE HIGHWAY IS 2 49 AND NOR A SPRING CYPRESS ROAD. THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLA IS TO CREATE ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND ONE MULTI-FAMILY RESERVE. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TWO VARIANCES TO NOT EXTEND NORTH TERMINATE SOLOMON ROAD WITH A CUL-DE-SAC AND SECOND TO NOT PROVIDE AN EAST, WEST PUBLISHED STREET AT THE UM, THROUGH THE SITE. ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED AT THIS, AT THIS TIME TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE COORDINATE WITH HARRIS COUNTY REGARDING THE ABANDONMENT OF SOLOMON ROAD EXTENSION. SO REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATE THAT THE PLA WILL NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION. SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLA FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. THE APPLICANT HAS MADE ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT AND STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. IN EVENT, MADAM CHAIR, TO PLEASE THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM ONE 18, CARTER ESTATE IS OPEN. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED OR NO ONE IN THE CHAT. THE UM, APPLICANT DID SIGN UP FOR QUESTIONS. IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 18? UH, HEARING NO RESPONSE, I'LL TURN TO THE COMMISSION. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION. IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION? HINES HINES. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. PACA AMANDA PACA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. UH, 1 19 1 19 EAST SIDE TERRACE. THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG FREEMAN STREET, ETHER NORTH MAIN STREET. [01:05:01] THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLOT IS TO CREATE A SHARED DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT WITH SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND ONE PARKING RESERVE. NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED. WITH THIS ITEM. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLOT WILL NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION. STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS. IN EVENT MADAM CHAIR IS TO PLEASE THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ONE 19 EAST SIDE TERRACE IS, UH, CONTINUED. I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE CHAT? IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 19 EAST SIDE TERRACE? HEARING NO RESPONSE? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION SIGLER SIGLER SECOND ISH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM ONE 20. ITEM ONE 20. FOSTER ESTATES THE SITE IS LOCATED EAST OF SCOTT STREET AND SOUTH OF YELLOWSTONE BOULEVARD. THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLAN IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOT. NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. THE APPLICANT HAS MADE ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATE THAT THIS PLA WILL NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLA SUBSTITUTE THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION. STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE. MADAM CHAIR IS TO APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ONE 20 FOSTER ESTATES IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED AND NO ONE IS IN THE CHAT. IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ONE 20 FOSTER ESTATES? HEARING NO RESPONSE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION GARZA GARZA. A SECOND. I HEAR ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM 1 21. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS DEVIN CRIDDLE. ITEM 1 21 IS NAVAJO PLACE, SECTION ONE PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE. THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN HARRIS COUNTY WEST ALONG NAVAJO PLACE DRIVE EAST OF FM 29 78 AND NORTH OF HUFF SMITH ROAD. THE PURPOSE OF THE REPLAY IS TO CREATE FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 21 NAVAJO PLACE IS CONTINUED. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 21? THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT FOR QUESTIONS. HEARING NO RESPONSE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. UH, IS THERE A MOTION THEN FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION MANKA MANKA SECOND HOLLOMAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM 1 22. ITEM 1 22 IS OAK FOREST VILLAS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF DEL NORTE STREET AND OAK FOREST DRIVE. THE PURPOSE OF THE REPLAY IS TO CREATE SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN A SHARED DRIVEWAY. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT LOT 1 35 SHOWN AS LOT SEVEN IS REQUIRED TO SHOW A FRONT BUILDING LINE OF 25 FEET WITH A THREE FOOT INTERIOR BUILDING LINE THAT MUST BE SHOWN ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT. MADAM CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE'S AN EXISTING POWER POLE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE SITE THAT OVERLAPS THE PROPOSED SHARED DRIVEWAY. STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRING THE PLAT FOR THREE WEEKS TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROV TO PROVIDE A REVISED PLAT COMPLYING WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND TO COORDINATE WITH THE CENTER POINT ENERGY REGARDING THE LOCATION OR RELOCATION OF THE UTILITY EASEMENT. [01:10:01] MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT LOTS SIX AND SEVEN ARE WITHIN A SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE AREA AND THE LOTS DO COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT. IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME AND STAFF HAS RECEIVED MANY COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION OF THIS REQUEST LOCATED IN YOUR PACKAGE. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE HAVE ABOUT 25 SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. UM, SO WE, I WILL BEGIN BY RECALLING MICHELLE YU, WHO I CALLED BEFORE IN ERROR. WELL, THANK YOU GUYS FOR THAT. SO SORRY ABOUT THAT. NO PROBLEM. SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR JOINING US TODAY AND ALSO FOR JOINING US IN THIS ROOM, WHICH SEEMS LIKE THE AC TEMP RISES AS THE MINUTE PASSED BY. UM, SO AGAIN, MY NAME'S MICHELLE YU. I'M A LONGTIME HOUSTONIAN AND I AM A MEDICAL PROVIDER FOR MEDICALLY COMPLEX CHILDREN AND CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS. I AM BEFORE YOU TODAY AS A RESIDENT AND CONCERNED CITIZEN OF ELDERLY FORESTS, WHICH WE HAVE AFFECTIONATELY NICKNAMED ELF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND ITS ESTABLISHED CHARACTER IS UNIQUE AND THIS UNIQUENESS HAS PROVEN TO BE A SAFE HAVEN FOR CHILDREN WITH NEURODEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS THAT RESIDE IN ELF. THE CHILDREN ARE DIAGNOSED WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER, DOWN SYNDROME, UM, DELAYED DEVELOPMENTAL MILESTONES AND SEVERE A ADHD. THESE NEURAL DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS INHIBITS IMPULSE CONTROL, INHIBITS ATTENTION, COGNITIVE ABILITY AND SAFETY AWARENESS. THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF ELF ALLOWS THE PARENTS, THE FRIENDS, THE NEIGHBORS, TO CLOSELY MONITOR AND LIMIT IN AND OUT TRAFFIC WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THESE MITIGATIONS PREVENT WANDERING OF OUR CHILDREN AND PREVENT AND MITIGATE, UM, ALTHOUGH PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS AND RAPID RECOVERY OF A CHILD WHO HAS ELOPE THIS ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OF OUR SAFE HAVEN IS UNDER ATTACK BY THIS PROPOSED REPLY. ADDITIONALLY, THIS REPLY DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE D RESTRICTION AND ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 42 DASH FIVE ZERO B AND BLATANTLY IGNORING BUILDING LINES. YOU ALL HAVE THE POWER AND OBLIGATION, UM, TO DISALLOW THIS PLAT BECAUSE OF ITS BLATANT NON-COMPLIANCE AND WHILE AND ALSO MEDICATE, UH, MITIGATING FURTHER HARM TO THE CHILDREN AND THE FAMILIES WHO RESIDE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THAT EARLY PRACTICE AND I HOPE YOU GUYS HAD POWER LAST NIGHT. THANK YOU. UM, MICHAELA HODGES IS THE APPLICANT. DID YOU WANNA GO NOW OR WAIT TILL THE END? I'LL WAIT TODAY. OKAY. UM, THEN THE NEXT SPEAKER IS SAMANTHA WEST. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND, AND SAY THE NEXT SPEAKER AND IF YOU'D KIND OF MAKE YOUR WAY UP TO THE PODIUM SO THAT WE CAN TURN YOU THROUGH PRETTY QUICKLY. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS GONNA BE STEVE MARKER. MR. MARKER, GO RIGHT AHEAD. MS. WEST. MY NAME'S SAMANTHA WEST. MY HUSBAND ANDREW AND I ARE HERE TODAY IN OPPOSITION OF THIS REPL, LE FOREST DEED RESTRICTIONS APPLY TO ALL LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION EXCEPT LOT NINETY NINE ONE HUNDRED AND ONE THIRTY SIX LOT 1 35 IS NOT EXEMPT FROM DEED RESTRICTIONS. THE FIRST DEED RESTRICTION STATES ALL LOTS AND SUB SUB SAID SUBDIVISION EXCEPT AS HERE AND BEFORE ACCEPTED, SHALL BE USED FOR RESIDENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND NO STRUCTURE SHALL BE ERECTED, ALTERED, OR PLACED OR PERMITTED TO REMAIN HEREAFTER ON ANY RESIDENTIAL PLOT OTHER THAN ONE DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, ONE OR TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT AND A PRIVATE GARAGE FOR NOT MORE THAN TWO CARS. THE PROPOSED REPL INVOLVES PLACING A SHARED USE DRIVEWAY ONTO LOT 1 35, A SHARED USE DRIVEWAY FOR FIVE OTHER HOMES THAT ARE PART OF A SEPARATE TOWNHOUSE. DEVELOPMENT IS A STRUCTURE OTHER THAN A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OR PRIVATE GARAGE. THIS IS A VIOLATION OF LE FOREST DEED RESTRICTION. DEED RESTRICTION NUMBER SIX SAYS NO TRASH, RUBBISH GARBAGE OR DEBRIS OF ANY KIND SHALL BE KEPT OR ALLOWED TO REMAIN ON ANY LOT IN LE FOREST. NOT COMMENTING ON THE TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT ITSELF HERE, BUT RATHER THE INEVITABLE TRASH AGGREGATION OF THE THREE OUT OF FIVE HOUSES THAT WILL BE LEFT TO ACCUMULATE ON THE SHARED DRIVEWAY ON LOT 1 35 AS THERE IS NO OTHER SPACE FOR IT TO GO. THIS IS A VIOLATION OF E FOREST DEED RESTRICTION. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. MAKER MARKER TO BE FOLLOWED BY JOHNA SUMMERS. OKAY. HI. HI. UM, I'M A RESIDENT AND I JUST HAVE ONE, BASICALLY A QUESTION. DOES THIS, WE, THIS PROPERTY IN QUESTION, IT IS SITUATED LIKE ABOUT 40 OTHER HOMES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT HAS ACCESS TO WITH, WITH PROPERTY BEHIND IT THAT'S [01:15:01] NOT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND A LOT OF THAT PROPERTY IS BEING DEVELOPED. DOES THIS SET A LEGAL PRECEDENT AT ALL IF WE, IF, IF THIS IS EVENTUALLY APPROVED FOR OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS TO THEN USE THEIR HOME FOR ACCESS TO LAND OUTSIDE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD? IS IT A LEGAL, I ASSUME THAT'S, I'D ARGUE THAT IT DOESN'T SET A LEGAL PRECEDENT UNLESS THERE'S A PROVISION IN OUR CODE THAT WOULD ALLOW SUCH DEVELOPMENT. IT DOESN'T MEAN WE WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE IT IF THE, BUT IF THE PROVISION IS IN OUR CODE, YOU PROB YOU MAY HAVE BEEN HERE EARLIER AND HEARD ME SAY THAT IF, IF A PLAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR CODE, WE MUST APPROVE THE COMMISSION MUST APPROVE IT. OKAY. AND NOW THIS, I'M NOT SURE, SO IS THERE JUST IN GENERAL, NOT JUST HERE, BUT IN GENERAL WITH THE, ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO APPROVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS, IF THIS GETS APPROVED, DOES IT GIVE THE, IF SOMEBODY ELSE DOES, IS THERE LESS INCENTIVE TO PREVENT SOMEBODY ELSE TO DO THIS? BECAUSE NOW WE'VE GOT THIS NOT LEGAL PRECEDENT, BUT WE'VE GOT A PRECEDENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THIS KIND OF DEVELOPMENT. AND SO NOW SOMEONE SAYS WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, LEGAL OR IT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR, OR ANY OTHER, THE OTHER AGENCIES, I YEAH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, AND DO THIS. THEY'VE ALREADY DONE IT. I WOULD SAY THAT TO THERE IS STRICT, NO STRICT PRECEDENT FROM ONE PLAT APPLICATION TO ANOTHER PLAT APPLICATION. SO IT'S NOT A GUARANTEE FOR A DEVELOPER THAT GOT APPROVED. SO WE CAN DO IT. OKAY. HOWEVER, IF IT GOT APPROVED BECAUSE IT MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE, WE CANNOT DIS IT. RIGHT. RIGHT. SO IT SORT OF DEPENDS ON THE INDIVIDUAL FACTS OF THE CASE. OKAY. AND CAN Y'ALL, CAN ANYONE HERE ANSWER MORE BROADLY WHEN YOU GO BEYOND, BEYOND, LIKE WITH PERMITTING OR JUST ANY OF THE OTHER APPROVALS THAT HAVE TO BE MADE? IS THERE LESS INCENTIVE TO IT'S, I I, I KNOW I'M PROBABLY GETTING, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR PROBABLY NOT A DISCUSSION IN THE TIME THAT WE HAVE HERE. OKAY. RIGHT NOW. ALRIGHT. BUT WE HEAR YOU AND I, YOU PUT THE QUESTION ON THE TABLE, WE MAY DISCUSS THAT LATER AFTER WE FINISH WITH THE PUBLIC. OKAY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. UH, JONAH SUMMERS TO BE FOLLOWED BY NATHAN BENISH DOCUMENT CAMERA PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM JONA SUMMERS. I'M A LONGTIME HOUSTONIAN ATTORNEY AND THE LLE FOREST HOA PRESIDENT, BUT I'M HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY AS A RESIDENT AND CONCERNED CITIZEN. THE ELF IS A NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE NO OTHER IN HOUSTON AND ITS ESTABLISHED CHARACTER IS UNDER ATTACK BY THIS PROPOSED REPL. YOU HAVE THE POWER TO SAVE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND I AM ASKING, PLEADING, AND BEGGING YOU TO EXERCISE THAT POWER. THE REPL BLATANTLY VIOLATES OUR 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK AND OUR 10 FOOT SIDE SETBACKS, WHICH IS IN DEED RESTRICTION NUMBER TWO. I'VE GOT THAT WITH ME IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO PULL IT UP. DOCUMENT CAMERA PLEASE GO AHEAD. OKAY. YOU CAN PUT IT UP BUT WE'RE NOT . ALRIGHT. UH, THE PURPORTED UNPROVEN OWNER AND THE APPLICANT HAVE NOT ACTED IN GOOD FAITH. WILLFUL NON-COMPLIANCE OR EVEN WILLFUL IGNORANCE SHOULD NOT BE AWARDED WITH A DEFERRAL, BUT SHOULD BE DENIED. SO THE APPLICATIONS THAT DO COMPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED FIRST. MOREOVER, THE SHARED DRIVEWAY VIOLATES AT LEAST DEED RESTRICTION NUMBER 20 AND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH SECTION 42 DASH 2110 AND 42 DASH 1 45 B ONE. AS, UH, MS. MICKELSON POINTED OUT THAT LOOKING AT PRIOR PLATS, OUR PRIOR PLATS HAVE EASEMENTS ON THEM, AND YET THIS PARTICULAR REPL IGNORES OUR EASEMENT. IT DOESN'T INCLUDE IT AT ALL BECAUSE THEY WANNA PUT A DRIVEWAY ON TOP OF OUR EASEMENT. THEY WANT TO COVER UP OUR GAS LINE WITH CONCRETE. OUR EASEMENT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO WE ASK YOU TO DENY IT. AND, AND JUST SO FOR EVERYBODY, IF, SORRY, IF OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THIS DOES VIOLATE YOUR DEED RESTRICTIONS, WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE IT. SO IT WOULD, IT WILL BE DENIED ONCE THAT DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE. BUT I UNDERSTAND IT HASN'T BEEN MADE YET. IS THAT CORRECT, MS. NICHOLSON? LOOK AT EACH OTHER. OKAY. I'M GONNA DEFER TO MS. WOODS WHO REVIEWED THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. OKAY. THAT DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE, I THINK MR. CRILE STATED THAT IT DID VIOLATE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR LOT 1 35. [01:20:01] AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU DENY IT AT THIS POINT SO THAT OTHER APPLICATIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, NATHAN BEN TO BE FOLLOWED BY DANIELLE MUELLER OR MUELLER, SORRY. RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ITEM NUMBER 1 22, ALSO KNOWN AS THE OAK FOREST BILL IS REPL. UM, MY FAMILY AND I LIVE JUST A FEW HOUSES TO THE WEST OF THE PROP PROPERTY. UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR REPL. CURRENTLY, OUR HOUSE IS OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A SEVERE REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSS PROPERTY AND WAS ACCEPTED AND APPROVED BY BOTH THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND FEMA TO BE LIFTED WITH A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE COST COVERED BY A FEMA FLOOD LOSS MITIGATION GRANT. THAT FLOOD LOSS DESIGNATION DOESN'T JUST BELONG TO OUR HOUSE, BUT MULTIPLE PROPERTIES ON THE SAME STREET AND WITHIN SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET OF THE PROPOSED REPL QUALIFY AS REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSS AND SEVERE REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSS PROPERTIES. THE REASON FOR THIS DESIGNATION IS NOT THAT OUR HOMES SIT DEEPER INTO THE FLOODPLAIN THAN OTHERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN FACT, WE ACTUALLY SIT WELL ABOVE MANY HOMES THAT HAVE NOT DEALT WITH RECENT FLOODING. THE ISSUE AFFECTING US IS ONE OF STRUCTURAL FLOODING. OUR SMALL ROADSIDE DITCHES AND CULVERTS CANNOT ADEQUATELY HANDLE THE SURFACE WATER THAT IS GENERATED DURING A SIGNIFICANT RAIN EVENT. AND MUCH OF THAT FLOW COMES FROM THE PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY TO OUR NORTH. UM, JUST LIKE THE SECTION OF PROPERTY THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE ADDITIONAL HOMES WHERE CURRENTLY THERE ARE ZERO. AND SO TODAY, IN ADDITION TO THE EASEMENT AND, UH, DEED RESTRICTION VIOLATIONS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, I WOULD SIMPLY LIKE TO DRAW AGAIN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE NEED TO FULLY UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROPOSED RELAID AND CONSTRUCTION WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THIS CRITICAL DRAINAGE ISSUE. I CANNOT SEE HOW WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED WITH THE SIGN SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS COVER WOULD DO ANYTHING OTHER TO DO OTHER THAN TO EXACERBATE WHAT THE CITY HAS ALREADY RECOGNIZED AS A SERIOUS FLOODING ISSUE NEEDING REMEDIATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS DANIELLE MUELLER TO BE FOLLOWED BY JOHN NEY. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I DO HAVE A QUESTION TO INTERRUPT. UM, THIS IS FOR STAFF. IT'S, CAN YOU CLARIFY THE DEED RESTRICTIONS? IT IS IN VIOLATION OR IT IS NOT SO AS PRESENTED, UM, WASN'T YOUR MIND GOING TO THE PROPOSED PLATFORM? SO, AS PRESENTED LOT SEVEN, THE INTERIOR LOT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A 25 FOOT FRONT BUILDING LINE AND A THREE FOOT INTERIOR BUILDING LINE. SO TYPICALLY WHEN WE HAVE THESE TYPE OF ISSUES, WE ALLOW, WE'LL TYPICALLY DEFER THE PLAT TO GIVE THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO COMPLY WITH THE 10 FEET, UH, DE RESTRICTED BUILDING LINE. YES, MA'AM. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO AS PRESENTED, IT DOES, BUT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THAT. OKAY. CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT SPEAKER, UH, JOHN NEY. I'M SORRY, DID I CALL DANIELLE MUELLER? SHE DIDN'T COME FORWARD. OKAY. UH, JOHN LEY? YES. I OH, OH, YOU ON, SORRY. THIS IS DANIELLE MUELLER. I, OH, GO AHEAD. I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK. GO AHEAD. SORRY. THANK, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO JOIN VIRTUALLY, UM, SINCE I COULDN'T BE THERE IN PERSON TODAY. UM, I AM ALSO A RESIDENT OF ELF LE FOREST. UM, MY HOME IS AT THE FRONT END OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND, UM, WHERE WE HAVE ONE WAY IN AND OUT, UM, I WILL SAY THAT WE ARE ALREADY CONGESTED DURING PEAK, UM, TRAFFIC TIMES WITH, UH, TRAFFIC GETTING IN AND OUT ONTO ELLA BOULEVARD. UM, THE ADDITION OF SEVEN HOMES WITH A SINGLE DRIVEWAY INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, WILL SIMPLY INCREASE UPON THE CONGESTION. UM, AND MY, MY BIGGEST CONCERN WITH THE CONGESTION IS THE SAFETY OF OUR RESIDENTS AND OUR CHILDREN. UM, WE DO NOT HAVE SCHOOL BUSES IN OUR AREA. WE HAVE, UM, DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR, NEW YOUNG KIDS, UM, WHO WALK OR RIDE THEIR BIKE, UM, WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO THEIR SCHOOLS. UM, ADDING STREET TRAFFIC, UM, CARS, PARKING ON THE STREET. UM, ADDITIONALLY, UM, THERE ARE TRASH BINS AND RECYCLING BINS AND WASTE ON, ON PICKUP DAYS, UM, WILL JUST HINDER AND INCREASE THE, UM, RISK TO OUR CHILDREN AND RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, BY, BY DECREASING THE VISIBILITY AS A, AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE ALSO, UM, DEAL WITH INCREASED, UM, TRAFFIC SPEEDING INSIDE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S A SINGLE LOOP. UM, AND, AND GETTING AROUND CARS NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE, JUST, JUST SPEEDING CAUSING INCREASED RISK TO, TO ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS. UM, IT'S JUST A VERY, VERY BIG CONCERN TO, TO MYSELF AND, AND A NUMBER [01:25:01] OF THE RESIDENTS THAT YOU'LL HEAR SPEAK UP TODAY. UM, I WON'T SPEAK TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP, UM, BUT I HOPE THAT YOU TAKE ALL OF THIS INTO CONSIDERATION AND, UM, DENY THE REPL AND NOT JUST DEFER IT TODAY. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS PAIGE BRANHAM. B-R-A-N-A-M. WHAT DID SHE SAY? JOHN? MS. JOHN NEY. OH, OKAY. SORRY. FORGOT ABOUT YOU. JOHN N WATNEY NOT PRESENT. OKAY. PAIGE BRANHAM. GOOD AFTERNOON. AS HOMEOWNERS IN THE LE FOREST SUBDIVISION, MY HUSBAND AND I KINDLY REQUEST THAT YOU REJECT THE APPLICATION FOR 1404 DEL NORTE STREET. BASED ON THE FACTORS LISTED BELOW, AMONG THE OTHERS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN, UM, COMMENTED ON, ONE, A MINIMUM LOT SIZE RESTRICTION FOR THE BLOCK ON WHICH 1404 DEL NORTE IS LOCATED IS ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF HOUSTON. THE SUBMITTED REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORTED MINIMUM SIZE FOR THE LOTS THAT RESIDE IN LLE FOREST TO THE ONLY ACCESS INTO THIS NEW NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE THROUGH LLE FOREST, EFFECTIVELY MAKING IT PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT ANY ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IE NOT COVERED BY THE LLE FOREST DEED RESTRICTIONS. SHOULD THE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD DECIDE TO MAKE ADDITIONAL CHANGES IN THE FUTURE? ONE, THERE WOULD BE NO REQUIRED CONSIDERATION FROM ELDERLY E FOREST, AND TWO, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD HAVE NO RECOURSE TO STOP ACTIONS THAT WOULD HAVE ADVERSE EFFECTS TO ELDERLY FOREST NEIGHBORHOOD. THREE. CERTAIN NEIGHBORS WILL BE SEVERELY AND NEGATIVELY IMPACTED IN A DISPROPORTIONATE WAY AS A RESULT OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AND EXTREME PROXIMITY OF THE DESIGNS THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN LLE FOREST. IN SHORT, THE SUBMITTED APPLICATION REQUEST, SORRY. IN SHORT, THE SUBMITTED APPLICATION REQUESTS TO MANY EXCEPTIONS FOR A SINGLE NEIGHBOR AT COST TO OTHER INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT LARGE. THEREFORE, WE REITERATE THE REQUEST TO REJECT THE APPLICATION FOR 1404 DEL NORTE STREET. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, TANDY MIDDLETON TO BE FOLLOWED BY TIMOTHY MIDDLETON. IF IT WORKS. DOCUMENT CAMERA, PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR TIME'S RUN. OH, SORRY. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, MY NAME IS TANDY MIDDLETON. I LIVE AT 1410 DEL NORTE STREET. I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 10 YEARS NOW. THE PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY NEXT TO THE PROPOSED REPL LOCATION. WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S VERY POSSIBLE AT THIS STAGE, THIS PROJECT MEETS ALL OF THE RULES. I STILL HAVE SOME VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS, SOME OF WHICH INCLUDE FLOOD RISK, UM, INCREASED TRAFFIC AND OVERFLOW PARKING BECAUSE OUR KIDS PLAY IN THE STREET AND NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES COME AND USE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR RECREATION. THE STRAIN ON UTILITIES AS WE CONTINUOUSLY LOSE POWER IN EVERY SINGLE STORM AND ARE WITHOUT POWER TODAY, AND THE PLACEMENT OF TRASH CANS AND HEAVY TRASH, ET CETERA. I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME, SO I WANNA FOCUS ON FLOODING. . THE WATER IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD RUNS FROM NORTH TO SOUTH AND WEST TO EAST THE CORNER OF DEL NORTE. AND OAK FOREST IS A BOTTLENECK WHERE THE WATER FLOWS SOUTH TO A LARGER DITCH THAT'S SOUTH OF L LEE FOREST. DURING HARVEY, WE DIDN'T HAVE POWER. OUR NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET DID. WHEN I WALKED ACROSS THE STREET, THE WATER WAS TO MY CALFS, BUT I COULD LOOK TO THE EAST AND SEE THE STREET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF OAK FOREST, I COULD SEE DEL NORTE STREET. SO IT IS VERY UNIQUE THAT THIS PORTION FLOODS A LOT. UM, OH, I DO WANNA NOTE THAT IN THAT LAST, UH, SLIDE THAT IT SHOWED THE 100 YEAR PLANE, AND WE ARE ALSO IN THE 500 YEAR PLANE, AND THAT WASN'T DEPICTED ON THE SLIDE. WHEN IT RAINS AND OUR, OUR BACKYARD FLOODS BEFORE THE FRONT YARD, WE ALWAYS OPEN THE GATE SO THAT THE WATER IS ABLE TO FLOW. A FEW YEARS BACK, THE CITY WIDENED FIVE MILES OF PINE MOUNT, AND IN THIS PROJECT THEY IMPROVED STORM SEWER, STORM SEWERS, SANCTUARY, SANITARY SEWERS, AND THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. AND SINCE THIS PROJECT, WE HAVE SEEN IMPROVEMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE STILL HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM. I TOOK PHOTOS FROM A STORM FROM JANUARY 8TH, THAT WAS JUST TWO WEEKS AGO, TO SHOW HOW MUCH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FLOODS. ONE IS FRONT OF, IN FRONT OF MY HOME, THAT IS RIGHT NEXT TO WHERE THE REPL IS. THE OTHER ONE IS FROM MY DRIVEWAY LOOKING TO THE NEXT HOME. AND THE OTHER ONE IS FROM, UH, NATHAN ISH'S HOME, WHICH IS THE NEXT ONE OVER LOOKING STRAIGHT ON. SO YOU CAN SEE HOW QUICKLY THE STORMS, THE DRAINS FLOOD. SO WITH A VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF CONCRETE POSSIBLE AND NO SIGNIFICANT DITCH, MY MAIN CONCERN IS HOW WILL THIS PROJECT HELP WATER FLOW INTO THE SEWER SYSTEM. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY. TIMOTHY MIDDLETON, CAN I SUBMIT THE PHOTOS OR LIKE YEAH, YOU CAN. I PUT THE ADDRESSES OF THE BOTTOM CORNER SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S 14, 10, 14 14 AND 1418. WE'LL GET 'EM DISTRIBUTED IN TIME FOR THE NEXT ONE. OKAY. TIMOTHY MIDDLETON TO BE FOLLOWED BY TOM HUGHES. ALL RIGHT. MADAM CHAIR? YES. UH, I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER CLARK, I NEED TO STEP AWAY. OKAY. FOR JUST A MINUTE. PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER CLARK IS STEPPING AWAY. YES. COMMISSIONER MODEST. OH, SO WHAT HAPPENED TO COMMISSIONER [01:30:02] ? OKAY, ONE, TWO. DO YOU STILL HAVE A QUORUM? ALL RIGHT. OKAY, MR. HUGHES. SO, I'M SORRY MR. MIDDLETON, GO RIGHT AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. ALRIGHT, SO MY NAME IS TIM MIDDLETON. UM, THAT WAS MY WIFE. WE DO LIVE DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO THE PROPOSED PLOT. UM, I DO STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS ITEM. AND WHILE MY PROPERTY MAY STAND TO LOSE THE MOST IN PROPERTY VALUE FROM SEVEN TOWN HOMES DIRECTLY NEXT TO IT, I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH HOW THIS AFFECTS THE COMMUNITY, AS YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM OTHERS ABOUT THE FLOODING, THE TRAFFIC, THE AESTHETICS. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT WAS THE NON-COMPLIANCE TO CHAPTER 42, WHICH IS THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO THAT BECAUSE ACTUALLY WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT. UM, WHAT I DO WANNA TALK ABOUT IS THAT YOU'VE HEARD THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT ONE PLAT LOT, 1 37, WHICH IS LOT SEVEN IN THE PLAT, DOES NOT COMPLY TO THE SETBACK LINES ON A 25 FOOT OR THE 10 FOOT EASEMENTS, WHICH YOU'LL READ AND YOU'LL GET MORE. THAT'S NOT THREE, IT'S ACTUALLY 10 FOOT. UM, SO IN MY MIND, I THINK THIS DOESN'T ACTUALLY MEET THE, UH, CHAPTER 42 GUIDE GUIDELINES. I'D EVEN ASK THE ENGINEER WHEN SHE COMES UP IF SHE WAS PRESENTED WITH THE DEEDS WHILE SHE WAS CREATING THE PLOT. AND YOU'LL HEAR THAT SHE WAS NOT. WHICH LEADS ME TO MY POINT, IN MY OPINION, THIS APPLICANT OR OWNER WHO GREW UP IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HE PAYS H HO A DES REGULARLY. HE'S TRIED SELLING THE PROPERTY NUMEROUS TIMES, BUT NO ONE WILL TAKE IT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT'S GOT THE D DISTRICTS ON IT. HE KNEW THE D RESTRICTIONS WERE THERE. UM, IT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED THE FAVOR OF DEFERRING BECAUSE SOMEONE TURNED IN AN F AND THEY WANNA TRY TO GET EXTRA CREDIT FOR AN A. IN FACT, THEY SHOULD ACTUALLY BE DISAPPROVED IF YOU SAY STATED 42 74 5. IT SHOULD BE DISAPPROVED AFTER FINDING IT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE APPLICATED OR APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER AS SUBMITTED. SO THE QUESTION I'D ASK YOU GUYS IS, DOES THAT REALLY APPLY? AND SHOULD YOU BE CREDITING SOMEBODY WHO DOES TURN IN SOMETHING THAT THEY KNOW FOR A FACT DOES NOT COMPLY? ON THE OTHER HAND, PARTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE GONE THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE CHANNELS, FOLLOWED THE CORRECT APPLICATION PROCESS, WORKED WITH CITY PLANNERS, TRYING TO STOP THE DEVELOPMENT OF FROM HAPPENING. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE DESIGNATION, WHICH I, UH, HEADED UP. THERE WAS NO PROTEST, NOT EVEN FROM 1404. UH, WE HAD 80% OF SIGNATURES ON THAT. IN ADDITION, WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN APPLICATION FOR A MINIMUM BUILDING LINE IN RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE 85% OF THE SIGNATURES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THAT RIGHT NOW. WE DID IT THE RIGHT APPROPRIATE CHANNELS. WE WENT ABOUT THIS, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THIS. WE'RE NOT GONNA GET TURNED DOWN THAT APPLICATION. IT'S IN AND APPROVED. THAT'S IT. ALRIGHT. PROPERTY. ONE PERSON DOESN'T TAKE CARE OF 12. THANK YOU MR. MIDDLETON. TOM HUGHES TO BE FOLLOWED BY RICARDO MARTINEZ. HI. HI, I'M TOM HUGHES. I'M A, I'VE LIVED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD SIX YEARS. I'VE SOLD HOUSES FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS. I'VE SOLD, SOLD SIX HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I ALWAYS HAVE TO, SIR, WOULD YOU STEP AT THE MICROPHONE SO THE CAMERA CAN SEE YOU? NO. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I ALWAYS HAD TO ADDRESS WITH EVERYBODY THAT'S BRINGS BUYERS OVER THERE, ESPECIALLY WITH OLDER AGENTS, OH, THAT'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT FLOODS. NOW YOU'RE CONSIDERING A, YOU'RE CONSIDERING PAVING OVER, UH, ALMOST A, UH, INCREASING THE IMPERIAL LAND BY ABOUT AN ACRE. AND I APOLOGIZE. UH, MS. MICKELSON IN THE VERY BEGINNING MENTIONED THAT THE, UH, THE COMMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED TO RE TO APPROVE SOMETHING IF IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. THIS DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. AND THE COMMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED TO APPROVE. WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR A DEFERRAL TO KICK IT DOWN, TO KICK IT DOWN THE, THE ROAD FOR SOMEBODY, FOR THEM TO MAKE CHANGES AND THEN SOMEHOW SQUEEZE IT THROUGH. UH, AS I'M GONNA FOLLOW UP WITH WHAT TIM SAID, THE COMMITTEE SHOULD NOT RE REWARD. THEY SHOULD EXPECT INTEGRITY. IT'S NOT THE COMMITTEE'S JOB TO FACT CHECK WHAT SOMEBODY, WHAT AN APPLICANT BRINGS UP HERE. YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES. AND IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE AN INVOLVED COMMUNITY, YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW THAT THIS APPLICANT WHO WAS VERY AWARE OF AS, AS TIM MENTIONED, VERY AWARE OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS WERE. TRY TO SUBVERT THAT AND PRESENT SOMETHING TO YOU THAT DID NOT MEET THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. I'M GONNA, UH, UP HERE, YOU SEE THAT RED SQUARE, THE BUYER'S FAMILY IS IMMEDIATELY TO THE RIGHT. THAT SIGN BEING IN THE YARD ASKING FOR A VARIANCE IS SUCKING ABOUT 30 OR $50,000 OF EQUITY FROM THE BUYER'S FAMILY. RIGHT NOW, IF THEY TRIED TO SELL THAT HOUSE, IF THEY ASKED ME TO LIST IT, OR IF I HAD BUYERS AND I WAS BRINGING IT OVER AND I SAW THAT VARIANT SIGN, THE FIRST THING I'M GONNA SAY IS LIKE, OH MAN, NO TELLING WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN. YOU KNOW, DO YOU WANT TO, DO YOU WANT TO MOVE IN WITH THAT UNCERTAINTY? AND EVEN IF IT DOES HAPPEN, LOOK, IT'S GONNA DRAMATICALLY CHANGE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S GONNA DRAMATICALLY CHANGE WHAT YOU'RE PAYING FOR THIS PROPERTY. WE SHOULD LOOK AT SOMETHING ELSE. WE SHOULD CONSIDER SOMETHING ELSE. YOU ARE NOT CREATING VALUE. THANK YOU. YOU'RE SUCKING EQUITY FROM ALL THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU RICARDO MARTINEZ TO BE FOLLOWED BY LEAH SALINAS. IT WORKS. ALRIGHT. UM, HI, I'M RICARDO MARTINEZ AND I'M A RESIDENT OF FOREST. UM, THANK YOU FOR, UH, HERE. AND WHAT I HAVE TO SAY HERE, I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS, UH, PROPOSAL, UH, AS WELL. AND I USED TO LIVE IN SHADY ACRES, WHICH I, I CALL TOWN HOME CITY, UH, IN THE GREATER HEIGHTS AREA. AND I LIKE THE MULTI, THE HIGH RESIDENT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES [01:35:01] THERE. BUT NOW I WANTED TO MOVE INTO LA FOREST BECAUSE OF THE LOW DENSITY, UH, SINGLE FAMILY. I URGE THE COMMISSION TO DENY, DISAPPROVE THIS REQUEST, PLEASE, AND NOT DEFER IT. THIS WOULD BE REWARDING A PROPOSAL THAT BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THESE RESTRICTIONS AS, UH, MY, MY NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID. UH, I DO WANNA CLARIFY YOUR, I THINK YOUR, YOUR STAFF MEMBER MENTIONED THAT THE, THESE RESTRIC RESTRICTIONS CALL FOR A THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK. THAT IS NOT TRUE. IT IS A 10 FOOT SIDE SETBACK THAT'S REQUIRED. I AM PART OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE AND WE, PER THE ARCHITECT, PER THE DEEP RESTRICTIONS, WE HAVE TO APPROVE ANY IMPROVEMENT THAT HAPPENS ON THE LOTS THAT ARE DE RESTRICTED. UM, THERE IS, UH, SO THIS, THIS IS NOT MEETING THE 25 FOOT SETBACK AND IT IS NOT MEETING THIS 10 FOOT SIDE SETBACK. SHARED DRIVEWAY IS ALSO OVER THE, THE AERIAL EASEMENT AND AN UNDERGROUND EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES. THERE IS A POLE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DRIVEWAY, UH, THAT YOU MENTIONED. UM, AND THEN ALSO AS I MENTIONED THE, SOMEBODY TALKED ABOUT FLOODING. THERE IS A REPORT THAT THE CITY OF HOUSTON, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ISSUED IN 2011 WHERE IT STATES THAT THE DRAINAGE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT, DOES NOT WORK. AND THERE WILL BE STRUCTURAL FLOODING. NOW WE'RE GONNA BE ADDING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY. SO I, AGAIN, I URGE THE COMMITTEE PLEASE, UH, TO DENY THIS REQUEST, NOT DEFER IT. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. SINCE THE DOCUMENT CAMERA IS NOT WORKING AT THIS TIME, WE'RE HAPPY TO RECEIVE ANY EXHIBITS FOR THE RECORD, IF NE IF THAT'S WHAT THE SPEAKERS WOULD LIKE TO DO. OKAY. ALRIGHT. LEAH SALINAS TO BE FOLLOWED BY ANNE HOLICK. HI, MY NAME IS LEAH SALINAS AND I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN IN THE AREA FOR 18 YEARS RAISING FOUR CHILDREN, GOING TO HISD. UM, WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS THERE'S ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT, AND IT'S A LOOP THAT I LIKE TO DO A FIGURE EIGHT BECAUSE IT'S A PERFECT ONE MILE AND A HALF THAT YOU CAN DO A 5K ON YOUR LUNCH BREAK. WHEN I DO THAT, THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT'S NOT CAR TRAFFIC, IT'S FOOT TRAFFIC BECAUSE WE ARE NEARBY A VERY CRITICAL BUS STOP AT PINE MONT AND ELLA. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE USE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS A NICE SHADY PASS THROUGH TO SAFELY. INSTEAD OF WALKING UP, ELLA WALKING UP OAK FOREST DRIVE TO KROGER TO WORK TO SHOP. AND WE DO NOT HAVE SIDEWALKS. OUR STREETS ARE NOT SUPER WIDE. AND BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT, IT IS A VERY SAFE PLACE TO RIDE YOUR BIKE AND WALK. WE HAD 12 CHILDREN BORN IN ONE YEAR, ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO, THAT WALK TO SCHOOL. UM, WE ALL KNOW THAT SEVEN TOWNHOME, OR SEVEN HOMES, FIVE OF WHICH TOWN HOMES DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR PARKING. AND SO THOSE, THAT, THOSE EXTRA CARS ARE GOING TO BE BACKED INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS GOING TO CAUSE A VISIBILITY, UH, PROBLEM. SO I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST BEFORE, IF YOU DECIDED THAT IT DID MEET EVERYTHING ELSE TO DO A TRAFFIC STUDY ALONG WITH THE FLOOD STUDY BECAUSE ALL OF US NOW HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE FLOODING FROM DEL NORTE, EVEN ONTO LEHMAN. I'M ON LEHMAN STREET AND THE, THE CULVERT'S RAISED WITH WATER VERY QUICKLY. THAT AREA IS ACTUALLY, WE'VE GOT COYOTES LIVING IN THAT BACK PART OF THE LOT BECAUSE IT IS SO, UM, WOODED AND LOTS OF, LOTS OF AREA FOR THE WATER TO BE ABSORBED. AND THAT'S ALL GONNA GET TAKEN DOWN AND GONNA BE IN PER YOU GOT THE IDEA ANYWAYS. UM, I INVESTED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE HUGE HOMES. WE ARE IN A 2000 SQUARE FOOT ORIGINAL HOME FOR A REASON BECAUSE THE AESTHETICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE'S LOTS OF AREAS FOR PEOPLE TO PUT TOWN HOMES, NOT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU, UH, ANN HOLICK TO BE FOLLOWED BY JEFFREY MATHIS. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS ANNE HOLICK AND I LIVE AT 1350 DEL NORTY WITH MY HUSBAND AND MY FAMILY. WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 24 YEARS. I LIVE TWO HOUSES DOWN FROM THE REPL. AND, UM, I CAN TELL YOU OVER THE 24 YEARS, IT DEFINITELY HAS FLOODED. MY HOME HAS NOT, THANKFULLY, IT, UH, MADE IT BY ONLY AN INCH IN HURRICANE ALLISON, BUT EVERY HOME FURTHER THAT DOWN DID, ESPECIALLY THE ONE THAT, UM, NOW HAS BEEN APPROVED BY FEMA. SO AS YOU'VE HEARD THAT, UM, NOT ONLY DOES IT NOT MEET THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, BUT THE INCREASE, UH, FOR THE FLOODING IS GONNA GO BACK TO THE CITY. IT'S THE CITY WHO'S GONNA HAVE TO PAY, NOT US. I MEAN, WE WILL AS WELL, OBVIOUSLY. AND, UH, EVERYTHING'S GONNA HAPPEN TO US, BUT THE CITY IS GONNA BE THE ONUS FOR SOLVING THE, THE FLOODING ISSUE. SO I WOULD ASK ALSO THAT YOU WOULD DENY THE REPL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, JEFFREY MATHIS TO BE FOLLOWED BY JONAH LEE. MY NAME IS JEFFREY MATHIS, OWNER OF 1403 DEL NORTE STREET, LOCATED DIRECTLY ACROSS [01:40:01] THE STREET FROM THIS PROPOSED RE PLAT OF 1404. I'M HERE TODAY TO VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE THIS REPL AND IMPLORE THE COMMISSION TO DISAPPROVE ON ANY ONE OF THE NUMBER OF GROUNDS PRESENTED TODAY. THIS REPLAY APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED UNDER THE GUAS THAT IT DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REMOVE THE COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS. HOWEVER, THIS APPLICATION WHOLLY DISREGARDS THE ELF DEED RESTRICTIONS, WHICH ARE ON FILE WITH HARRIS COUNTY REAL PROPERTY RECORDS INCLUDED ON LOT 1 35. AS SUCH, THIS PLT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 14 DASH 49. THIS IS NOT AN ACCIDENTAL OMISSION BY A BUSY DEVELOPER. THE DEVELOPER IN THIS APPLICATION GREW UP ON THE PROPERTY, HAS BEEN TRYING TO SELL PROPERTY DEVELOPERS FOR YEARS UNTIL THEY TOO UNCOVER THE TRUTHS ABOUT THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND WALK AWAY. THIS IS INTENTIONAL EXCLUSION OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THIS RELA AS SUCH, THIS PLT SHOULD BE DISAPPROVED RATHER THAN CONSIDERED FOR DEFERRAL AND CORRECTION. SECTION 42 DASH ONE 50 DIRECTLY CALLS INTO EFFECT THESE RESTRICTIONS, FOREMOST THE 25 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK ALONG DEL NORTE AND THE 10 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK ON THE EAST AND WEST LOT LINES OF LOT NUMBER 1 35. THIS IS GONNA BE FOUND IN ELF DEED RESTRICTION ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH IN THE LAST SENTENCE STATES NO RESIDENCE SHALL BE ERECTED NEAR ANY INTERIOR LOT LINE THAN 10 FEET. ANYTHING SHORT OF AN ACTION OF DISAPPROVE IS OF THIS RELA BY. THE COMMITTEE WOULD ALSO BE APPROVING THAT PLAYBOOK FOR ANY OTHER DEVELOPERS TO GAIN THE SYSTEM BYPASS THE CLEAR INTENT OF A SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE THAT'S IN PLACE FROM CHAPTER 42. CIRCUMVENTING THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE BY SHOEHORNING IN FIVE ADDITIONAL TOWN HOMES INTO A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT REGARD FOR THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I IMPLORE YOU TO STRONGLY CONSIDER THESE IMPLICATIONS AS WELL WHEN RENDERING A DECISION TODAY FOR THESE REASONS AND MANY MORE, WE HAVE COLLECTED SIGNED PETITIONS FOR MORE THAN 116 HOMES IN ELDERLY FORCE. OF COURSE, THAT'S 75% OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN 48 HOURS. RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, THE MAPS GOING AROUND THAT FLAGS EVERY HOUSE THAT HAS SIGNED IT. YES, WE GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY, I THINK THE REST OF THE SPEAKERS WE HAVE ARE VIRTUAL. IS THERE ANYBODY TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? WHO'S HERE? OKAY. COME FORWARD. I'M TRYING TO GET YOU GUYS BECAUSE IT'S HOT. OKAY. OKAY. DID YOU, DID YOU FILL OUT A FORM LIKE THIS? I DIDN'T. I FILL, I SUBMITTED MY COMMENTS BEFOREHAND. OKAY. WHAT, TELL ME YOUR NAME. VON MUELLER. OKAY, GO AHEAD. UM, I'M JUST GONNA GO ALONG WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT EVERYBODY HAS ALREADY SAID. UH, DE RESTRICTIONS OBVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN VIOLATED HERE. THE, I'M, UH, THE PAST HOA PRESIDENT AND I WAS GOING TO ALSO SUBMIT A COPY OF OUR D RESTRICTIONS FOR, FOR THAT. IT'S HIGHLIGHTED ON THERE. AND NUMBER TWO, JUST AS JEFF WAS SAYING, THAT NO, UH, STRUCTURE MAY BE BUILT CLOSER THAN 10 FEET FROM ANY SIDE, UH, PROPERTY LINE. AND THEN ALSO I HAVE AN, I HAVE A LETTER FROM OUR ATTORNEY THAT SAYS, UH, THAT LISTS ALL THESE SAME ITEMS OUT, YOU KNOW, IN HIS LEGAL OPINION ON WHY THIS, UH, THIS PLAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO CHAPTER 42. AND, UH, AND SPECIFICALLY DEED RESTRICTIONS, SPECIFICALLY OMISSIONS BY THE APPLICANT AND ALSO DRAINAGE OPEN SPACE. OKAY. GO AHEAD, SUBMIT THOSE. THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. OKAY, WHO'S NEXT? GO AHEAD. STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. UH, FRANK CALDWELL. I DID SUBMIT MY COMMENTS ON TUESDAY AND SAID I WOULD BE A SPEAKER. UM, AGAIN, I AM FRANK CALDWELL. MY, I LIVE IN LE FOREST, ALONG WITH MY WIFE AND MY 3-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER, MY 2-YEAR-OLD SPECIAL NEEDS SON, MY FIVE MONTH OLD AND MY 90-YEAR-OLD, UH, MOTHER AS WELL. AND ONE OF OUR FAVORITE THINGS TO DO IN LE FOREST IS TO WALK THAT ONE AND A HALF MILE LOOP. UM, MY MOTHER WALKS IT EVERY DAY, THAT'S WHY SHE'S 90 AND PROBABLY CAN KICK MY BUTT. BUT ANYWAY, UM, BUT ANYWAY, SO IT'S JUST NOT, UM, AND YOU CAN SEE IF YOU COME TO ONE OF OUR EASTER EGG HUNTS OR HALLOWEEN PARTIES, YOU'LL SEE THE NUMBER OF KIDS. AND WE CONGREGATE FOR A HALLOWEEN PARTY RIGHT THERE AT FOUR, OH, BETWEEN 1404 AND WHERE THE, THE BUYERS LIVE. AND I CAN TELL YOU THERE'S A LOT OF SMALL CHILDREN. UM, MY DAUGHTER, SHE RIDES ONE OF THOSE LITTLE, LIKE, BALANCE BIKES, YOU KNOW, SHE'S STILL NOT LEARNING. SO WE, AGAIN, WE, WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TRAFFIC. BUT WITH THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ADDING SEVEN NEW HOMES TO WHERE ONE HOUSE COULD BE, POTENTIALLY, YOU'RE GONNA ADD IN A LOT MORE TRAFFIC, NOT JUST FROM THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE GONNA BE LIVING, PEOPLE THAT ARE GONNA BE LIVING THERE, BUT ALSO FROM THE, THE AMAZON DRIVERS, THE UBER EATS DRIVERS AND EVERYBODY ELSE. ALL THE GUESTS PARKING ALONG THE STREET ALONG WITH THE TRASH CANS ALONG THE STREET. I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT ALL OF THE SAFETY HAZARDS THAT ARE GONNA BE AFFECTING THE WELLBEING POTENTIAL, HARMING MY MOTHER AS WELL AS MY SMALL CHILDREN, AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER SMALL CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S ONE OF MY BIGGEST, UM, ISSUES AS WELL AS EVERYTHING WE'VE SAID ABOUT, UM, BEING, UM, IN VIOLATION OF OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS [01:45:01] AS WELL AS, UM, THE, THE WHOLE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN REDUCING OUR, UM, HOME VALUES. SO, AGAIN, APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, MADAM CHAIRMAN AND, UH, THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. NEXT STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. CHRIS BYERS. I WAS SCHEDULED TO SPEAK AS WELL. UH OH. YOU'RE ON THE LIST, BUT YOU'RE ON AS, AS UNKNOWN. THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T CALL YOU. WELL, Y'ALL KNOW ME NOW. NOW, NOW WE KNOW YOU'RE HERE. YES, MA'AM. OKAY, GO RIGHT AHEAD. UH, LIKE I SAID, CHRIS BYERS, I OWN THE HOME, UH, 1354 DEL NORTE WITH MY WIFE AND THREE SMALL CHILDREN. UH, I'M THE, I'M THE HOME DIRECTLY EAST OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. UH, THERE'S ALMOST NO TRAFFIC IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S A GREAT PLACE FOR FAMILY AND FRIENDS AND KIDS TO RUN AROUND. UH, MY WIFE AND I AND NEIGHBORS STRONGLY OPPOSE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT URGE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DISAPPROVE THE PLAT. I GOT A FEW OTHER ARGUMENTS TO MAKE, UH, TRAFFIC AND SAFETY LIKE FRANK TALKED ABOUT. UH, SEVEN NEW HOMES MIGHT BE 14 CARS ON A 60 FOOT DEAD END STREET WHERE MY KIDS PLAY. UH, THE, THE TRASH CAN DEAL IS, IS AN ISSUE. UH, PROBABLY GONNA BE AN EYESORE. THEY'LL PROBABLY BE ALL OUT IN MY YARD AS WELL. UH, A LITTLE BIT WORRIED ABOUT FIRE PROTECTION, GETTING A FIRETRUCK BACK THERE FOR THE OTHER STRUCTURES. AND THE, THE BUSINESSES ON PINE MOUNT, UH, THE, THE SETBACK DEED RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED. UH, TIM VAUGHN, LOTS OF THE GUYS, UH, HE'S BLATANTLY IGNORED THESE, HE KNOWS 'EM TOO, UH, BECAUSE HE'S LOST SOME SAILS ON THAT, ON THAT DEAL BEFORE. UH, AND, AND I WANNA FOLLOW UP ON THE FLOOD. LIKE MS. SALINAS SAID, I DIDN'T SEE ANY STORMWATER DESIGN ON THE PLAT, AND MAYBE THAT'S NOT REQUIRED, BUT IT OUGHT TO BE IN THIS CASE, IF WE NEED TO FLOOD STUDY, IF WE'RE TAKING AWAY A LOT OF COVER, UH, A LOT OF BARE GROUND BACK THERE. UH, SO IN CLOSING, IT'S A SPECIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DE DESERVES TO BE PROTECTED FROM DEVELOPMENTS THAT WILL HARM THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY AND CHARACTER. ELDERLY FOREST IS NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE PEOPLE CAN PLAY, USE THE STREETS, KIDS BIKING, RUNNERS WALKERS HAS LIMITED TRAFFIC AND ENJOY THE SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL. WE ASK IT, WE ASK THE COMMITTEE TO DISUSE THIS REPLAY. THANKS. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. OKAY. WHO IS NEXT? HI, MY NAME IS LARRY PORTERFIELD. I'VE SIGNED UP ONLINE, BUT I DIDN'T FILL A FORM OUT. OKAY, GO AHEAD. ALRIGHT. OH WAIT, IT WAS FOR, SAY, SPELL YOUR LAST NAME AGAIN. OR P-O-R-T-E-R-F-I-E-L-D. THANK YOU. THAT'S HOW I LEARNED IT. . MY NAME IS LARRY PORTERFIELD. I'VE LIVED IN LA FOREST WITH MY WIFE SUSAN, AND OUR, UH, FOR 30 YEARS WE'VE RAISED OUR FOUR CHILDREN THERE. IT'S A WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD. PEOPLE WALK, PEOPLE BIKE, THEY, THEY JOG, THEY PUSH THEIR BABY STROLLERS. THEY KNOW OUR, WE KNOW OUR NEIGHBORS AND WE, UM, WATCH OUT FOR EACH OTHER. SO IT'S, IT'S A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THAT REGARD. THERE'S 154 HOMES, SO ADDING SEVEN MORE IS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE. UM, I OPPOSE THIS, THIS REPL, UH, AND I RECOMMEND THAT IT BE DENIED. UM, IT WILL CHANGE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S NOT JUST ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD THAT YOU GET TO FROM A OF ANOTHER STREET. EVERYBODY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS TO GO THROUGH ELDERLY FOREST TO GET TO THIS NEW NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY CAN'T. THEY WILL BE PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, AND THERE WILL BE, THERE'LL BE WONDERFUL PEOPLE, I'M SURE, BUT THEY'LL BE PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND YET THEIR HOMES WON'T COMPLY WITH OUR, OUR LARGE LOT SIZES. OUR, OUR SMALLER HOUSES, THEY'RE GONNA BE TOWN HOME STYLE HOMES AND THEY WON'T LOOK OR FEEL LIKE THE SAME THING. I OPPOSE THIS BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE DEED RESTRICTIONS LIKE OTHERS HAVE SAID. THE OWNER KNOWS THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. THEY'RE NOT THERE. IT SHOULD BE REJECTED. IT SHOULD BE DENIED. THE, THERE'S SIDE SETBACK LINE THAT'S 10 FEET ON BOTH SIDES, THREE FEET AFTER IT'S 75 FOOT BACK AND IT'S A GARAGE. IT'S 10 FEET ON THE SIDE, IT'S LOT 1 35, THEIR LOT. I DON'T KNOW WHICH IT IS, DOESN'T HAVE THAT. UM, I POST THIS BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE ORDINANCE ON PAPER, IT MAY LOOK LIKE IT, BUT THERE'S A DRIVEWAY BACK THERE THAT, THAT IS DEDICATED FOR THOSE OTHER HOUSES. IT USES UP OVER A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET FOR BOTH OF THOSE LOTS THAT ARE, THAT ARE IN THAT ORDINANCE. AND WHEN YOU RESTRICT THAT, RESTRICT THAT FROM IT, IT'S LESS THAN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE ORDINANCE. AND THAT'S NOT A, AND THAT'S NOT AN EASEMENT THAT YOU CAN, UH, UH, FENCE IN AND YOUR KIDS CAN PLAY ON. THAT'S A DRIVEWAY. YOU CAN'T FENCE IT IN. YOU CAN'T KEEP PEOPLE OUT. YOU CAN'T LET YOUR KIDS PLAY ON IT. YOU DON'T HAVE THE USE OF IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. UM, OKAY. IS THAT IT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE? I'M GONNA START WITH THE VIRTUAL PEOPLE. IS THAT IT? OKAY. JONAH LEE, MADAM CHAIR. YES. I'M REALLY SORRY. I HATE INTERRUPTING YOU, BUT I'M BACK. OH, OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. JONAH LEE, ARE YOU THERE? HE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. I'M HERE. OH, YOU ARE? GO RIGHT AHEAD THEN. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEP. CALLING HIM VIRTUALLY. SO THIS IS JONAH LEE. I'M A RESIDENT OF L LEE FORCE AS WELL. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR OUR CONCERNS. UH, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE WHAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY SAID. IT'S A FACT IT'S BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IT DOES NOT MEET THE RESTRICTIONS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO BE DONE IF PEOPLE CAN JUST GO SUBMIT THINGS AND THEN BE GIVEN, UH, FORGIVENESS TO GO CORRECT IT LATER ON. WHAT'S THE POINT OF ALL OF THIS? UM, YOU KNOW, AND SO THAT, THAT'S THE FACT AS OF RIGHT NOW. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE DEFERRAL'S EVEN BEING ALLOWED. UH, SECONDLY, FOR [01:50:01] MANY REASONS PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY SAID PARKING, UH, THE SAFETY AND THE TRASH. UH, YOU KNOW, 14 TRASH CANS SITTING ON A CORNER ALONG WITH 14 CARS WITH VISITORS. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. YOU'RE PUTTING A DRIVEWAY BACK THERE, RIGHT ON, RIGHT WHERE I'M UTILITY POLE CURRENTLY STANDS AND THE GAS LINE IS FOR EASEMENT. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. SO WHEN YOU JUST TAKE A STEP BACK, I FEEL LIKE I'M IN A CRAZY HOUSE RIGHT NOW ABOUT WHY WE'RE EVEN CONSIDERING THIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. UH, BETH CALDWELL. BETH CALDWELL, ARE YOU THERE? SHE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. JESSICA REDA, REDA. JESSICA? HELLO? YES. OKAY, I'M HERE. GO AHEAD. HI. SO, UH, YES, I'M JESSICA RITA. I LIVE IN 1407. I AM THE HOUSE, THE NEW BUILD RIGHT ACROSS FROM 1404. AND I, ALONG WITH WHAT EVERYONE HAS PREVIOUSLY HAVE STATED, NUMEROUSLY, UM, MY BIGGEST COMPLAINT IS 1 35, NO FOUGHT, WHAT IS IT? LOT 1 35 DOES NOT MEET THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. IT'S BLATANTLY AGAINST THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. UM, THERE IS A 10 FOOT SIDELINES RULE. THERE IS THE 25 FOOT LINE RULE IN THE FRONT. UM, I MEAN, AND THE LIST GOES ON. YOU KNOW, I, I CAN REPEAT MYSELF OVER AND OVER, BUT THIS IS DEFINITELY, I, I OPPOSE THIS RELA, I URGED THIS, UM, MEMBERS TO, YOU KNOW, DENY THIS RELA. AND, UM, AND I JUST WANNA KNOW, I MEAN, I, I WENT THROUGH A NEW BUILD AND I BILLED ACCORDINGLY. UH, I, I HAD TO ADHERE TO MANY DEED RESTRICTIONS RULES, AND I DID EVERYTHING TO THE T. SO THIS, THIS, UH, PERSON HERE THAT IS TRYING TO DO THIS MULTI BUIL HOUSES ON THIS LOT SHOULD ALSO BE FOLLOWING THIS, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS AS WELL. I MEAN, ANOTHER PERSON SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO JUST DO ALL WILLY-NILLY WHATEVER THEY WANT AND NOT FOLLOW THE RULES WHEN OTHER LAW ABIDING CITIZENS DO THE SAME. I MEAN, I HAVE DONE THIS, I WENT THROUGH A LOT OF WORK TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND THIS, THIS, UM, TEAM HERE NEEDS TO DO THE SAME AS WELL. SO I'M AGAINST IT. I OPPOSE IT, AND I ASK THE MEMBERS, PLEASE TO HIGHLY REVIEW THIS AND, AND DENY IT. THANK YOU. UH, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS RUSSELL MCCARTY. YES, I'M HERE. OKAY, GO RIGHT AHEAD. YES, I'M, UH, I STRONGLY, UM, UH, OPPOSE THIS, UH, REPL. UM, I, YOU KNOW, I'LL NOTE A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. UM, THAT JUST TO EMPHASIZE AGAIN, THE 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE, THE 10 FOOT SIDELINES. UM, THE NEW PLANS AS WELL ARE VERY CONFUSING AND MISLEADING, AND THEY'RE NOT VERY MANY RESTRICTIONS LISTED IN THE NEW PLANS. SO, UM, THIS IS POTENTIALLY SETTING A VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT NOT ONLY THEY COULD NOT FOLLOW THE EXISTING DEED RESTRICTIONS, BUT THAT POTENTIALLY CREATE, UH, A NEW PLAN THAT HAS A LOT MORE FREEDOM THAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THIS. AS MANY OTHERS HAVE, UH, NOTED, OVER 90% OF THE HOMES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE SINGLE STORY HOMES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN. UH, MY SON WAS ONE OF 10 KINDERGARTNERS THAT STARTED AT THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NEARBY, UH, IN THE SAME YEAR, JUST FROM THIS TWO, UM, STREET NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, THE IDEA THAT THERE WOULD BE THREE OR FOUR STORY TOWN HOMES TOWERING OVER THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, I IS CONCERNING FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT. IN ADDITION, FLOODING CONCERNS, PARKING CONCERNS, DELIVERIES, UM, TRASH, ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WILL COME WITH HAVING SEVEN HOMES WHERE THERE USED TO BE ONE HOME ARE DEEPLY CONCERNING. I THINK THIS SHOULD BE, UH, REJECTED AND NOT DEFERRED. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. REBECCA BYRNE, B-Y-R-N-E. YOU GOT IT RIGHT. HI, I AM REBECCA. UM, I'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD HERE FOR ABOUT 12 YEARS. AND I ACTUALLY LIVE ON LEHMAN, WHICH IS A STREET AWAY. BUT I HAVE, UM, SEEN A LOT OF THE FLOODING THAT THEY DEL MARTE PEOPLE HAVE SEEN. MY HOUSE FLOODED IN ALLISON, I FLOODED AGAIN AND A COUPLE YEARS AGO. UM, SO WE SEE THE FLOODING PROBLEMS, UH, AND HAVING THE NEW HOUSES WILL NOT INCREASE THAT. IT WOULD DECREASE. I MEAN, IT'S GONNA DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF, UM, AREA THAT WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY GO INTO THE FLOOD WATERS. SO WE'RE GONNA, ALL THE FLOODINGS GONNA GO ELSEWHERE INTO MY HOME AND EVERYBODY ELSE'S HOME. UM, ALSO, I RECENTLY JUST HAD A BABY. HE'S ONLY FIVE MONTHS OLD. I WALK THESE STREETS EVERY SINGLE DAY. UM, IT'S, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THE ADDITIONAL PEOPLE COMING IN WITH, YOU KNOW, ALL THE REPAIRS OF THE HOUSES, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT CREATES A PROBLEM. IT CREATES A RISK. AND HAVING ADDITIONAL HOUSES, IT'S GONNA CREATE THAT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC. AND I DON'T WANNA BE HIT. I DON'T WANT MY CHILD PUT PUTTING MY CHILD AT RISK. UM, YOU KNOW, I LOVE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THE REASON WHY I BOUGHT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, 'CAUSE I LOVE THE TREES, I LOVE THE NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, I LOVE THE FEEL OF IT. YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SUBURB, NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF HOUSTON. AND SO IF THEY, I FEEL LIKE YOU PUT THE TOWNHOUSES IN THAT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S JUST GONNA INCREASE THAT, UM, NE UH, CITY OF LIFE FEEL. AND I DON'T, I DON'T LIKE IT. I I WISH YOU GUYS WOULD [01:55:01] REJECT THIS PROPOSAL AND LEAVE US AS IS. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALISON BAKER. HI, ALISON BAKER HERE. GO AHEAD. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH, WE HEAR YOU. OH, SORRY. UM, I'M A RESIDENT OF LLE FOREST AS WELL AND I STAND WITH MY NEIGHBORS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS FREE PLAT. THIS PLT WOULD DRASTICALLY IMPACT THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE ALL LOVE. UM, ELF IS A QUIET, HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD WITH MOSTLY ONE STORY HOMES BUILT AROUND THE 1960S. THIS PROJECT PROPOSES BUILDING FIVE TO SEVEN MULTI-LEVEL MODERN TOWN HOMES, SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS HISTORIC, BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOOD. THESE TOWN HOMES WOULD STAND OUT LIKE AN EYESORE AND THEY WOULD REALLY MAR THE HISTORIC APPEAL OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE ALL LOVE. UH, IT'S GONNA REDUCE OUR PROPERTY VALUES AS OTHER PEOPLE HAVE NOTED. IT'S GONNA CAUSE ADDITIONAL FLOODING AND TRAFFIC ISSUES AND IT'S REALLY GONNA HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE HERE ALREADY AND WHO LOVE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD SO MUCH. AND AS IT'S ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED, THIS REPL CLEARLY VIOLATES DEED RESTRICTIONS ON LOT, LOT 1 35. SO I'M ASKING THAT YOU NOT JUST DEFER THIS REQUEST THAT YOU FLAT OUT DENY IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. JOE M. WATKINS. JOE M. WATKINS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. UH, UH, I WAS GOING TO, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 22? UM, THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT FOR QUESTION. MS. HODGES, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK OR JUST QUESTIONS? OH, THERE YOU ARE. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLAN COMMISSION. MY NAME IS MAHALA HODGES. I WORK WITH LIQUIDITY ENGINEERING, THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PROJECT. UM, I'M WILLING TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT, UH, JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS FROM WHAT, UM, NEIGHBORS HAVE COME ACROSS, UH, TODAY. ONE, UM, A LOT OF TALK ABOUT DRAINAGE. THIS IS A PRELIMINARY REPL. AN APPROVED DRAINAGE PLAN IS REQUIRED IF AND WHEN THIS, UH, DEVELOPMENT IS SUBMITTED FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. SO THAT IS SOMETHING, UM, THE OWNER KNOWS HE HAS TO TAKE CARE OF, UM, PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPLICATION. UM, ANOTHER THING, UM, TRAFFIC, UM, SOMEONE ASKED FOR A TRAFFIC STUDY. UH, I CAN DEFER TO, UH, PUBLIC WORKS TO THAT, BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS, UH, REPL WITH SEVEN HOMES WOULD TRIGGER A TRAFFIC STUDY AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THERE IS, UM, THE TWO HOMES THAT FRONTON DEL NORTE DO, UH, COMPLY TO THE MINIMUM BUILDING SIZE, UH, ORDINANCE THAT THEY HAVE IN PLACE. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STATE THAT THE ONE HOME, THERE'S CURRENTLY ONE EXISTING STRUCTURE, UH, OVER THOSE TWO LOTS. AND THAT IS GOING TO STAY AT THIS POINT IN TIME. UH, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, IT WAS NOT WITH ANY MILE CONTENT THAT THE PLAT WAS SUBMITTED WITHOUT THE 25 FOOT DEED RESTRICTION ON WHAT IS SEVEN OR WHAT IS CURRENTLY 1 35. WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS REVISING THE PLA TO SHOW THAT 25 FRONT BUILDING LINE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME CONFIRMATION ABOUT THAT SIDE BUILDING LINE. THE RESIDENT SAID IT'S 10, LEGAL SAID IT'S THREE OR FIVE, SO IF SOMEONE CAN MAYBE GIVE ME SOME CONFIRMATION ON WHAT IS A DE RESTRICTED BUILDING LINE ON THE SIDE, WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO COMPLY WITH THAT. UM, AND I THINK THAT'S IT. THE GAS LINE, OH, SORRY. THE PROPOSED, UM, SHARED DRIVEWAY. YES, THERE IS A, A POWER LINE RUNNING THROUGH THERE AND WE DID TELL THE, THE APPLICANT THE DEVELOPMENT KNOWS THAT AND IS WILLING, THE INTENT WAS TO COORDINATE WITH S POINT WITH REGARDS TO POSSIBLY BEARING THAT LINE. IT'S NOT GOING TO, UM, AGAIN, PRIOR TO HAVE ALL OF THOSE ISSUES CLEARED UP PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL IF POSSIBLE. OKAY. THIS IS JUST THE FIRST STEP TO RECONFIGURE THE PROPERTY. UM, LIKE WITH ANY DEVELOPMENT, THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS COMING DOWN THE PIPE THAT, YOU KNOW, DRAINAGE PLAN HAS TO BE DONE. UM, COORDINATION WITH CENTERPOINT, ALL THE POWER POLES. SO HAVE YOU HAD ANY, UM, ANY, UH, INTERACTION OR ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION ON THIS PROJECT? WE HAVE NOT, BUT DURING THE DEFERRAL WE WILL, WELL, YES I DID OTHER THAN CALLS, CALLS TO MY OFFICE. UM, BUT WE CONTINUALLY, WE WOULD, UH, WELCOME ANY OPPORTUNITY DURING THE DEFERRAL PERIOD TO HAVE ONGOING COMMUNICATION WITH THEM. DID [02:00:01] THAT COMPLETE YOUR COMMENTS? YES. OKAY. QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER GARZA, MS. HOS, GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD TO SEE YOU. UM, JUST A QUICK QUESTION. UM, I KNOW WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT YOUR MICS. GO AHEAD. IT'S ON, I'M NOT CLOSE ENOUGH. APOLOGIES. UM, SO, UM, WE'VE BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT DEED RESTRICTIONS. SO IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ONLY THE SOUTHERN TWO LOT SIX AND SEVEN ARE DEED RESTRICTED IN THE NORTHERN, WHAT, FIVE OR NOT? SO THE SOUTHERN TWO HAVE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS ON THEM. UH, THEY, THEY'RE TWO ACTUALLY. THE SOUTHERN PROPERTIES ARE FROM ONE SUB, UM, ONE ORIGINAL PLAT. UM, IS IT ROSALYN? AND THEN THE NORTHERN SECTION IS OUT OF LEE FOREST. SO IT'S A COMBINATION OF PROPERTIES FROM TWO SEPARATE SUBDIVISIONS. SO THE SOUTHERN ONES, THEY HAVE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT ON THEM THAT WE ARE ADHERING TO. WE ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO PUT, UM, TO REVISE SUPPLY TO SHOW THE 25 FOOT FRONT BUILDING LINE ON WHAT IS OUR PROPOSED SEVEN, THE EXISTING 1 35, AND AGAIN, WHATEVER SIDE BUILDING LINE LEGAL OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN TELL ME. 'CAUSE I'VE HEARD THREE AND THEN I'VE HEARD 10 MM-HMM . AS A INTERNAL SIDE BUILDING LINE. I'VE ALSO HEARD 1 36 IS NOT PART OF THAT DE RESTRICTIONS. CORRECT. AND SO, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. COMMISSIONER SIGLER. UM, HAVE WE SEEN THIS BEFORE, AND MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR LEGAL, WHEN WE HAVE AN AREA THAT IT HAS DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THEN THEY'RE BRINGING IN AN AREA THAT DOESN'T, IT SEEMS TO ME WE ALWAYS TEND TO GO MORE TO THE MORE STRINGENT GUIDELINE OR RULE. IS THERE HAS, HAVE WE SEEN THIS BEFORE? I THINK WE HAVE SEEN SOME PLATS, I DEFER TO, TO STAFF TO IDENTIFY, I CAN THINK OF ONE OFF HAND THAT HAS COMBINED LOTS WITHIN A DEED RESTRICTED AREA WITH A LOT THAT IS NOT IN A DEED RESTRICTED AREA. THE DEED RESTRICTIONS STAY IN ENFORCED FOR THE PROPERTY THAT THEY COVER. AND THERE'S NOTHING IN STATE LAW, UM, OR IN OUR ORDINANCES THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE COMBINATION OF THE TWO. OF THE TWO. AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFERS DEED RESTRICTIONS INTO THAT ENLARGED AREA. OKAY. THAT I'M AWARE OF. I'LL DEFER, BUT YEAH, I'LL DEFER TO THE EXPERT HERE WHO I HAVE HERE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER COLVARD. UM, PERHAPS A FOLLOW UP QUESTION. UM, I SEE THAT TO THE NORTH OF THIS LINE IS ACRES HOMES, AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A CONSERVATION DISTRICT. IS THAT, UM, NOT IN, NOT YET. IN THE CASE FOR THIS AREA, IT WOULDN'T LET THE DIRECTOR RESPOND. I THINK THE DIRECTOR CAN ANSWER THAT. WE'RE CERTAINLY, WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. IT ISN'T IN PLACE AND IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T INCLUDE THIS TERRITORY. IT WOULD PROBABLY BE ON THE AREAS FURTHER NORTH MAR. UM, SO, WELL ACTUALLY BEFORE I HAVE MY QUESTION, IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY FOR STAFF OR LEGAL, BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO SHARE A NOTE WITH THE AUDIENCE. UM, SO YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE AWARE, BUT CENTERPOINT DOES REVIEW ALL, UH, PLAT APPLICATIONS FOR THE CITY, AND CENTERPOINT HAS REVIEWED THIS ONE AND THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A NOTE HERE THAT SAYS CMP RECORDS DO NOT SHOW AN EASEMENT EVEN THOUGH FACILITIES ARE PRESENT. SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THEY OMITTED THAT OR LEFT IT OFF. BUT IT APPEARS THAT THERE MAY NOT BE A FORMAL EASEMENT. IF I WE'RE STILL AT CENTER POINT, I WOULD SAY YOU ARGUE PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS BECAUSE THOSE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN THERE FOR DECADES. SO YOU STILL NEED TO COORDINATE WITH CENTER POINT, BUT THAT MAY BE WHY IT'S, SOME OF THAT INFORMATION MIGHT BE MISSING ON DOCUMENTS. UM, SO WELL THEN MY, MY QUESTION IS, I, THE PROPERTIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WHERE ARE THEY TAKING ACCESS FROM? ARE THEY TAKING ACCESS FROM THE SHARED DRIVEWAY? RIGHT NOW, THE EXISTING, RIGHT NOW THE EXISTING HOME ON THE TWO SOUTHERN LOTS HAS A DRIVEWAY OUT TO OAK FOREST. OKAY. SO THEN MY QUESTION TO KIND OF LEGAL OR STAFF IS IF THAT WERE LIKE ONE SUBDIVISION, I, I KIND OF BUY INTO AND THE SHARED DRIVEWAY ON THAT PROPERTY, THAT'S DUE RESTRICTED, BUT IT IS ISOLATING, SO TO SPEAK. IT'S NOT ALL SEVEN HOMES ARE TAKING ACCESS OFF THE DRIVEWAY. SO I, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO DOES THE SHARED DRIVEWAY STAY WITHIN THE DEED AREA OR NOT? AND HOW DOES THAT WORK IN TERMS OF DELINEATION? I MEAN, ARE THEY RE RE THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE RE PLATTING THAT, THAT SOUTH SIDE. SO HOW CAN THAT WORK IF THEY'RE NOT TAKING ACCESS FROM THERE? I THINK I KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M ASKING RE PLATTING THAT SOUTH SIDE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE STAFF HAS THE ANSWER HERE. YEAH, SO THE ONLY THING THAT'S REALLY CHANGING WITH THE SOUTHERN LOTS IS [02:05:01] THE ADDITION OF THE SHARED DRIVEWAY. IT'S THE SAME SIZE AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED, UM, RELATED TO THE, THE LOCATION OF THE SHARED DRIVEWAY. UM, WE HAVEN'T FOUND THAT THE DRIVEWAY ITSELF WOULD VIOLATE ANY TYPE OF DEED RESTRICTION, EVEN THOUGH IT'S PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE LOTS TECHNICALLY OUTSIDE OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, UH, THE SHARE DROP WAY ITSELF DOESN'T APPEAR TO VIOLATE ANYTHING IN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OR THE, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. SO THAT'S MY CONFUSION, LIKE THAT WERE LIKE AN HOA OWNED PROPERTY, SHOULDN'T IT BE WITH THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND NOT WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PLA TO THE SOUTH. AND THAT'S MY, LIKE, THAT'S MY CONFUSION ON THIS. WHO OWNS IT? THAT'S THE QUESTION. YEAH. WHO'S GONNA OWN THAT SHARED DRIVEWAY AND WHAT PROPERTY IS IT GONNA BE ON? YEAH, SO OKAY, MS. HODGES . SO, UH, RIGHT NOW THE, THE SHARED DRIVEWAY IS ON THE, THE TWO SOUTHERN, UM, LOTS, BUT ALL SEVEN PROPERTY OWNERS WILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT, AND THAT WILL HAVE TO COME IN THE FORM OF SOME SORT OF MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. OUR HACK DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. SO TYPICALLY, HOA PROPERTIES ARE INDIVIDUAL KIND OF PLATS THAT THE HOA OWNS AND PAYS TAXES ON AND WHAT HAVE YOU. SO I, I JUST NEED SOMEBODY TO CLICK TO CLARIFY ALL THIS SOMEBODY ELSE PROPERTY IF YOU GO TO A DEFERMENT, BECAUSE YEAH, WE HAVE A LOT OF CHATTER GOING ON OVER HERE. . SORRY, MADAM CHAIR. UM, WE, WE DO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS UNANSWERED. SO IF YOU, IF YOU WOULD GO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DEFERRAL, WE CAN LOOK INTO THOSE QUESTIONS AND COME UP MORE, MORE PREPARED TO ANSWER. HOWEVER, CURRENTLY HOW IT LOOKS LIKE IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO CLEARLY VIOLATE CHAPTER 42. IT MEETS CHAPTER 42 REQUIREMENTS, THE SHARED DRIVEWAY, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS IT APPEARS OTHER THAN THE BUILDING LINE THAT IT MEETS IT. BUT GIVE US THAT TIME AND WE WILL, UH, WE WILL HAVE MORE ANSWERS ABOUT, UH, COMMISSIONER MORRIS QUESTIONS. OKAY. ONE MORE THING, IF I MAY. GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER GARZA. AND, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE POINT TO ALL OF YOU HERE FIRST. OF COURSE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING OUT TODAY AND LETTING US KNOW WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE, BUT MANY OF YOU HAVE SAID THIS SHOULD BE DENIED OUTRIGHT. BUT PART OF WHAT WE DO HERE AND THE STAFF PARTICULARLY, IS TO BRING THESE THINGS INTO COMPLIANCE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH. BARELY. TO, TO BRING THESE INTO COMPLIANCE, AS YOU'VE HEARD MS. HODGES SAY, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THREE OR IT'S FIVE OR IT'S 10. SO THERE'S SOMETIMES THERE'S QUESTIONS AND IT IS OUR JOB, NOT, NOT THE COMMISSION, BUT THE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE SUBMITTALS ARE IN FACT, IN FULL COMPLIANCE. SO I KNOW THAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR US TO BE PUNITIVE HERE, BUT, UH, UH, THAT, THAT'S NOT REALLY THE ONLY OPTION THAT WE HAVE. SO JUST MAKING CLEAR TO YOU THAT PART OF OUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT COMES BEFORE US AND BEFORE IT GOES OUT, IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCES IN TEXAS STATE LAW. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SIGLER. I, I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA MAKE A MOTION FOR THE DEFERRAL. OKAY. CAN YOU WAIT, BECAUSE, THANK YOU. UH, MR. WATKINS. JOE M. WATKINS DID NOT HAVE HIS, UH, COULDN'T GET HIS MUTE OFF, BUT HE'S, HE'S HERE NOW. MR. WATKINS. JOE M. WATKINS. HELLO. OKAY, WELL, WE WILL PUT HIM ASIDE AND, UM, IF, IF DEFER, YEAH, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE'LL, WE CAN, I HAD A QUICK QUESTION. OH, GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER VIRA BLAND. UH, I HAD A QUICK QUESTION AROUND DOCUMENTATION OF THE FLOODPLAINS. UM, NOW THAT WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A SPECIAL HAZARD, UH, DESIGNATION ON ONE OF THE HOUSES, IS IT NECESSARY TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE FLOODPLAIN MAPPING OR DO WE LEAVE THAT INFORMATION? UH, BECAUSE IT'S MORE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL HOME? N NOT AT THIS STAGE. UH, WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN PRETTY MUCH INDICATES THE, THE DARKER IS THE 100 AND THE 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, BUT NOT AT THIS STAGE. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. MADAM CHAIR, CAN YOU SHOW THAT? UH, OKAY. ROSENBERG HAS JOINED. ALRIGHT, SO COMMISSIONER SIGLER, WERE YOU GONNA MAKE A MOTION? GO AHEAD, DEFER. OKAY. MOTION TO DEFER. WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER SIGLER. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MODEST, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? AND WE, YOU, WOULD YOUR MOTION ALSO INCLUDE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE. OKAY. YES. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TILL THE NEXT MEETING. UH, IS ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFIED BY SAYING AYE? AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. WE ARE DEFERRED. MADAM CHAIR, IT APPEARS THAT COMMISSIONER, UM, ROSENBERG MAY BE VISIBLE IF YOU'D LIKE TO UNMUTE AND WE CAN ACKNOWLEDGE HIM FOR THE RECORD. OH, GOOD. OH, OKAY. COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. ARE YOU THERE, COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG? YEAH, I THINK HE'S FROZEN. [02:10:01] OKAY. IF YOU CAN FALL OUT. COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG, HE'S ON THE PHONE. . OKAY. WE NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU AND THEN WE CAN COUNT YOU FOR QUORUM. OKAY. NEVERMIND. YES. COMMISSIONER SILER? YES. FOR STAFF DURING THE, UM, DEFERRAL, CAN YOU JUST ENLIGHTEN US A LITTLE BIT ON OAK FOREST DRIVE AND, BECAUSE ON SOME MAPS WHEN I WENT OUT THERE, OBVIOUSLY IT DOESN'T CUT ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO PINE MONT, BUT ON SUN MAPS IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS A CITY STREET ALL THE WAY. SO JUST IF YOU COULD GIVE US AN UPDATE. WILL DO. THANK YOU. AND IF, IF I MAY ALSO ADD, I, I, I HAVE LIKE KIND OF A PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN WITH THE FLOODING ISSUE, AND SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN HEAR FROM PUBLIC WORKS AT THE NEXT POINT. I MEAN, I JUST THINK I, I SEE THAT THERE'S TRAYS ON THE SITE. THOSE ARE OBVIOUSLY GONNA BE WIPED OUT. THEY REALLY DO SUCK UP A LOT OF WATER. MM-HMM . I THINK PEOPLE JUST DO HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH, AND SO I, I'D LOVE TO HEAR ALSO WHAT THE APPLICANT, UM, WOULD FEEL ABOUT, UM, MAYBE PRESERVING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IF THE WILL DO, NOT THE COMMISSION'S ISSUE, BUT WE'LL ASK PUBLIC WORKS TO RESPOND TO THAT. IT'S A, BUT IT'S A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE. YEAH, BUT NOT A PERVIEW. OKAY. OKAY. UM, ALL RIGHT, NEXT ITEM. WHERE ARE WE? OH, 1 23. 1 23. QUICK TRIP. ITEM 1 23 IS QUICKTRIP. STORE NUMBER NUMBER IS 79 51. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG EAST, OH, EXCUSE ME. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG THE I 10 FREEWAY NORTH OF MARKET STREET AND WEST OF DALE, DALE AVENUE. THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRING THE PLAT TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT REVISED PLAT INFORMATION BY THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MADAM CHAIR, YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 23. QUICK, QUICK TRIP, STORE NUMBER 79 51 IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. NO ONE IN THE CHAT. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 23? HEARING NO RESPONSE? WE WILL, UH, ASK THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION TO DEFER AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION FOR MOTION FORES PER SECOND. SECOND, AMANDA, PA AMANDA PACA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? AYE. SORRY. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE MOVE TO [d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests (Aracely Rodriguez, Devin Crittle, Tammi Williamson, Geoff Butler, and Petra Hsia)] VARIANCES. ITEM 1 24, ITEM 1 24, A POLLANT ESTATE. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF MARY STREET AND LO, NO, I'M SORRY, ALONG MARY STREET AND NORTH OF LORA STREET. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOT FOR AN ASSISTING DUPLEX AND A NEW HOME. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO NOT PROVIDE RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION ALONG MARY STREET, WHICH IS A LOCAL PUBLIC STREET STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS THE FIRST ONE VACANT LOT AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. AND IN 2015, THE APPLICANT BUILT A LARGE DUPLEX WITH AN OPEN SPACE AREA. YEAH. TODAY THE APPLICANT WANT TO INCREASE DENSITY BY SUBDIVIDING THE PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS TO BUILD A THIRD UNIT WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE AREA. IF THIS WE PLOT IS APPROVED WITH TWO LOT, THE ORIGINAL LOT WILL NO LONGER BEING COMPLIANT WITH SECTION 42 180, WHICH REQUIRE THE ALL LOT IN THE SUBDIVISION TO MEET THE DESIGN MANUAL AND CONSTRUCTION CODE. THE ORIGINAL 75 BY 75 LOT WAS PERMITTED WITH 65% OF IMP PREVIOUS COVER. BY PROVIDING THE 35% OF OPEN SPACE, WHICH YOU HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN, THE 35% OPEN SPACE AREA WAS USED IN THE IMP PREVIOUS COVER CALCULATION TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE DETENTION REQUIREMENTS. SO BY ALLOWING THE PROPOSED THIRD UNIT ON THE 35% OPEN AREA WILL ELIMINATE O ANY OPEN SPACE ALLOWED ON THE PREVIOUS APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. SO THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT DETENTION REQUIREMENT, AND THE PROPOSED REP PLA WILL TAKE THE ORIGINAL, THE PROPOSED LOT ONE WITH A DUPLEX OUT OF COMPLIANCE. SO STAFF COORDINATED WITH THE CITY ENGINEER. AND THEN PREVIOUS COVER IS CALCULATED ON THE TOR SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SIDEWALK, DRIVEWAY AND BUILDING BASED ON THE ROOF EITHER ON THE GROUND OR ELEVATED. SO WITH THE PROPOSED THIRD UNIT, THE PROPERTY WILL HAVE ABOUT 86% OF IMPERVIOUS COVER INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED MAXIMUM SIX TO FIVE. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTED IN VARIANCE TO NOT PROVIDE ANY RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO MARY STREET. [02:15:01] THE ASSISTING DUPLEX WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED BUILDER LINE IF THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION WAS PROVIDED. HOWEVER, THIS VARI IS SELF-IMPOSED AT THE PROPERTY. OWNER BUILT A SITE KNOWING, KNOWING THAT IF OKAY, THE APPLICANT KNOWINGLY OVERBUILT A SITE ON AN AREA PUBLISHED STREET, THE AIRPORT, THE WE THAT WILL NOT MEET THAT THE ORDINANCE AND THE VARI IS SELF-IMPOSED. SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DISAPPROVE. THE PLA STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT IN ADVANCE, AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HERE TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION. YES. OKAY, THANK YOU. I'M GONNA INTERRUPT JUST A SECOND BECAUSE COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG HAS JOINED US. COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG, CAN YOU, CAN YOU UNMUTE? WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HEAR YOU. YOU HAVE TO BE AUDIO, AUDIO AUDIBLE, AUDIBLE. THANK YOU. I'M NOT, I'M NOT ON MUTE. NOT ON MUTE. DID HE SAY? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY, I'M HERE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UM, SO, UH, BACK TO, YES, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE, FOR THE STAFF ON THIS? UM, WE DO HAVE THREE REPRESENT, OR AT LEAST TWO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE APPLICANT HERE. UH, APOL LARA, THE APPLICANT HAD ASKED IF SHE COULD POSSIBLY BE CALLED FIRST. I'M SORRY, WE DIDN'T, THAT'S WHO I CALLED. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. ALINA. LAURA. OKAY. WHAT'S YOUR NAME? MONICA FONTANO. OKAY, GO AHEAD. HELLO EVERYONE. GOOD TO SEE YOU. I AM MONICA FONTANO AND I'M THE APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF, OF POLINA LAURA. SO ORIGINALLY WHEN HE HAD THE VISION TO SUBDIVIDE, UH, HIS LAND, HE INITIALLY WANTED TO DO, TO BREAK IT UP INTO A COUPLE OF LOTS AND WITH THE STREET DEDICATION LATER WE WERE TOLD WE NEEDED TO INCLUDE OTHER PROPERTIES. WE DID THAT AND AT SOME POINT THERE WAS AN ISSUE REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THAT, UH, DEDICATION WAS NECESSARY. THE CLIENT ALWAYS SAID HE WOULD DO THE STREET DEDICATION AS IT REGARDS TO THE, UM, AND HE, HE DID A, UH, DRAWING. I KNOW WE CAN'T SEE IT, BUT WE HAVE A DRAWING WITH THE DEDICATION. WE ALSO HAVE A REVISED SITE PLAN SHOWING THE STREET DEDICATION. AND SO HE'S DEFINITELY NOT OPPOSED TO DOING THAT. WHAT HE NEEDS TO REQUEST THE EXTENSION OF TIME IS ALSO BECAUSE, UH, WHEN THE, WE RECEIVED INFORMATION ON TUESDAY ABOUT THE DETENTION REQUIREMENT, HIS ENGINEER, HE CONTACTED HIS ENGINEER AND THEY ARE READY TO HANDLE THAT. THEY'RE GOING TO DO MITIGATION IF NECESSARY AND GET, UH, THE DETENTION, UH, FOR BOTH LOTS. THE 75 BY 75, WHICH INCLUDES THE EXISTING DUPLEX AND THE LOT, THE ADDITIONAL LOT THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, UH, TALKING ABOUT TODAY. SO THAT THEY'RE ALL IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DETENTION REQUIREMENT. AS YOU KNOW, NO PERMITS WILL BE ISSUED UNLESS WE CAN MEET THE DETENTION. THE OWNER IS INTERESTED IN MEETING ALL REGULATIONS, AND SO WE'RE AVAILABLE, I'M AVAILABLE FOR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY, BUT THE OWNER WANTS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. OKAY. AND WE'RE HERE TO ASSIST. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UM, YES. COMMISSIONER GARZA, JUST SIMPLY, SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR A DEFERRAL TODAY? YES. YES. AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TWO WEEK DEFERRAL. YES. THREE WEEK THREE, I'M SORRY. THREE WEEK DEFERRAL? YES. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY, ATTORNEY. UM, YOU, YEAH, SHE IS REQUESTING AN EXTENSION FOR 30 DAYS UNDER THIS 30 DAY DATE LAW. OH, YOU WANT A 30 DAY EXTENSION? OKAY. OKAY. GOT IT. UM, I HAD A THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF BEFORE I CALL. WAS THERE NOT ANOTHER ISSUE ABOUT THE LACK OF, UM, OPEN SPACE THAT WAS PROVI THAT WOULD BE USED THAT WAS PART OF THE DUPLEX? YES. SO OPEN, CAN THAT CURD? YEAH, THE OPEN SPACE WAS INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION WITH THE DUPLEX. SO RIGHT NOW, UM, SO THEY INCREASED THE AREA TO HAVE 65%. THEREFORE, AT THAT TIME, AH, THEY DID NOT, DIDN'T NEED TO PROVIDE DETENTION. SO IT WAS JUST AS APPLIED. IT WAS APPLICABLE TO THE CALCULATION FOR THE DRAINAGE. YEAH. OKAY, GOOD. I, I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT. OKAY. APPLE, UH, I'M SORRY, I'M NOT PRONOUNCING THIS RIGHT. APOL? YES, MA'AM. IS THAT RIGHT, LAURA? YES. OKAY. SO BASICALLY, UM, I'M NEW TO THE BUILDING PROCESS. UH, I DO APOLOGIZE IF I'M NOT DOING THINGS THE PROPER WAY. I'M LEARNING AS I'M GOING. BUT BASICALLY, UH, I JUST, I LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OVER 30 YEARS. [02:20:01] I GREW UP THERE, UH, AND I LOVE IT THERE. UH, IT'S FIFTH WARD. IT'S NOT THE BEST, BEST COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, IN HOUSTON, BUT I WANNA MAKE IT BETTER. IT'S A VACANT LOT. UH, YOU KNOW, I'VE KEPT IT CLEAN. I'M, I'M TRYING TO BUILD SOMETHING ON IT. I'M TRYING TO BUILD SOMETHING FOR MY, FOR THE FUTURE OF MY KIDS. SO ALL I NEED, ALL I NEED IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THINGS RIGHT SO I CAN BUILD ON IT AND, YOU KNOW, MAKE A LIVING. OKAY. WE GOT IT. WE GOT IT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE OWNER? THANK YOU. MM-HMM . WELCOME. OKAY, AND THEN, UM, CRYSTAL DOLE. HELLO EVERYONE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. UM, IT'S PRETTY INTENSE IN HERE. I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE. SO, UM, I'M JUST HERE TO VOUCH FOR MR. UH, LARA HERE. UM, I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN FIFTH WARD. UM, LIKE HE SAID, IT'S A GREAT COMMUNITY. I MEAN, IT'S NOT THE BEST WE'RE KNOWN TO BE THE SLUMS OF HOUSTON, YOU KNOW, UM, IT'S THE GHETTO. BUT, UM, THIS MAN, I'VE SEEN HIM BUILD AND INVEST AND LIKE THE LADY SAID, HE HAS VISIONS AND HE JUST WANTS TO BETTER THE COMMUNITY. UM, I'VE BEEN A TENANT, YOU KNOW, TO ONE OF HIS PROPERTIES, AND SO HAS MY EX-HUSBAND. UM, THIS MAN HAS PROVIDED GREAT HOUSING FOR A LOT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. AND, YOU KNOW, HE WANTS TO BE COMPLIANT. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF EMPTY LOTS THAT GET FILLED BY, YOU KNOW, DRUG USERS AND, YOU KNOW, ANY OTHER, UM, ENTITIES OR, YOU KNOW, THE DOPE PILES OR WHATEVER. BUT NO, UM, THIS MAN IS REALLY TRYING TO CLEAN UP THE COMMUNITY. AND LIKE I SAID, IT'S, UM, IT, IT, I JUST LOOK AT IT AND IT'S LIKE EVERYBODY IS DEFERRED, DEFERRED, APPROVED, APPROVED, AND HIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT'S DENIED. I WAS LIKE, OH, WOW, WHY? YOU KNOW, HE'S JUST TRYING TO BUILD A LITTLE HOUSE, LIKE A TINY HOUSE. IT'S GONNA BE CUTE. LIKE, HE OWNS THE LAND ALREADY, SO I DON'T SEE WHAT THE MAIN ISSUE IS. YOU KNOW, LIKE THE DUPLEXES ARE HIS, THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT IS HIS. I RENTED, YOU KNOW, MY EX-HUSBAND RENTED THE HOUSE TO THE LEFT. LIKE, I DON'T THINK IT'S, NOBODY'S HERE COMPLAINING, YOU KNOW, WHERE HE'S NOT TRYING TO BUILD A CANDY LAND. HE'S NOT TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, BUILD SEVEN, YOU KNOW, APARTMENTS. LIKE HE'S JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE CUTE HOMES FOR, FOR AND BETTER THE COMMUNITY. AND, UM, WATCH OUT FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE. WE GOT IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 24? UM, OKAY THEN, UH, WE'LL TURN TO, TO STAFF. UM, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANNA COMMENT BEFORE WE CONSIDER WE DELIBERATE A LITTLE BIT ON THIS? NO COMMENT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSION, ANY THOUGHTS? MADAM CHAIR, COMMISSIONER GARZA? JUST, UH, LEGALLY SPEAKING, UM, GOING WITH THE FORMAT, I, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, TO REQUEST THAT WE MOVE FOR A 30 DAY DEFERRAL TO GIVE THE APPLICANT TIME TO WORK WITH STAFF TO COME TO BRING HIS PROPERTY OR HIS BUILDING INTO COMPLIANCE. I DON'T KNOW IF A SIMPLE MOTION WILL, WILL DO THAT. IT COULD BE, I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF. THE STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT WE HAVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR THIS ADDITIONAL TIME IN WRITING. DO WE HAVE THAT? THEY JUST SUBMIT IT IN WRITING. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY, THEN YES. THE STATE LAW REQUIRES, AS LONG AS WE HAVE IT IN WRITING, COMMISSION CAN AGREE TO THAT, UM, EXTENSION OF TIME. SO A SIMPLE, UH, MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REQUEST FOR THE 30 DAY EXTENSION UNDER STATE LAW FOR WOULD, AND IT WOULD BE 30 DAYS FROM TODAY? YES. OKAY. WELL, I, I WOULD, I MIGHT CAVEAT THAT WITH MEETINGS AND WE'VE GOT THE THREE WEEK DEFERRAL HERE, I'M THINKING ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE THREE WEEK CYCLE, IT, IT WON'T BE WITHIN 30 DAYS. IT WILL HAVE TO, I THINK IT BE LESS COME BACK. YES. WE'D HAVE TO COME BACK EARLIER THAN THE 30 DAYS. WE MIGHT HAVE TO COME BACK IN THREE WEEKS. YES, IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD ACTUALLY ONLY BE ALLOWABLE FOR THREE WEEKS. ALRIGHT. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S, THAT, THAT TILL YOUR NEXT MEETING, PART OF THAT MOTION IS CLEAR, DO WE NEED TO, TO PICK A SPECIFIC MEETING OR A SPECIFIC DATE SPECIFIC MEETING? SO THE NEXT MEETING IS IN THREE WEEKS, WHICH IS GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR. YES. I THINK JULY 13TH. NEXT MEETING IS IN THREE WEEKS, WHICH WILL BE WITHIN THE 30 DAYS. SO I THINK IF YOU ARE DEFERRING IT OR IF YOU'RE ACCEPTING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO EXTEND THE 30 DAYS TO GET TO THE NEXT MEETING, I THINK YOU COULD JUST SAY DEFER TO THE NEXT MEETING. IT'S, IT, IT HONESTLY HAS THE SAME EFFECT IF YOU JUST DEFER REQUEST YEAH. TO YOUR NEXT MEETING, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GO BEYOND THE NEXT MEETING. GOT IT. AND MEET THE STATE BOSS. BUT WAIT, IF AT THE NEXT MEETING HE HASN'T COMPLETED IT, COULD WE NOT VOTE TO EXTEND IT FOR 30 DAYS? 30 DAYS NECESSARY EXTENSION AT THAT POINT. OKAY. OKAY. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING. OKAY. WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA DEFER, I'LL LET YOU YEAH, WE'RE GONNA DEFER IT TO THE NEXT MEETING AND THEN AT THAT POINT, IF, WHICH IS IN THREE WEEKS, IF AT THAT POINT YOU HAVEN'T SOLVED YOUR [02:25:01] PROBLEM AND IT'S COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND YOU NEED MORE TIME, YOU COULD MAKE A WRITTEN REQUEST THAT WE EXTEND FOR ANOTHER 30 DAYS. OKAY. BUT WE HOPE THAT MAYBE IT CAN BE FIGURED OUT IN THREE WEEKS. WOW. YEAH, I CAN SO COMMISSION. MAY I CLARIFY SOMETHING? SURE. TODAY, TODAY THIS HAS EXHAUSTED IT'S 30 DAYS. SO TODAY WE EITHER MAKE A MOTION TO OH, IT'S BEEN DEFERRED TWICE. IT'S BEEN DEFERRED. OH, IT HAS BEEN DEFERRED, YES. OH, THIS IS, OKAY, WE CAUGHT THAT. THIS IS THE REQUEST TO EXTEND THE 30 DAYS TO WHATEVER NEXT DAY. TO THE THIRD TO THE THIRD DEFER TO TO, TO SAY THAT. THANK YOU. SO THIS HAS EXHAUSTED ITS TO, SO YOU, SO DOES IT HAVE TO COME UP BEFORE OR CAN HE, DOES HE GET SORT OF SOME EXTRA TIME BECAUSE HE'D GET AN EXTRA WEEK. SO I THINK THE, UH, THE STATE LAW ALLOWS YOU TO, SO FIRST THING OF THE BUSINESS WOULD BE TO ALLOW, BECAUSE IT IS ON CONSIDERATION FOR YOU. DO YOU WANT TO GRANT THE 30 DAY EXTENSION? AND IF YOU DO, THEN YOU CAN PER SE, THAT COME BACK IN THREE WEEKS. AND I'M LOOKING TOWARDS MS. MICKELSON FOR THAT. RIGHT. WELL THIS IS VERY COMPLEX, BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE IN MIND. , WHICH IS WHERE WE STARTED, STARTED, I THINK I WOULD ASK, WE DEFER THIS FOR 30 DAYS WITH THE STIPULATION THAT JULY 13TH MEETING WILL BE THE END OF THAT 30 DAY PERIOD AT WHICH TIME ANOTHER EXTENSION COULD BE REQUESTED AT THAT TIME. BUT AT THIS POINT, THREE WEEK DEFERRAL FOR JULY TILL JULY 13TH. TODAY IS, TODAY IS THE EXTENSION. EXTENSION TILL JULY 13TH. YEAH. ARE WE ALL CLEAR EXTENSION, NOT DEFERRAL EXTEND TO JULY 13. I'M SORRY, I'M NOT SURE I CAPTURED THE INTENT OF THE MOTION. LEGAL IS GOING TO CLARIFY THAT FOR YES, THANK YOU AGAIN AND GIVE YOU SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. I CAN I CAN I ASK A QUESTION? ABSOLUTELY. UM, CAN YOU, IS 30 DAYS SET IN STONE CAN YOU DEFER FOR THREE WEEKS PLUS TWO? SO IT WOULD BE FIVE WEEKS? NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. THE STATUTE STATES THAT THE APPLICANT MAY REQUEST, UM, MAY EXTEND THE 30 DAY PERIOD FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 30 DAYS. YES. OKAY. SO WITHIN 30 DAYS WE'RE SO YOU'RE GONNA MAKE A MOTION AND IT SEEMS TO IMPLICATE ONE. OKAY. SO THIS IS THE THIRD TRY AT, AT THE MOTION TO EXTEND TILL TWO JULY 13, WHICH IS IN THE, WITHIN THE 30 DAY WINDOW THAT IS APPLICABLE CORRECT. HERE. IS THAT PERFECT ENOUGH? PERFECT. ALRIGHT. THAT'S MY MOTION. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO EXTEND FORTH, UH, TILL JULY 13TH. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND. HA. THAT WAS GARZA. HACH. MM-HMM . ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. OKAY, SO YOU HAVE TILL JULY 13TH. UM, OKAY, NEXT ITEM, ITEM 1 25 BAUER VILLA. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY, UM, ALONG BOWER ROAD AND SOUTH OF ABOUT KINGS ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSED IN A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WITH SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE PARKING RESERVE. THE APPLICANT REQUEST A VARIANCE TO EXIT INTERSECTION FACING BY, BY NOT PROVIDING NORTH, SOUTH, AND EAST WEST STREET STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THERE'S ALREADY, UM, APPLIED FURTHER TO THE SOUTH THAT WAS GRANTED A VARIANCE NOT TO DO A NORTH SOUTH. SO THE VARI TO ADDRESS NORTH SOUTH IS NOT NEEDED. PROVIDING AN EAST WEST STREET THROUGH THE SITE WOULD BICEP HILLTOP ACRES, WHICH IS AN ASSISTANT ON RECORDED SUBDIVISION TO THE WEST, THEREFORE MAKING AN IMPRACTICAL DEVELOPMENT. SO GRANTING OF THE VARIANT WILL NOT BE DEAREST TO PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY WELFARE. THE SUB PROPERTY IS IN A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL AREA WHERE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IS ADDRESSED BY THE ADJACENT MAJOR THERAPIST. SO HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. STEP RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANT AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBSTITUTE THE CCP C 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION. THANK. OH, THAT IT? YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MS. RODRIGUEZ. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT FOR QUESTIONS. UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION? AMANDA PA AMANDA PACA. SECOND. MODEST. MODEST. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES 1 26. ITEM 1 26 CLARA ROAD INDUSTRIAL PARK. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, A TJ IN HARRIS COUNTY, SOUTH OF CANON ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE COMMERCIAL RESERVE WITH ASSETS TO COLLATERAL ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AGREEMENT TO NOT PROVIDE AN EAST, WEST [02:30:01] STREET. STEP IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE PROPERTY IS A WE PLA OF A PORTION OF INDEPENDENT GARDEN AND IS BOUNDED BY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH, EAST AND WEST, I MEAN NORTH EAST AND SOUTH STREET. APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED THE APPLICANT TO DEDICATE AN EAST, WEST STREET AND PROVIDING THE REQUIRED EAST WEST STREET WILL BICE AN ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST AND WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE THE OVERALL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING OFFICE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST A VARIANT AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBSTITUTE THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS? UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION? AMANDA PACHA. AMANDA PAKA. IS THERE SECOND? ALL ALLMAN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 27. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS TAMMY WILLIAMSON. ITEM 1 27 IS CROSS TIMBERS PLACE. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, CITY LIMITS NORTH AND ALONG EAST CROSS TIMBER STREET, EAST OF HIRSCH ROAD AND WEST OF LOCKWOOD DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS TAKING VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM A SHARED DRIVEWAY AND TWO RESERVES RESTRICTED TO THE NEWLY CREATED MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL. THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED ARE FOR REDUCED BUILDING LINES FOR THE LOTS ALONG BOTH EAST CROSS TIMBER STREET AND GLASS STREET, AND FOR THE MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL RESERVES TO HAVE FRONTAGE AND RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH OF LESS THAN 60 FEET AND REDUCED BUILDING LINE ALONG GLASS STREET. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTS. THE SITE IS FROM AN UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION AND IS IMPACTED BY A COMBINATION OF THE ADJACENT TRACKS TO THE SOUTH AND EAST FOR EAST CROSS TIMBER STREET, WHICH INTER, WHICH INTERSECTS AT AN ANGLE. THIS AMOUNTS TO SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OF WAY DIRECTLY EAST AND SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE. THE DISTANCE FROM THE BACK OF CURB TO PROPERTY BOUNDARY RANGES FROM 30 FEET TO 86 FEET. A REDUCED BUILDING LINE ALONG CROSS TIMBERS OF FIVE FEET ON THE EAST AND 10 FEET ON THE SOUTH WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SAFETY OF USERS OF THE RIGHT OF WAY NOR THE FUTURE. RESIDENTS ALONG GLASS STREET. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 10 FOOT DEDICATION OF FOUR RIDE OF WAY WIDENING AND IS REQUESTING A ZERO FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR LOT ONE. IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED FIVE FEET, THE LOT ALONG GLASS STREET HAS REAR OR SIDE VEHICULAR ACCESS AND WILL FRONT THE STREET WITH PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION. THE DESIGN OF THE SHARED DRIVEWAY TAKING ACCESS FROM GLASS STREET IS SAFER THAN FROM CROSS TIMBERS, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AFTER CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS ALSO THE LANDOWNER ABOUT HER DESIRES FOR THE PROPERTY. THE PROJECT NOW PROPOSES TWO RESERVES RESTRICTED TO MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL OR MUR. THE DEFINITION FOR MUR IS ALREADY ADOPTED INTO CHAPTER 42 AND THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, YOU ALL VOTED TO FORWARD THE PROPO LIVABLE PLACES AMENDMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR HOW MU ARE TO BE DEVELOPED. THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCE REQUESTS RELATING TO THE TEN TWO MUR RESERVES IS THAT THOSE STANDARDS ARE NOT YET ADOPTED BY COUNCIL. THE TWO MUR RESERVES ARE PROPOSING TO MEET THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET FRONTAGE ON A MINIMUM 50 FEET RIGHT OF WAY, AND A FIVE FOOT BUILDING LINE WHEN MEETING SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS GRANTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE VARIANCES IS CONSISTENT WITH SOUND PUBLIC POLICY AS THE, THE PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES COMPLIMENT THE ADJACENT PUBLIC REALM AND THE MUR RESERVES MEET THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. UM, MS. WILLIAMSON, WHAT, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF COUNSEL FAILED TO APPROVE THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR MU? SO WE'RE GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THAT IT WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT. I MEAN, HOW CAN WE, BECAUSE IT'S, YEAH, SO THE VARIANCES ARE FOR THE CURRENT SECTION ONE 90, WHICH IS FOR RESERVES RESTRICTED TO OTHER USES NOT LISTED ON THE TABLE, WHICH IS 60 FEET, RIGHT OF WAY, 60 FEET OF FRONTAGE. UM, AND SO YOU'RE ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL USES RENTAL TO BE ABLE TO HAPPEN ON THE 50 FEET OF FRONTAGE AND 50 FEET RIGHT OF WAY OR LESS THAN 60 AND LESS THAN 60. YOU KNOW, WE'RE ESTABLISHING THE, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR IT AS PART OF THIS [02:35:01] VARIANCE. UM, WORST CASE IS IF SOMETHING REALLY GOES AWRY, IT WOULD COME BACK TO YOU ALL AT DEVELOPMENT STAGE. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'RE ESTABLISHING THESE RESTRICTIONS AS CONDITIONS OF GRANTING THIS VARIANCE FOR THESE OTHER USES THAT ARE NOT ALREADY ALLOWED IN OUR ORDINANCE. OH MAN, THERE'S NO DEFERRAL FOR THIS ITEM. MM-HMM. I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, PRESUPPOSING. MAY, MAY I, I, YES, GO AHEAD. SO I, I'LL LET MS. MATER SPEAK IN A MOMENT, BUT LET ME JUST SAY WHAT YOU ARE DOING WITH THIS IS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE EXISTING CHAPTER 42 REGULATIONS BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T MEET CHAPTER 42 AS THEY ARE WRITTEN RIGHT NOW. AND YOU ARE ESTABLISHING THE WAYS IN WHICH YOU ARE ALLOWING THE VARIANCE TO HAPPEN, PERIOD. IT HAPPENS TO COINCIDE WITH WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR AN ORDINANCE. OKAY? BUT IT WILL STAND ALONE AS A VARIANCE AND IT DOESN'T CREATE ANY KIND OF PRECEDENT OR, OR ANYTHING. SO IT'S JUST LIKE ANY OTHER VARIANCE MIGHT GET AN ARGUMENT THAT SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO DO THIS. THE LUCKY OR, OR THE FORTUNATE THING IS THAT WE ALREADY DEFINED MU THE TECHNICAL IS ALREADY IN, THEY'RE ALREADY DEFINED. RIGHT. THE STANDARDS FOR THEM ARE NOT, SO ALL YOU'RE DOING IS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CHAPTER 42 BECAUSE THIS PROJECT DOES NOT CURRENTLY MEET WHAT CHAPTER 42 REQUIRES. RIGHT. IF I MAY CLARIFY ONE MORE POINT, I I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH THE DIRECTOR BECAUSE IT IS DEFINED. YES, YOU DO IT'S DEFINED IN THE, IT'S DEFINED IN, AND, AND MS. NICHOLSON, IT'S DEFINED IN THE CODE. SO MUR DEFINITION IS THERE. SO WE GOT THAT. IF YOU SO CHOOSE, BECAUSE MUR UH, IS BEING PROPOSED, YOU COULD PICK COUPLE OF THINGS AND PUT THAT AS A CONDITION. YOU COULD SAY THAT THE PARKING HAS TO BE IN THE BACK. YOU COULD DO THAT TODAY AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN FOUR. THAT IS WHAT YOU'VE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL. SO IT IS ON A LOCAL STREET. WE DON'T WANT, WE ARE NOT THINKING THAT IT'LL BE AN AID DWELLING UNIT. IT, BUT IF AN MUR IS DEVELOPED, IT MUST BE LIMITED TO FOUR UNITS AND PARKING HAS TO BE IN THE BACK. WE JUST LIST THE CONDITION. YOU CAN JUST LIST THE CONDITION OR YOU COULD LIST THE CONDITIONS AS BEING THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL. RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT, RIGHT. AND THEN, BUT THEN WE COULD THEORETICALLY DO THIS VARIANCE AND BE DONE. NO, I MEAN, AGAIN AND IN FUTURE TWO. OH YEAH, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY, WE COULD GRANT VARIANCES. OKAY. BUT THAT'S WITHIN OUR AUTHORITY. YES. HOPEFULLY. YEAH. BUT YEAH, EXACTLY. OKAY, I GOT IT. I FEEL BETTER NOW. ALL RIGHT. ANY, SORRY, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? UM, OKAY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS. UH, NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. IS THERE A MOTION THEN FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN, SHOULD WE ADD SPECIFIC ABOUT MEETING THE CONDITIONS? YEAH, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA DO THAT ONCE WE GET A, A MOTION WHO'S, WHO'S MOVING ALL I WAS GONNA SAY MOTION ALL WITH THE WORRY, UM, WITH THE ADDITION OF SOME VERBIAGE ABOUT HOW MANY UNITS THERE ASKING BE PARKING BACK ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT MEET THE, THE PROPOSED THAT THE DRAFT THAT WAS SENT TO COUNSEL REQUIRING THE SAME REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THE THE, BUT IT'S, BUT IT'S NOT SAYING THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING THIS. NO. RIGHT. THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. YES. THE VARIANCE. OKAY. GOT THAT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND GARZA. SO IT'S ALLMAN AND GARZA. DID YOU GET THE MOTION? I GUESS SO. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. MADAM CHAIR? YES. COMMISSIONER GAR. UH, EXCUSE ME, CLARK, I'M SORRY. I NEED TO LEAVE THE MEETING. OKAY. WE'RE SORRY THAT YOU HAVE TO GO. NO, WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. BUT WE'RE GOOD WITH QUORUM. I'M SORRY TO LEAVE. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, 1 28 THAT WOULD LIKE TO TAKE 1 28 AND 1 29 TOGETHER? YES, PLEASE. OKAY. SO 1 28 E DEVELOPMENT NORTH 1 29 EAST DEV DEVELOPMENT OUT THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY ALONG DENNIS STREET WEST OF EMANCIPATION AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THREE VARIANCES TO NOT PROVIDE 15 FEET RIGHT AWAY, DEDICATION ALONG DENNIS STREET ON THE, SO THE VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED WITH THE PLOT, UM, DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTH ONLY. SO THE VARIANCES ARE TO NOT PROVIDE P, P AND P RIGHTWAY DEDICATION TO ALLOW 10 FEET BORDERLINE WITH 15 GARAGE BORDERLINE INSTEAD OF 17. AND TO ALLOW THREE FEET BORDERLINE ALONG PORTION OF BA STREET STEP IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. [02:40:02] SO PREVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL ON THIS PROPERTY WITH SEVERAL NARROW FILM LOADING LOT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. AND THIS PROPOSAL WAS DISAPPROVED, I MEAN, DISAPPROVED FEW CYCLE WHILE AGO TODAY, UM, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A NEW APPLICATION AND DESIGNED THE PROJECT WE FOUND LOADED ON THE NORTH SIDE AND A CHAIR DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE. SO STEP IS NOW IN SUPPORT BECAUSE THIS PROPOSAL WILL MEET THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE BY MAINTAINING THE RIGHTWAY ALIGNMENT, PRESERVING ON STREET PARKING AND WALKABILITY. AND PLUS THE, THE APPLICANT WILL BE PROVIDING MINIMUM SICK FOOT SIDEWALK AND FOUR P SAFETY BUFFER. SO THAT ALSO COORDINATED PUB WITH PUBLIC WORK AND PUBLIC WILL REVIEW THIS PROPOSAL AND IS AND IS, UM, VOICE NO CONCERN ABOUT THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT. THEREFORE, THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION THAT DID, WILL RECEIVE ONE COMMENT IN ADVANCE AND IS A INDIVIDUAL WHO IS IN OPPOSITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, WHO VOICE, VOICE A CONCERN ABOUT PARKING, INCREASED DENSITY, AND, UM, BASICALLY SHE'S IN OPPOSITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UM, THE APPLICANT HAS, UH, SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON BOTH OF THESE. JEFF, ER THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION. I'M JEFF PTE WITH WINDROWS LAND SERVICES. JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW, WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS MYSELF AND THEN A MEMBER OF THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM IS, UH, VIRTUAL. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? DO YOU KNOW? OKAY. UM, SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, ARE BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN, WE HAVE A VARIANCE AND THEN JUST A PROP PLAT APPROVAL FOR 1 29. UM, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? WAIT, WE HAVE A SPEAKER. OH, I'M SORRY. OKAY. COME FORWARD. YEAH. CAN WE MOVE A CHAIR PERHAPS? YEAH, I GOT NO, NO, THAT'S OKAY. I THINK I'VE BEEN SITTING LONG, BUT SHE'S GOT A WALKER. GOOD. YEAH. OKAY. DO WE NEED TO MOVE THE, THE MIC BACK UP OR IS IT OKAY? NO, IT IT, I THINK IT'S FINE. OKAY. GO RIGHT AHEAD. HI, MY NAME IS KIM WASHINGTON AND I AM HERE REPRESENTING THE HUTCHINS TOWN PLACE COLLECTIVE. AND WE AS THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE DIRECTLY BEHIND THE PROPERTY ON THEIR NORTH, ARE OPPOSED TO THIS, UH, FOR SEVERAL REASONS. ONE, UH, BEING THAT IT'S GOING TO IMPACT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THE, THE COMMUNITY IS LOOKING AT PUTTING IN SOLAR PANELS FOR OUR PROPERTIES BECAUSE WE OFTEN HAVE OUTAGES IN THE AREA. THIS IS GONNA FURTHER IMPACT THAT AND MAY INTERFERE WITH OUR ABILITY TO HELP PROVIDE MORE ENERGY. THE OTHER THING IS WE'RE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE DIRECTLY BEHIND. WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS GOING TO DISENFRANCHISE US AS OWNERS BECAUSE WE NO LONGER HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIGHT IN THAT AREA. OUR WINDOWS ARE FACING THAT WAY, AND TO PUT TOWN HOMES IN THAT AREA ALONG THAT STRIP, WHICH IS ALREADY TOO NARROW, IS GOING TO DISENFRANCHISE US AND AFFECT OUR SELLABILITY OF THE PROPERTIES. SO WE ARE ASKING THAT WE NEED TO COME TO SOME KIND OF CONSENSUS AS TO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT THERE. UM, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S GONNA BE A SINGLE LEVEL, A BI LEVEL OR WHATEVER, THAT WILL HELP PRESERVE OUR RIGHT OF LIFE BECAUSE WE INVESTED IN THESE PROPERTIES IN FOURTH WARD AND WE DON'T WANT TO SEE OUR INVESTMENTS BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BECAUSE OF SOMEONE ELSE'S PROFITABILITY. AND SO FOR THIS, THESE REASONS, WE ARE OBJECTING TO THIS. AND AS A PERSON WITH MOBILITY ISSUES, I DON'T SEE BUT ONE HANDICAPPED PARKING SPOT IN THAT AREA. AND IT'S LIKE, WHERE, WHERE ARE WE GOING TO PUT THAT AND WHERE IS ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR THOSE IN THAT COMMUNITY GOING TO BE? AND SO WE ASK THAT OUR VOICES AS HOMEOWNERS IN THAT AREA BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE I, I READ THE PETITION AND IT, IT'S LIKE WE OWN THE WHOLE BLOCK. THEY DON'T OWN MY PROPERTY. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS [02:45:01] FOR THE SPEAKER? MR. BT? ARE YOU IT I'M GONNA ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK AND RESPOND. GREAT. YES. UM, SO I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT A COUPLE THINGS. WE, UM, WE ARE WIDENING THE STREET SO THAT THE CURRENT EXISTING STREET IS 18 FEET ALONG DENNIS. UH, BETWEEN OUR TWO DEVELOPMENTS, IT IS BEING WIDENED TO 20 TO ALLOW FOR A FULL, FULL ROW OF STREET PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE. UM, SO IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED ON THE NORTH PLAT, UM, WHICH EACH HAVE THEIR OWN GARAGE, TWO CAR GARAGE, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY CODE. UM, WE'VE ALSO, THERE'S OVER NINE, THERE'S 19 FEET AND 20 FEET IN FRONT OF EVERY GARAGE BEFORE YOU EVEN GET TO THE SIDEWALK. SO THE, THE NEW HOMES ON THE NORTH SIDE WILL NOT BE CREATING ANY MORE ADDITIONAL, UM, PARKING PROBLEMS. AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WE ARE PROVIDING STREET PARKING ALONG THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE. UM, IN REGARDS TO THE HOMES, UM, THESE HOMES WILL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE BUILDING ORDINANCES. SO AS YOU KNOW, HOUSTON DOESN'T HAVE REAR OR SIDE BUILDING LINES, HOWEVER, THERE ARE DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS, UM, THE CLOSER YOU GET TO PROPERTIES. AND SO I, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE LOOKED AT WITH PUBLIC WORKS OR WITH THE PERMITTING CENTER AND PUBLIC WORKS, UM, AS THEY BUILD THOSE TOWN HOMES. UM, AND LASTLY, WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT WE THINK THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. WE'RE A QUARTER MILE, UH, FROM MIDTOWN AND HALF A MILE FROM DOWNTOWN. AND SO THIS IS A DENSE AREA THAT, UM, WE FEEL LIKE THIS DEVELOPMENT STYLE IN THESE TOWN HOMES AND THEIR SIZE ARE APPROPRIATE. ARE THESE, UM, THREE STORY, TWO STORY? YES. THEY'RE THREE STORY. AND ARE THEY, AND WILL THEY BLOCK THE SUNLIGHT TO THE, I MEAN, I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S BEEN A SUN STUDY DONE. YEAH. HONESTLY, I JUST, RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW. UM, I KNOW THAT THE, THE, THERE ARE HALF OF THE, ON THE NORTH SIDE LOTS FOUR OR FIVE AND SIX BACK UP TO A SHARED DRIVE THAT SERVES THE COMMUNITY TO THE NORTH LOTS. ONE, TWO, AND THREE ON THE NORTH SIDE DO BACK UP TO TOWN HOMES THAT ARE AGAINST THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT ONCE AGAIN, THERE WOULD NEED, THERE HAVE TO BE ADEQUATE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE HOME PER BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. OKAY, SO THERE'S ENOUGH DISTANCE. YES. OKAY. GOT IT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DID WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS? I THOUGHT WE DIDN'T. OKAY. I DON'T THINK SO. OKAY. SO WE'RE BACK TO, UM, LOOKING AT UH, 1 28 AND 1 29. WE HAVE A VARIANCE AND A PLAT APPROVAL ON 1 28 AND AN A PLAT STRAIGHT PLAT APPROVAL ON 1 29. ANY DISCUSSION? I JUST A QUICK QUESTION. COMMISSIONER GARZA. UM, SO MS. RODRIGUEZ, UM, IT, WE HAD SEEN THIS BEFORE AND HAD DENIED IT AND IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THE APPLICANT HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL, OBVIOUSLY THE CHANGES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO GET, UH, APPROVAL FROM, FROM THE DEPARTMENT. SO CAN YOU JUST HIGHLIGHT ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE, UM, FROM THAT TIME TO THIS TIME? SO PREVIOUSLY, UM, REMEMBER THERE WERE POST POSING A LOADING LOT, NARROW PHONE LOADING, LOT DRIVEWAY, ACTIVE DRIVEWAY. MM-HMM . AND THEY WERE, UM, PROPOSING A 30 FEET RIGHTWAY DEDICATION AT THAT TIME TODAY, UM, INSTEAD OF 30 FEET. RIGHT. THAT RIGHTWAY DEDICATION, THEY'RE GONNA BE DEDICATING 26.5 TO MAKE A 45 FEET RIGHT AWAY. BUT IN THAT ONE, UM, WITHIN THE PEDESTRIAN ONE, THEY STILL GONNA HAVE A SICK FOOT SIDEWALK, 14 BUMPER. SO IT'S NOT GONNA BE OBSTRUCTED BY THE SIDE DRIVEWAY. AND THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE THAT WAS MADE IS ON THE SOUTH PLOT THAT WE NOW HAVE A SHARED DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT WITH NINE LOT. SO IN OUR MIND, A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED. MY, MY WHAT? UH, A VAST IMPROVEMENT. YEAH. OVER WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED. YEAH. AND MORE LIKE WALKABLE AND MORE LIVABLE PLACES. RIGHT. ORIENTED. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION THEN? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION SIGLER. SIGLER. IS THERE A SECOND? BLAND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. UH, ITEM ONE 30, MADAM CHAIR, I'M GONNA RECUSE FROM THIS ITEM. I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY QUORUM. YOU STILL STEP OUT, COUNT FOR QUORUM. STILL COUNT IF EVEN IF I STEP OUT. OKAY. YEAH, YOU, YEAH. WELL IF CAN YOU JUST STAY AND YOUR JUST VOTE. DON'T SPEAK, DON'T VOTE. HE STILL COUNTS FOR A QUORUM. YEAH, IF HE, IF HE EVEN IF HE LEAVES THE ROOM. OH, HE STILL COUNTS FOR YOU CAN LEAVE THE ROOM QUORUM. YOU CAN LEAVE THE ROOM THEN DO PLEASE. OKAY. IT'S HE'LL BE REFLECTED AS ABSTAINING. OKAY. THAT WILL COUNT. I RETRACT WHAT I TOLD SOMEBODY BEFORE [02:50:01] YOU, YOU DON'T IF YOU LEAVE OKAY. AND STILL BE CALLING, GO AHEAD. ONE 30 OUTTA ONE 30 HIS HORIZON AT CYPRUS. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY WEST AND ALONG GRANT ROAD, EAST OF TGE ROAD AND NORTH OF SPRING CYPRUS ROAD IN LUTA ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 170 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON A TYPE TWO PAE STREET SYSTEM AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR LOTS TO HAVE SOLE FRONTAGE AND ACCESS FROM 20 FEET PRIVATE ALLEYS, WHICH IS THE LOT SHADED AND BLUE ON THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSING 20 FEET WIDE PRIVATE ALLEYS OFF OF PRIVATE STREETS WHERE MANY LOTS WILL HAVE THEIR SOLE ACCESS FROM THE ALLEYS. THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT ALLOW SHARED DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ETJ, WHICH THIS DEVELOPMENT IS APPROXIMATING. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS STATED NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND HAS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE PRIVATE ALLEYS TO MEET THEIR STANDARDS. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CB 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. AND WE HAVE NO, WE HAVE RECEIVED NO PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY, UH, SPEAKERS. ANYBODY YOU WANNA SPEAK ON ONE 30? NO. OKAY. UM, SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION MANKA MANKA SECOND MON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES 1 31. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME'S JEFF BUTLER, UH, 1 31 HUNTINGTON REPL NUMBER ONE. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT AT KIRBY AND AVALON. THE SITE CONSISTS OF A 34 STORY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A ZERO FOOT DUAL BUILDING LINE FOR A 12 FOOT TALL CANOPY STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED NEXT TO AN EXISTING SWIMMING POOL. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHERN END OF AN EXISTING HIGH-RISE COMMUNITY THAT PREDATES THE BUILDING LINE REQUIREMENT. THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY A 12 FOOT TALL OPAQUE WALL THAT SEPARATES THE TOWER GROUNDS FROM THE PUBLIC REALM. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A CANOPY STRUCTURE WITHIN AN APPROXIMATELY 26 BY 18 FOOT AREA NEXT TO THE EXISTING POOL. THE PERIMETER WALL SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY LIMITS THE IMPACT OF THE NEW STRUCTURE IN THE PUBLIC REALM. THE APPLICANT IS WORKING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAYOUT CONSTRUCTED BEFORE SETBACKS WERE REQUIRED. STAFF FINDS THE CONDITIONS TO REPRESENT UNUSUAL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND RECOMMENDS GRANT THE VARIANCE AND THE PLAT FOR THE CPC ONE ONE FORM CONDITIONS. WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENT AND THIS INC CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS. UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT WITH THE CONDITIONS ON THE SCREEN. ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION? MAD? IS THERE A SECOND? ALL ALLMAN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 32. MADAM CHAIR. IT APPEARS THAT, NEVERMIND. OKAY, ITEM 1 32 IS NEWPORT GROVE GP. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S ETJ, NORTHEAST HARRIS COUNTY WEST, AND ALONG FM 2100 NORTH OF NORTH DIAMOND HAND BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF FOLEY ROAD AND EAST OF GULF CLUB DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 87 ACRE GENERAL PLAN FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG GUM GULLY BY NOT PROVIDING AN EAST-WEST THROUGH STREET AND TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY AND ONE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO EXCEED 150 LOTS WITH A SINGLE PUBLIC STREET POINT OF ACCESS. STAFF RECOMMENDS TO GRANT THE VARIANCES AND DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THE SUBJECT SITE IS BISECTED BY GUM GULLY, WHICH HAS A CURRENT WIDTH OF 150 FEET, 105 FEET. ITS NARROWEST. HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT IS REQUESTING ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY FOR OF 300 FEET. IF THE CHANNEL WERE IN A RECORDED DRAINAGE EASEMENT, THE ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE A STREET CROSSING, UM, WHEN MORE THAN EVERY HALF, HALF MILE 26 40 STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD STILL REQUIRE AN EASTWEST THROUGH STREET. CONNECTING THE TWO PARTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE SCHOOL SITE TO THE WEST AND SOUTH RECEIVED VARIANCES FOR INTERSECTION SPACING, NOT REQUIRING ANY STREETS, ANY EASTWEST CONNECTION ACROSS THE GULLY WOULD ONLY BE 700 FEET SOUTH OF FOLEY ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY. THE PROPOSED INTERSECTION SPACING FROM FM 2100 TO THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE TO THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS 2,700 FEET. THE APPLICANT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSING A SUB STREET TO EVENTUALLY CONNECT TO PINE FOREST DRIVE, BUT WAS REMOVED AFTER CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF ABOUT IMPACT TO THE ALREADY DEVELOPED HOME SITES OF THIS UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE SUB STREET BEING EXTENDED OR THE UNLIKELIHOOD OF THE SUB STREET BEING EXTENDED. FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, THE ORDINANCE [02:55:01] REQUIRES ANY SUBDIVISION THAT INCLUDES MORE THAN 150 LOTS TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO POINTS OF ACCESS SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER BY DISTANCE OF AT LEAST 250 FEET OF TO A PUBLIC STREET OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SUBDIVISION. THE 38 LOTS OVER THE 150 LOT THRESHOLD REPRESENTS A 25% DEVIATION FROM THE ORDINANCE, ALLOWING MORE THAN 150 LOTS WITH ONLY ONE POINT OF ACCESS. IS A PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERN, ESPECIALLY WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE FLOODWAY GRANTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WOULD BE INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE. MOREOVER, THE JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT IS MOSTLY SELF IMPOSED AND DESIGN DRIVEN. THE DEVELOPER STILL HAS THE OPTION TO COORDINATE WITH TXDOT FOR A LOCATION OF A SECOND STREET CONNECTION TO FM 2100 OR TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF LOTS TO BE FEWER THAN 150 FEET AND MEET THE ORDINANCE STAFF AND HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAVE REACHED OUT TO T DOTS DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON DISTRICT WHO PUT US IN TOUCH WITH THEIR STAFF IN THE NORTH HARRIS AREA OFFICE FOR SPECIFIC ACCESS AND PERMIT QUESTIONS. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IF T WOULD OR WOULD NOT PERMIT A SECOND POINT OF ACCESS ONTO FM 2100 AS A WRITE IN WRITE OUT DESIGN. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND IS STATING TO COORDINATE WITH TXDOT ABOUT SECOND POINT OF ACCESS ALONG FM 2100. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES, DENY THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPUC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. WE HAVE RECEIVED NO PUBLIC COMMENT IN ADVANCE AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE RIGHT. WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. OKAY, THANK YOU. YES. THE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FIRST? NO. OKAY. THE APPLICANT IS HERE. JENNIFER CURTIS. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. JENNIFER CURTIS WITH META PLANNING AND DESIGN. SO, UM, TAMMY PRESENTED THE CASE PRETTY WELL. ONE THING SHE DID NOT TOUCH ON IS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING AN EMERGENCY ACCESS DRIVE TO, UM, COSMI HUFFMAN DRIVE, THE FM 2100. UM, THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, UM, THE DEVELOPER'S NOT OPPOSED TO HAVING A SECOND POINT OF ACCESS. THE CONCERN IS THAT WE DON'T KNOW IF TDOT WILL APPROVE IT. THE RESTRICTIONS FROM TXDOT FOR A EMERGENCY ACCESS WITH AN OX BOX ARE LIGHTER THAN THE RESTRICTIONS ON A PUBLIC STREET CONNECTION. ACCORDING TO OUR ENGINEERS, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET A PUBLIC STREET CONNECTION PERMITTED THROUGH TXDOT, BUT IT'S GONNA TAKE US A YEAR TO GET THAT ANSWER. WE'RE MORE CONFIDENT THAT WE CAN DO AN EMERGENCY ACCESS AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED. UM, IT'S IT'S SHOWN ON THE LATEST GP ON STREET, YES, ON THE NORTH SIDE. IT'S CALLED OUT AS AN EMERGENCY ACCESS DRIVE AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING TO DO. UM, ADDITIONALLY, IF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS DENIED AND A PUBLIC STREET IS REQUIRED, THAT WOULD ALSO NECESSITATE A VARIANCE FOR THE SPACING FROM THE CITY SIDE BECAUSE BOTH OF THOSE CONNECTIONS WOULD BE TO A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. SO IF, DEPENDING ON HOW COMMISSION GOES, PLEASE BEAR THAT IN MIND AS YOU MAKE YOUR DISCUSSION. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR MS. CURTIS? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. GOT IT. OKAY. UH, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS? NO, I DO HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY, GO AHEAD. WHAT DOES THE, WHAT DOES IT, WHAT DOES IT LOOK, DOES IT LOOK LIKE A PUBLIC STREET WITH A GATE? UM, HOW DOES IT FUNCTION? WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE? SO THERE AREN'T A LOT OF REGULATIONS ABOUT WHAT AN EMERGENCY ACCESS DRIVE HAS TO CONTAIN, BUT AT A MINIMUM IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A PAVED SURFACE THAT CAN SUPPORT A FIRE TRUCK OR AN AMBULANCE. IT WOULD HAVE A NOX BOX WITH A GATE. SO THE INTENT IS NOT THAT PUBLIC TRAFFIC WOULD USE THAT, IT WOULD BE FOUR EMERGENCIES IF THE MAIN ENTRANCE WERE BLOCKED, THAT THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER WAY IN AND OUT OF THE SUBDIVISION. AND WHERE WOULD IT BE? ON, ON THE, ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE GP. OKAY. SO RIGHT WHERE IT SAYS FM, CORRECT. 2 1 0 0 BETWEEN JUST OH, BETWEEN THE GOT IT FM 2100 LABEL AND THE CROSBY HUFFMAN LABEL. OKAY. THERE'S A DASHED LINE THAT COMES OUT TO THE THOROUGHFARE AND IT'S LABELED EMERGENCY ACCESS. AND IF TEXDOT APPROVED THE OTHER ACCESS, IT WOULD ALSO BE, THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE THAT WE'RE EVEN CLOSE. ONLY TO ONLY AND THE SUFFICIENT SPACING, HUH. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION? I WAS JUST CURIOUS WITH THAT, WITH THAT REVISION. DOES, IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION STILL THE SAME WITH WITH THIS CHANGE? YES. THIS IS. OKAY, SO Y'ALL, YOU, YOU, YOU, THIS IS AS PRESENTED TO US. YEAH. OKAY. THIS WAS PROVIDED TO US WEEK AND A HALF AGO, A WEEK, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YEAH. SO YOU STILL, STAFF STILL FEELS THAT A, A SECOND POINT OF ACCESS IS WARRANTED? CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT. AND WAS THAT ALSO HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING'S RECOMMENDATION? YOU CAN SPEAK YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT. OKAY. COMMENT. I MEAN, THIS ISN'T, YOU KNOW, FIVE, 10% VARIANCE. THIS IS ACTUALLY QUITE A SUBSTANTIAL VARIANCE. AND YOU KNOW, I THINK YOUR AVERAGE PERSON DOESN'T KIND OF LOOK AT A NEIGHBORHOOD AND COUNT HOMES AND ACCESS AND ALL THAT. THEY ASSUME THAT WE'VE DONE OUR JOB [03:00:01] AND MADE IT SAFE FOR THEM. . SO I, I'M, I AM IN FAVOR OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION. I JUST THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I, I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T KNOW IF TEX OUT'S GONNA GRANT YOU THE DRIVEWAY, BUT YOU ALSO DUNNO THAT THEY WON'T. SO, UM, THAT'S HARD TO KIND OF LIKE SIT BACK ON THAT ARGUMENT. OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. DO WE HAVE THE MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. MANOCK. AMANDA PAKA. THAT WAS MA MANKA. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. 1 33. ITEM 1 33 IS PARKER PLACE. 81 0 1. THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS NORTH ALONG EAST HOUSTON ROAD AND WEST OF PHELAN STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO NOT PROVIDE A NORTH, SOUTH, OR EAST WEST STREET THROUGH THE SUBJECT TRACK. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 81 HOMES WITH A PRIVATE STREET SYSTEM. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECENTLY GRANTED A VARIANCE IN 2001 FOR THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT TO NOT PROVIDE AS STUB STREET TO THE EASTERN BOUNDARY. THIS DIRECTLY INDICATES AN EAST WEST STREET IS, UH, EAST, WEST STREET. CONNECTION IS NOT DESIRED IN THIS LOCATION. IN ADDITION, REQUIRING A EASTERN STREET CONNECTION WOULD ONLY STUB INTO THE HILLIARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE, WHICH PREFER, WHICH PREVENTS FURTHER EXTENSION OF THE STREET. REGARDING A NORTH SOUTH CONNECTION, THE CLOSEST PUBLIC STREET CONNECTION TERMINATES WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC AND IS SURROUNDED BY RECORDED SINGLE FAMILY LOTS TO THE NORTH. OVERALL STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST, AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVED THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MR. CRIDDLE? UH, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP? ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON 1 33? I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY. UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN. COMMISSIONER, HAVE I HAVE A QUESTION? YES. UM, EVEN THOUGH THERE COULDN'T BE A, UM, STREET RIGHT AWAY MM-HMM . TO THE NORTH, WELL, BECAUSE OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MM-HMM . HAD YOU THOUGHT ABOUT REQUIRING THEM TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL? AND I THINK THAT SHOULD BE A CONDITION. I MEAN, COULD THAT BE A CONDITION OF PLAT APPROVAL? OH, IT COULD BE A CONDITION, BUT, UM, WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT, WE FELT THE SITE WAS CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE SCHOOL TO WHERE THEY COULD WALK USING THE, THE PUB ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. UH, DUE TO ITS VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE SCHOOL, UM, WE DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY FOR A SPECIFIC OH, OVER THERE. OKAY. THERE'S SIDEWALKS DOWN THERE TO THE SOUTH AND, OKAY. CAN YOU, UH, YEAH, IT ZOOMED IN. YEAH, THERE IS, THERE IS. OKAY. YES, MA'AM. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE DO HAVE SOME SPEAKERS. UM, SO, OH, OKAY. SORRY, THAT'S NOT THIS, UH, MARK MARGE, WASHINGTON. DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? MARQUE? I APOLOGIZED. NO, MA'AM. THAT'S OKAY. I'M MARQUEE. WASHINGTON MARQUEE. OKAY. I PASTOR THE CHURCH THAT'S DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPERTY AND, YOU KNOW, UM, I'M NOT UNDECIDED, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, UH, OPPOSED OR AGAINST, UH, IT BEING THERE. THE ONLY ISSUE, UM, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT IS NOT MUCH PARKING LOT. I MEAN, NOT MUCH SIDEWALK ON THAT SIDE FOR THOSE KIDS TO GO BACK AND FORTH TO SCHOOL. AND THE OTHER CONCERN IS, IS THAT, UM, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FLOODED SEVERAL TIMES, UM, BEHIND IT AND, AND WHERE OUR CHURCH IS. I THINK WE FLOODED MOST ON HURRICANE HARVEY. AND SO SINCE HURRICANE HARVEY, UH, WHOEVER THE PROPERTY OWNER IS, HAS BUILT UP A LOT OF, UH, DIRT AND STUFF AND BUILT UP AN AREA, I THINK, WHICH BECOMES AN ISSUE FOR EVERYBODY ELSE THAT'S IN THE COMMUNITY. SO THE FLOODING IS AN ISSUE AND THERE IS NOT MUCH, UH, EASEMENT FOR CHILDREN TO WALK BACK AND FORTH. NORMALLY. THEY, UH, CUT THROUGH OUR, UH, OUR CHURCH PARKING LOT AND OUR LAND IN ORDER TO GET TO SCHOOL IN THE MORNING. THAT'S IT. OKAY. AND SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T REALLY YES, MA'AM. REVIEW FOR DRAINAGE, BUT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WILL ONCE YOU KNOW WHEN AND IF THIS IS BUILT, THEY'LL BE REVIEWING AND THE PERMITTING FOR DRAINAGE AND THAT'LL BE TAKEN CARE OF. YES MA'AM. AT THAT POINT. UM, OKAY. DID YOU WANNA NO. OKAY. ANY, WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK OUT THERE. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION? OKAY. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THEN IS TO GRANT AND, AND APPROVE THE PLAT. IS THERE A MOTION? GARZA. [03:05:01] GARZA. SECOND. TAHIR TAHIR. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 34. ITEM 1 34 IS RIVER OAKS HIGHLAND RESERVE. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMITS AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF WEST ALABAMA STREET AND WEST ALABAMA COURT WEST OF EDLO STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE TO FRONT A SUBSTANDARD RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY RIGHT OF WAY. DEDICATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS A THREE WEEK DEFERRAL TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE REVISED RIGHT OF WAY INFORMATION PERTAINING TO WEST ALABAMA STREET, WHICH IS A COLLECTOR, UH, MADAM CHAIR. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. OKAY. UH, WE DO HAVE SPEAKERS, QUESTIONS FROM FOR STAFF, UH, MR. DANIEL PETERSON, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN AND PLANNING COMMISSION. THANKS FOR HAVING ME. UH, MY NAME'S DANIEL PETERSON. I'VE LIVED ON ALABAMA COURT, UH, FOR 33 YEARS. I'M AN ARCHITECT, AND I HAVE DEVELOPED AND BUILT AND LIVED IN FOUR OF THE HOMES ON ALABAMA COURT. UH, ALABAMA COURT IS AN U UNIQUE LITTLE AREA. IT'S AN UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION. THERE'S 22 HOUSES IN THERE, 26 LOTS. UM, THERE'S NO ZONING, THERE'S NO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, THERE'S NO DEED RESTRICTIONS, THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO HANG OUR HAT ON. EXCUSE ME. EXCEPT FOR THIS ORDINANCE. THERE'S A STREET WIDENING ORDINANCE THAT THE CITY HAS WISELY PUT IN PLACE. THAT ORDINANCE IS THERE TO PROVIDE SAFE, SECURE, AND LEGAL ACCESS INTO THE HOMES IN ALABAMA COURT. WE'RE ALL AWARE THAT ALABAMA COURT IS TOO NARROW. IT'S 20 FEET WIDE. ONLY TWO CARS CAN GO THROUGH IT AT ANY TIME. NOTHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT THAT. UM, WE ALREADY STRUGGLE WITH LARGE DELIVERY AND MOVING VANS, FIRE TRUCKS, EMERGENCY VEHICLES. UM, LAST MARCH THERE WAS A FIRE, UH, IN ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S HOMES AND, UH, TWO FIRE TRUCKS COULD NOT BE ON THE STREET AT THE SAME TIME. BUT THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IN OUR MIND, OR MY MIND, IS NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT THE WIDTH OF ALABAMA COURT. UM, IT'S ABOUT THE WIDTH OF ALABAMA COURT AT THE INTERSECTION OF WEST ALABAMA. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AT THAT INTERSECTION. UM, ALABAMA COURT CAN BE, CAN BE, AND SHOULD BE WIDENED AT THE INTERSECTION. UH, IT'S ALREADY VERY DIFFICULT TO MAKE THE TURN FROM WEST ALABAMA ONTO ALABAMA COURT. IT'S NOT SAFE. UM, UH, IF A CAR IS ON ALABAMA COURT AND YOU'RE WAITING TO TURN ONTO WEST ALABAMA, THEN YOUR TURN IS BLOCKED. YOU SIMPLY HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THEY'RE GONE. UH, LIKE I SAID, WE'VE STRUGGLED WITH GARBAGE TRUCKS. TRUCKS. OH MY GOODNESS. GO AHEAD. JUST TAKE A MINUTE AND WRAP UP. OKAY. WE ARE SIMPLY REQUESTING SAFE AND LEGAL ACCESS TO OUR HOMES. WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL DENY THIS VARIANCE. UH, ALABAMA COURT IS A CHOKE POINT AT THIS POINT. UM, IF WE DON'T, IF WE DON'T WIDEN ALABAMA COURT AT THE INTERSECTION, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE LENGTH OF ALABAMA COURT. I'M TALKING ABOUT JUST THE INTERSECTION WHERE THIS, UH, PROPOSED PROPERTY WOULD BE, THEN WE ARE FURTHER COMPROMISING OUR SAFE AND LEGAL ACCESS. IT'S IF ALABAMA COURT IS A DEAD END STREET, WE HAVE NO OTHER WAY IN AND OUT OF THIS PLACE. UM, I WOULD CLOSE BY SAYING, UM, I KNOW THAT CODES AND ORDINANCES ARE, CAN BE CONSIDERED A HINDRANCE TO A DEVELOPER, UH, BUT THEY'RE PUT IN PLACE TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. AND IN THIS INSTANCE, THAT ORDINANCE IS DOING ITS JOB. IF YOU GRANT THE VARIANCE, UH, WE WILL BE FURTHER COMPROMISED IN OUR ABILITY JUST TO GET TO OUR HOUSES. GOT IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ROBERT LEVY TO BE FOLLOWED BY RICHIE MERCADO. GOOD AFTERNOON. I TOO AM A RESIDENT ON ALABAMA COURT AND LIKE MOST OF THE RESIDENTS IN OUR SINGLE FAMILY HOME COMMUNITY, I WAS NOT NOTIFIED BY THE DEVELOPERS OF A VARIANCE REQUEST THAT WAS GREATLY, THAT WILL GREATLY HINDER ACCESS OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. ALABAMA COURT IS A NARROW, SUBSTANDARD WIDE DEAD END STREET. ACCESS TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS, AS DANIEL HAS SAID, IS ONLY FROM WEST ALABAMA STREET. CARS TURNING ONTO ALABAMA COURT FROM WEST ALABAMA CANNOT TURN ONTO OUR STREET IF A CAR IS TRYING TO TURN ONTO WEST ALABAMA FROM THE NARROW, BARELY TWO LANE ALABAMA COURT. THUS TRAFFIC IS STOPPED AND BACKED UP ON WEST ALABAMA. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, CITY GARBAGE TRUCKS HAVE TO HONK AND OFTEN HAVE TO HAVE SERVICE TRUCKS TEMPORARILY [03:10:01] PARKED ON THE STREET, MOVED TO COME DOWN ALABAMA COURT FIRE ENGINES HAVE ALSO HAD PROBLEMS GETTING DOWN OUR STREET. THERE'RE ALREADY TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS ON, ON EDLO THAT BACK ONTO ALABAMA COURT. AND THEY ALSO HAVE DELIVERY AND SERVICE VEHICLES BLOCKING TRAFFIC DOWN THE STREET. OUR STREET IS TOO SMALL AND ALREADY TOO HEAVILY TRAFFICKED TO ADD ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ONTO IT. ENTRANCE TO A NEW DEVELOPMENT MUST BE ON WEST ALABAMA AND NOT ON ALABAMA COURT. I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS VARIANCE REQUEST ON ALABAMA COURT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. MERCADO. HI, MY NAME IS RICHARD MERCADO AND THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK. UH, AS THEY HAVE MENTIONED, THERE ARE 22 RESIDENCES DOWN THERE ONE WAY IN THE SAME WAY OUT ONTO WEST ALABAMA. THAT'S NOT ONLY FOR US FOR FIRE, FOR EMERGENCY, FOR GARBAGE, FOR EVERYTHING. AND THERE'S ALREADY BEEN TROUBLE GETTING FIRE TRUCKS. IT'S 20 FOOT WIDE. AND IF THEY WERE TO BUILD SOMETHING ON THIS PROPERTY, THEY'VE GATHERED, I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT PROPERTY AND THINGS, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'VE GATHERED FOUR PIECES OF PROPERTY. WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA GO ON THERE, BUT I IMAGINE IT'S GONNA BE A LOT OF PEOPLE AND THAT MANY PEOPLE EMPTYING ONTO AND OFF OF WEST ALABAMA COURT INSTEAD OF WEST ALABAMA WOULD MAKE IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO MOVE. UH, THERE ARE WAYS THEY COULD PROBABLY DO THAT OFF WEST ALABAMA STREET. UM, WE'RE ALSO VERY CLOSE TO EDLO IS WHY EVERYTHING BACKS UP EVEN MORE. AND SO WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THIS VARIANCE BE DENIED BECAUSE THERE, THERE CAN BE JUST NO MORE TRAFFIC EMPTYING RIGHT ONTO OUR LITTLE STREET. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON UH, RIVER OAKS HIGHLAND RESERVE? NO. UM, SO MR. CRIDDLE, YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER YES, MA'AM. BASED. AND SO WE'VE LOOKED INTO, UM, SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT, THAT HAVE, UH, COME UP. WE KNOW IT'S DEFINITELY GONNA BE A COMMERCIAL SITE. UM, SO DURING A DEFERRAL PERIOD, WE CAN LOOK INTO, UH, LIMITING OR, UH, DENYING THE ACCESS TO, UM, ALABAMA COURT. SO THOSE ARE SOME THINGS WE'LL LOOK AT DURING THE DEFERRAL PERIOD. AND COULD WIDENING AT THE, AT THE END MAYBE, OR WHAT? YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT. WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU. YEAH. WE'LL HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU. OKAY. BUT YOU'LL BE, YOU'LL BE CONSIDERING YES MA'AM. YES MA'AM. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER COLVARD? I, I MAY HAVE MISHEARD, BUT WERE THE NOTIFICATIONS, UM, MADE FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST PROPERLY? YEP. UM, THAT GENTLEMAN THAT JUST SPOKE SAID THAT THEY WEREN'T YES, THEY WERE. UM, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY. HE SAID THE DEVELOPER DIDN'T TALK TO THEM. CAN I SPEAK TO THAT? SO, NOTIFICATION DID GO OUT. UM, WHAT I CAN DO DURING THE, DURING THE DEFERRAL PERIOD IS SHOW YOU WHICH PROPERTIES WERE NOTIFIED. UH, THAT THAT'S EASY FOR US TO DO, UH, DURING THE DEFERRAL PERIOD. OKAY, GREAT. GOOD. ANYTHING ELSE IN THE DEFERRAL? OKAY. UM, THEN IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER THE ITEM? MOTION? SECOND VERA BLAND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. THE ITEM IS DEFERRED. OKAY. 1 35. ITEM 1 35 WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST MEETING, SO MUST BE ACTED ON TODAY. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HARRIS COUNTY ETJ. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO RESERVES AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW ONE OF 'EM TO HAVE A 30 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY FRONTAGE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 60 FEET. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE WAREHOUSE FACILITY AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTIES CONNECTED TO TGE BY A 30 FOOT STRIP OF LAND AND AN EXISTING CONCRETE ROADWAY. AN EXISTING HOME IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 13 FEET AWAY FROM THIS TRACT, WHICH WOULD NOT EASILY ALLOW FOR PROVIDING THE REQUIRED 60 FEET OF FRONTAGE. STAFF FINDS GRAND THE REQUEST TO BE A MORE PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE THAN STRICT INTERPRETATION. CHAPTER 42, HARRIS COUNTY'S EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION AND STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANT THE VARIANCE IN APPROVING THE PLAT FOR THE CPC ONE ONE FORM CONDITIONS. WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM. THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER? I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT. ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION? AMANDA AMANDA PACA, SECOND MORRIS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 36 WE'D LIKE TO CONSIDER 1 36 AND 1 37 TOGETHER. IS THERE RELATED? OH, GOOD. UH, ST. LOPEZ GENERAL PLAN IN FRENCH RIVIERA DRIVE STREET, DEDICATION, THE LADDER WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST MEETING. IT MUST BE ACTED UPON TODAY. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HARRIS COUNTY. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A GENERAL PLAN AND A LOCAL STREET DEDICATION AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR LOCATING AN INTERSECTION APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET FROM THE NEAREST [03:15:01] INTERSECTION AS OPPOSED TO THE REQUIRED 600 STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE PROPOSED STREET PATTERN IS THE RESULT OF COORDINATION BETWEEN THE APPLICANT, THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION OFFICE IN HARRIS COUNTY. THE LOCATION ALLOWS FOR OPTIMAL TRAFFIC FLOW WHILE ACCOUNTING FOR THE EXISTING STREET PATTERN. STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANT THE VARIANCE PLAT AND GP PER THE C CPC ONE, ONE FORM CONDITIONS. HARRIS COUNTY HAS EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION. STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENT. AND THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. UM, THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE, UM, VIRTUALLY. UM, IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS? I DON'T EITHER. UM, THEN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN, ANY DISCUSSION? CAN WE VOTE ON THESE TOGETHER? OKAY. OF COURSE, YES. ALRIGHT, SO EXCUSE ME. YES, SORRY. UM, THIS IS MYRA HERNANDEZ, THE APPLICANT. I SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. OH, SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE HERE FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY, GO RIGHT AHEAD. SO IS IT POSSIBLE TO REQUEST A DEFERRAL ON BOTH ITEMS? WHY? YES, IT'S POSSIBLE. BUT WHY? WE RECEIVED, UM, NEW INFORMATION YESTERDAY AFTERNOON AND WE SENT IN A REQUEST TO, FOR THE DEFERRAL ON BOTH ITEMS. UM, SO WE JUST LIKE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO LOOK INTO THAT BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH, UM, THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ON BOTH ITEMS. SO THE GO AHEAD MR. BUTLER. THE STREET DEDICATION IS, UM, IT'S BEEN DEFERRED, RIGHT? UM, IT CANNOT, SO IT CAN'T BE DEFERRED AGAIN, RIGHT. THE GENERAL PLAN HAS NOT BEEN DEFERRED. THAT, AND THAT'S WHERE THE VARIANCE IS NOW. UM, COULD DENY THE STREET DEDICATION AND DEFER THE GENERAL PLAN. MS. HERNANDEZ, THE, THE, THE FRENCH REVERA DRIVE DEDICATION CANNOT BE DEFERRED. OKAY. IT HAS TO BE ACTED ON TODAY. UM, THE, THE GENERAL PLAN COULD BE DEFERRED IF YOU ARE MAKING THAT REQUEST TO THE COMMISSION, AND WE CAN CONSIDER THAT WE WOULD TAKE THE MOTION OF APPROVAL ON THE STREET DEDICATION AND TAKE A DEFERRAL ON THE GP. SO YOU'RE REQUESTING IT WOULD, OKAY. I'M, SO IT, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW IF THE, THE VARIANCE REQUEST PERTAINS REALLY TO THE STREET DEDICATION. IF, IF THE DEFERRAL IS ABOUT OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE GP AND, AND WHAT WOULD BE THE, THE, THE DOWNSIDE OF APPROVING THEM MA'AM? THE ALIGNMENT MAY CHANGE SLIGHTLY. AND SO IF THAT DOES TAKE PLACE, WE, WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE GET APPROVAL ON THE, ON THE ACCURATE LINE WORK. WELL, YOU'D HAVE TO COME BACK AND DO IT AGAIN. MM-HMM . THE INTERSECTION SPACING WILL REMAIN THE SAME. WHAT WOULD IT, GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER SIGLER, THIS IS PRELIMINARY. SO WOULD IT, UM, NO, THE STREET DEDICATION WITHIN A GENERAL PLAN, IT'S THE GENERAL PLAN. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THE STREET DEDICATION WAS APPROVED. THIS IS A RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STREET DEDICATION. WE DON'T SEE THAT. IS THIS A RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENTS? SO IT, IT, THIS WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED WITH THIS SECTION FOR THE STREET DEDICATION. UM, AND PART OF OUR REVIEW OF THAT APPLICATION, WE FOUND THAT A NEW GP WAS REQUIRED BECAUSE THERE'VE BEEN CHANGES TO THE OVERALL STREET PATTERN. SO THE VARIANCE IS BEING TAKEN WITH THE GP BECAUSE IT PERTAINS TO THE STREET PATTERN AND THE SECTION, UH, IS A, WELL A SHALL WAS TO BE A SHALL PROVIDE CONSIDERED WITH THE VARIANCE. SO THERE'S NO, WE CAN'T WITHDRAW THE, THE DEDICATION. SHE COULD SHE WITHDRAW THE DEDICATION. BUT THEN, GO AHEAD, DEPUTY. SO COMMISSION, UH, BECAUSE THE STREET DEDICATION, UH, IS CREATING REQUEST, THE VARIANCE IS FOR INTERSECTION SPACING. AND THAT IS ALONG THE G WITH THE GP AND THE STREET DEDICATION. IF THE APPLICANT IS STATING THAT THE INTERSECTION SPACING WON'T CHANGE, THAT IS THE VARIANCE YOU'RE CONSIDERING. SO YOU CAN, IF YOU, IF YOU CHOOSE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, THEN YOU COULD APPROVE THE GP AND THE STREET DEDICATION. APPLICANT JUST HAS TO COME BACK AGAIN. IF THE ALIGNMENT IS CHANGING, THEY WILL HAVE TO COME BACK AGAIN, SUBMIT THE NEW STREET DEDICATION PLOT. BUT IT WON'T NEED A VARIANCE BECAUSE THE VARIANCE WOULD HAVE BEEN STILL ACTIVE. OKAY, THAT MAKES TOTAL SENSE. BUT IF THEY COULD COME BACK WITHIN A YEAR AND NOT TAKE, IF THE INTERSECTION SPACING IS GOING TO CHANGE, THEN THEY MUST COME BACK FOR THE VARIANCE. BUT IF, IF THAT REMAINS THE SAME, OKAY, THEN THEY'RE GOOD. SO, SO MS. HERNANDEZ, YOU SAID THAT THE INTERSECTION SPACING WOULD NOT CHANGE? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. SO THEN I THINK WHAT MS. MATER SPELLED OUT IS WORKS. WE WOULD GO AHEAD AND APPROVE IT. YOU HAVE TO COME BACK IF [03:20:01] THE ALIGNMENT CHANGES, BUT YOU'LL STILL HAVE THE VARIANCE ASSUMING FOR THE, THE, UH, INTERSECTION SPACING. OKAY. OKAY. AND, AND I DO WANT TO CLARIFY. THE STREET DEDICATION IS A RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENTS. WE DID GET APPROVAL, UM, LAST MONTH ON THE ACTUAL STREET DEDICATION. SO I'M NOT SURE THAT'S HOW IT WAS NOTED ON THE AGENDA. IT, IT, IT'S MOVED. IT WAS CONSIDERED LAST TIME AS A RECONSIDERATION. WE FOUND DURING THE REVIEW THAT IT COULDN'T BE CONSIDERED THAT AS SUCH BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE GP STREET PATTERN. OKAY. IT HAD TO BE TAKEN WITH THE GP. IT, THIS IS THE TECHNICALITIES THAT I'M SURE ARE EFFECTIVELY IT'S THE SAME THING, BUT IT, IT'S, DOESN'T MATTER TOO MUCH. IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. SO WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND STICK WITH OUR, UM, RECOMMENDATION, I THINK TO GRANT AND APPROVE AND THEN APPROVE. OKAY. DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYBODY? OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY, ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONERS? UM, THEN WE'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 1 36 AND 1 37 OF SOME TYPE MOTION HINES. MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION SECOND. MINE. OKAY. HINES MONKA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES AND THANK GOODNESS 1 38 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. . JUST KIDDING. JUST KIDDING. OKAY, WE HAVE NO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. F IS [f. Reconsiderations of Requirement (John Cedillo)] RECONSIDERATION OR REQUIREMENTS. 1 39. ITEM 1 39 IS FELLOWS IN AND OUT INVESTMENTS IN SOUTH FREEWAY. THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A NEARLY NINE ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION NORTH LAWN BELTWAY EIGHT AND WEST OF STATE HIGHWAYS 2 88. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO LARGE UNRESTRICTED RESERVES AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED EX INTERSECTION SPACING OF 2,600 FEET BY NOW PROVIDING A NORTH SOUTH STREET THROUGH THE PROPERTY. AT THIS TIME, STAFF IN THE HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REQUIRE MORE TIME TO RESEARCH A POSSIBLE EXISTING ROADWAY E UH, EASEMENT WEST OF OF THE PROPERTY STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS TO DEFER THE PLAT PER HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO COORDINATE WITH THE APPLICANT FOR FURTHER REVIEW. MA'AM CHAIR THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MR. CILLO? UM, MR. BTA, THE APPLICANT IS HERE FOR QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER MOTION MINE, PA MIND PACA GAR GARZA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM ONE 40. ITEM ONE 40 IS MOBILE HOME PARK AT CHANNELVIEW. THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A 5.3 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY. EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION SOUTH ALONG WOOD DRIVE AND EAST OF PECKER ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SINGLE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING A NORTH SOUTH STREET BETWEEN BECKER STREET AND NORTH STREET, NOR PROVIDING EAST WEST STREET BETWEEN WOOD DRIVE AND BEAR BAYOU DRIVE. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. THE PLAT IS PROPOSING A MOBILE HOME PARK RESERVE EXISTING BETWEEN CRENSHAW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO THE WEST AND THE WOOD DRIVE MOBILE HOME PARK TO THE EAST HINDERING THE ABILITY FOR THE EAST WEST STREET TO EXTEND FURTHER THAN THE SUBJECT SITE. THE SOUTH IS FURTHER ENCUMBERED BY RECORDED LOTS WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A LOCAL GRID OF 1,750 FEET BY 2000 FEET, WHICH PROVIDES SUFFICIENT CONNECTIVITY AND CIRCULATION FOR THE SUBJECT SITE. GRANTED THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT PLACE UNDUE BURDEN ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR ON THE EXISTING STREET GRID. HOWEVER, WOOD DRIVE DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE A SIDEWALK AND STAFF IS REQUIRING A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION OR SIDEWALK EASEMENT TO BE PROVIDED AT RECOMMENDATION. AFTER COORDINATING WITH CHANNEL VIEW, ISD HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO C CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP FOR ONE 40 STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS UP BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE? NO. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU STAFF FOR COORDINATING WITH CHANNEL VIEW, GETTING THAT SIDEWALK DEDICATION. GREAT. OKAY. HOLD ON. WE HAVE THE TEAM. WE DO. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, THEN IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? ALL ALLMAN. SECOND BIERA BLAND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. OKAY, MS. SHAW, WE'RE GIVING YOU PERMISSION TO YES. CUT THE, CUT THE PRESENTATION REALLY SHORT. COOL. UM, , UH, SECTION, YOU CAN START WITH YOUR LAST SENTENCE. OKAY. IF YOU WANT, UM, THE PLANNING [Platting Activities G - I] AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTIONS GHNI. THANK YOU. GREAT. THAT WAS EXCELLENT. ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION? POROUS PERLE? IS THERE A SECOND? VIRA BLAND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. AND THAT TAKES US TO K DEVELOPMENT PLAS WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS. 1 58. MADAM CHAIR, I JUST WANNA PLEASE NOTE MY ABSTENTION FROM ITEM 1 53. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DID YOU GET THAT? THANK YOU. 1 53. [03:25:01] OKAY. 1 58 IS [k. Development Plats with Variance Requests (Geoff Butler)] A DEVELOPMENT PLAT VARIANCE FOR 1802 CRYSTAL COURT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME AND THEY'RE SEEKING VARIANCES FOR A 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG 18TH AS OPPOSED TO 25 AND 15 ALONG CRYSTAL COURT AS OPPOSED TO 17. STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL TO ALLOW TIME FOR A SITE VISIT AND TO, UH, COORDINATE WITH THE APPLICANT. UH, WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE WRITTEN COMMENT OR WRITTEN COMMENTS, UH, EXPRESSING CONCERN OVER THE SETBACKS, COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. OKAY. UH, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP? WE DON'T ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON 1 58. OKAY. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THEN IS TO DEFER IF THERE ARE NO, IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS. IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER? MOTION GARZA. GARZA. IS THERE A SECOND? ALL ALLMAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. THAT WILL [II. Establish a public hearing date of July 27, 2023] TAKE US TO ROMAN NUMERAL TWO TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JULY 27TH, 2023 FOR, UM, ITEMS A THROUGH J? YES, THE ITEMS A THROUGH J THAT ARE BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN. IS THERE A MOTION TO ESTABLISH THE DATE OF JULY 27TH? MOTION AISH. IS THERE A SECOND? SIGLER? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. WE'RE [III. Consideration of an Off-Street Parking Variance at 3236 Summer Street (Geoff Butler)] ON ROMAN NUMERAL THREE, WHICH IS A CONSIDERATION OF AN OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE AT 32 36 SUMNER STREET. AND WE DO HAVE SOME SPEAKERS. UM, I'M JUST GONNA ALERT THE SPEAKERS. IF YOU HAVE SPOKEN ON THIS BEFORE, YOU'RE GONNA BE LIMITED TO ONE MINUTE. THAT'S OUR RULE. UM, OKAY, GO AHEAD. SO THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DEFERRED, UH, AT THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS, BUT IT MAY BE DEFERRED AGAIN. UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE TO PROVIDE 26 SPACES AS OPPOSED TO REQUIRED 51 FOR AN ATHLETIC TRAINING FACILITY. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DEFERRAL FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW. STAFF IS CONSIDERING THE ASSERTION OF LIKE THE LIKELY PRESENCE OF IN TURN HUMAN REMAINS ON THE SUBJECT SITE DUE TO ITS PROXIMITY TO ALLWOOD CEMETERY. THIS ASSERTION IS SUPPORTED BY STAFF REVIEW OF HISTORIC MAP RECORDS, PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WITHIN THE CEMETERY STAFF HAS RECEIVED GUIDANCE FROM TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION INVOLVING DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY UNMARKED IN TURN REMAINS. THIS INCLUDES A STRATEGY FOR VERIFYING THE PRESENCE OF THE REMAINS AND STANDARDS FOR RELOCATION. STAFF HAS RELAYED TCS GUIDANCE TO THE APPLICANT FOR CONSIDERATION. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO COORDINATING WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S OFFICE TO MEET WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM OLIVE DURING THE UPCOMING DEFERRAL PERIOD. STAFF WILL CONSIDER THCS INPUT AS WELL AS THE OUTCOME OF THE APPLICANT'S DISCUSSION WITH THE CEMETERY IN MAKING A FINAL RECOMMENDATION ON THIS REQUEST, STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW. WE RECEIVE MULTIPLE WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC OBJECTING TO TRAFFIC PARKING IN THE IMPACT ON THE ABUTTING CEMETERY. THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. OKAY, THANK YOU. BEFORE I CALL PUBLIC SPEAKERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER? I HAVE ONE. OH, YES. WHO SAID THAT? IAN? OH, SORRY. THERE YOU ARE. GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER ROSE. I'M HERE. UH, JEFF, UH, IS THERE A TIMEFRAME THAT THIS COULD BE DEFERRED? UH, 'CAUSE IF WE'RE LIMITED TO TWO WEEKS OR SOMETHING COORDINATING THIS WITH THE CEMETERY TEXAS STORE COMMISSION, I HAVE A PROJECT AT TEXAS COURT COMMISSION AND WHO KNOWS WHEN IT'LL COME BACK. UM, WOULD IT BE BETTER IF THEY WITHDREW AND THEN RESUBMITTED SO THEY HAVE TIME TO DO ALL OF THIS? OR DO THEY HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY WITHIN, UM, OUR GUIDELINES? SO THEY DO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY. UM, THEY ARE CONSIDERING THE WITHDRAWAL OPTION, BUT I BELIEVE THEY, WE, WE GAVE THEM A LOT OF INFORMATION FROM THC, UH, JUST RECENTLY. SO SHE'S, SO WE WANTED THEM TO HAVE A CHANCE TO DIGEST THAT. AND THEN, AND ON THE FLIP SIDE, STAFF IS COORDINATING WITH OUR OWN HISTORIC OFFICE TO JUST MAKE SURE WE WERE INTERPRETING THE, THE GUIDANCE CORRECTLY AND, AND APPLYING IT. PERFECT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE AWARE OF THEIR OPTIONS AND, AND, AND HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY. GREAT. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSION. OKAY. UM, I'M GONNA CALL THE FIRST, THIS ONLY SPEAKER WHO HAS TWO MINUTES WHO APPEARS TO BE A NEW SPEAKER IS VAY HOUSTON. VAY HOUSTON. OKAY. DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. OKAY. UM, THEN, UH, FATIMA HASSAN. HASSAN ALI IS NOT PRESENT. STACY FAIRCHILD IS NOT PRESENT. CORRE MADDOX NOT PRESENT. YES, MA'AM. I'M PRESENT. I'M PRESENT. OH, GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN. OKAY. KAIN MADDOX. OKAY, GO RIGHT AHEAD. [03:30:01] I'M A RESIDENT. I'M A RESIDENT ON RICHMOND STREET. I'VE REPORTED BEFORE ABOUT THE LACK OF PARKING ON SUMMER. I CHECKED ONE MORE TIME AT 8:30 PM UM, THERE WAS ONE PARKING SPACE ON SUMMER STREET THAT WAS AVAILABLE AT THE EAST END AND SIX CARS PARKED IN ON RICHMOND STREET AND SIX MORE CARS PARKED IN THE CEMETERY LOT. SO IT'S JUST REALLY BAD. UM, RICHMOND IS TWO LANES WIDE, YOU KNOW, SO WHEN THERE'S CARS PARKED THERE, YOU CAN BARELY GET THROUGH. CERTAINLY A FIRETRUCK COULD NOT GET THROUGH. AND THEN I JUST WANTED TO SAY, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE A WAY TO ENHANCE THE MARKET SOLUTION BY METERS TOWING, THAT SORT OF THING, BUT THAT JUST ADDS MORE HEADACHES, I THINK. UM, YOU KNOW, CREATING NEW, MORE, MORE NEW RULES FOR THE RESIDENTS TO DEAL WITH, UM, A PUBLIC BURDEN POLICING BURDEN. IN FACT, UM, THE PARKING REDUCTION VARIANCE THAT WAS ALLOWED FOR ONE OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES, MAYBE ALL THREE OF THEM I THINK HAS STARTED OFF THIS DOMINO EFFECT OF THE PROBLEM ON ON SUMMER STREET. THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I NEED TO SAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MS. MADDOX. UM, KAITLYN CONNOR. KAITLYN CONNOR IS NOT PRESENT. JASMINE LEE. JASMINE LEE. IT NOT PRESENT. MARY? HELLO? MARYANNE HALEY. MARYANNE HALEY AND MARGO WILLIAMS. OKAY, THOSE ARE, OKAY. WAIT A MINUTE. AND THEN GEORGE FRY. YES, I'M HERE. OKAY, GO RIGHT AHEAD. I, I, I VOLUNTEERED THIS WEEKEND AT ALWOOD CEMETERY AND I, UH, STRONGLY SUGGEST EVERYBODY TAKING A VISIT. IT WAS QUITE INTERESTING BRINGING MY SMALL KIDS THERE, UH, TO VOLUNTEER, LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE AREA, READ SOME HEADSTONES AND, AND PICK UP A LOT MORE STORIES REGARDING THIS VARIANCE. I RECOMMEND TO, UH, DENY THE VARIANCE FOR REDUCED PARKING. UH, IT WOULD SEEM LIKE THIS WOULD BE A GREAT AREA, HOWEVER, UH, AND, AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE NEAR NEARBY ACCESS TO THE INNER K-D-B-R-T. BUT AFTER REPEAT REQUESTS OF METRO TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE ACCESS OR ACCESSIBILITY, PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY TO THE BRT STATIONS, UH, THEY CONFIRMED THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY ADDITIONAL, ANY, ANY CHANGES, ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE BRT PLAN. AND SO, ALTHOUGH THE BRT IS GONNA BE ELEVATED AND IT'S NOT GONNA CREATE ANY NEW PROBLEMS, IT'S NOT GONNA RESOLVE THE FACT THAT ALL OF THE STATIONS ALONG I 10 ARE GONNA BE RIGHT DIRECTLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HIGH INJURY NETWORK. SO FOR THAT REASON, I, I WOULD SUGGEST, UH, DENYING THE VARIANCE FOR REDUCED PARKING. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. FRY. UM, OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ROMAN NUMERAL THREE AT THIS TIME? MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS STACY. YES, MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS STACY FAIRCHILD. OH GOD. GOOD. GO AHEAD. I HAD, SORRY, I HAD TROUBLE DIALING IN. UH, I DIDN'T GET TO HEAR THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS FOR JEFF SPEAK, BUT, UH, I'M, YOU KNOW, NO DIFFERENT THAN LAST TIME. I THINK WE SHOULD DENY, UM, I'M REQUESTING THAT THE COMMISSION DENY THIS PARKING VARIANCE. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR, FOR BEING HERE TODAY. MM-HMM . MADAM CHAIR, JUST ONE CLARIFICATION. WE, WE NEED, UH, THE DEFERRAL FOR REASONS WE MENTIONED, BUT THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S OFFICE HAS ALSO REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE DEFERRED. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, ALRIGHT. SO DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TODAY? IF NOT, THEN I'LL LOOK TO THE COMMISSION IF THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR IF THERE IS A MOTION TO DEFER. MOTION TO DEFER GARZA. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER GARZA. IS THERE A SECOND? ALL BERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. THE ITEM WILL BE DEFERRED FOR THREE WEEKS. COMM, UH, DIRECTOR WALLACE BROWN. JEFF, COULD I, COULD I ASK YOU TO PLEASE FOR THE, IN THE DEFERRAL PERIOD, CAN YOU CONFIRM THE VARIANCE THE VARIANCES RECEIVED FOR THE RECENT PLATS IN THE AREA, PARTICULARLY THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS? I, I CAN, I KNOW THERE WAS A OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE GRANTED TO THE MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH. THEY WERE, IT WAS 2000. YOU CAN JUST, I MEAN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE IT NOW. OKAY. JUST IF YOU'D HAVE IT FOR THE COMMISSION NEXT IN TWO DAYS. [03:35:01] THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, OKAY. SO WE GO TO PUBLIC [IV. Public Comment] COMMENT. I DO HAVE ONE PERSON, MR. FRY, ARE YOU THERE? GEORGE FRY? YES. YES. STILL HERE. OKAY, GO AHEAD. SO I'M SPEAKING AS THE PRESIDENT OF SUPER NEIGHBORHOOD 14 REGARDING THE PROPOSED AGENDA FOR JULY 13TH. THE PROPOSED AGENDA INCLUDES A, THERE'S NO NUMBER ON IT JUST YET, BUT IT'S WEST 12TH STREET MANNERS. I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT, UH, I, I BELIEVE SOME NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID THE NOTICE HAS STARTED COMING OUT, THAT THEY'VE RECEIVED SOME EMAILS. BUT I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT PER CHAPTER 42, SECTION 80 3D, THAT THE, UH, PREVIOUS SIGN NOTIFICATIONS ON THE PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED WITHIN 60 DAYS. IT'S BEEN CLOSE TO 150 DAYS AT THIS POINT, AND THE SIGN AS OF TODAY, UH, STILL SAYS FEBRUARY 16TH. SO THAT THAT'S IN DIRECT VIOLATION AND IT HASN'T BEEN UPDATED. SO WE REQUEST FOR A DELAY, UH, BECAUSE THE 20 DAY NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S, UH, WEST 12TH STREET MANNERS. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO NOTED. WE'LL, STAFF WILL LOOK INTO THAT. UH, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? IF NOT, THEN WE WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT. HI. IS THERE A SECOND? ALL ALLMAN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU ALL. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.