* 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. [00:00:05] FROM CITY HALL ANNEX. IT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RIGHT HERE ON HTV. AND WE KNOW THAT MAGGIE AND LYDIA ARE NOT GONNA BE HERE TODAY, RIGHT? ARE VIRTUAL, YES. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. THURSDAY, JULY 13TH, 2023. UH, THIS IS A MEETING OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION. WE ARE CALLED TO ORDER. I'M COMMISSION CHAIR MARTY STEIN. [Call to Order ] AND I'M GONNA CALL THE ROLE TO VERIFY OUR QUORUM. THE CHAIR IS PRESENT, VICE CHAIR GARZA. PRESENT IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ALLMAN. PRESENT. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN WILL BE ABSENT. COMMISSIONER CLARK. PRESENT, PRESENT. COMMISSIONER VAR. PRESENT IS PRESENT VIRTUALLY. UH, COMMISSIONER HYS. PRESENT IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER HINES. PRESENT. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER JONES. PRESENT. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MORRIS WILL BE ABSENT. COMMISSIONER NELSON WILL BE ABSENT. COMMISSIONER PORUS. PERLE IS NOT PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ROBBINS HERE IS HERE. COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG. PRESENT IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER SIGLER. PRESENT IS PRESENT. COMMISSIONER TAHIR. PRESENT. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER VICTOR. PRESENT, PRESENT. COMMISSIONER UH, VERA BLAND. PRESENT VIRTUALLY IS PRESENT VIRTUALLY. COMMISSIONER KANE PRESENT VIRTUALLY IS PRESENT VIRTUALLY. COMMISSIONER DALTON WILL BE ABSENT. COMMISSIONER MANKA IS NOT PRESENT. COMMISSIONER, UH, AND DIRECTOR MARGARET WALLACE BROWN PRESENT IS PRESENT. 16 MEMBERS HAVE RESPONDED TO ROLL CALL. WE HAVE A QUORUM TO EVERYONE ELSE. WELCOME. UM, IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A SPECIFIC ITEM, YOU MAY CHECK THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE. ALL ADVANCED COMMENTS THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT AND WERE RECEIVED BY NOON ON WEDNESDAY ARE IN OUR PACKETS. WE HAVE THEM. UM, IF YOU ARE HERE AND YOU HAVE NOT SIGNED UP IN ADVANCE, BUT YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM, FILL OUT ONE OF THESE FORMS AT THE FRONT SO WE MAKE SURE YOU'RE ON THE LIST. UM, WE ASK THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE CONNECTED BY PHONE OR COMPUTER TO KEEP YOUR DEVICES MUTED UNTIL YOU ARE CALLED ON TO SPEAK. AND IT'S BETTER. OUR VIDEO QUALITY'S BETTER IF EVERYBODY KEEPS THEIR CAMERAS OFF, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COMMISSIONERS. UM, A FEW ITEMS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN UNDER PUBLIC HEARINGS. 1 28 CHATWOOD PLACE, 1 33. PINE CREST, 1 35 VIEWS AT RADIO ROAD UNDER VARIANCES. 1 38. UM, A POLLEN ESTATES HAVE ALL BEEN WITHDRAWN. THERE'LL BE NO OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THOSE. WITH [ Director’s Report] THAT, WE'LL GO TO THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, DIRECTOR WALLACE BROWN. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MARGARET WALLACE BROWN, SECRETARY TO THIS COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. UM, TODAY ENDS A THREE WEEK PLANNING COMMISSION CYCLE. SO SOME PLATS THAT ARE ON YOUR AGENDA TODAY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE DEFERRED. THE STAFF WILL LET YOU KNOW WHEN THAT IS THE CASE. THE NEXT MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND FREEWAY PLAN MEETING IS THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THURSDAY 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, AND WE WILL NEED A QUORUM FOR BOTH MEETINGS. AND FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT WILL BE JOINING ONLINE, UM, THERE WILL BE TWO SEPARATE TEAMS MEETINGS ONLINE, SO YOU'LL NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT. UM, THAT IS IT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CAN BE REACHED AT (832) 393-6600 OR YOU CAN CALL THE PLAN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNER OF THE DAY AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 6 2 4. AS ALWAYS, VISIT HOUSTON PLANNING.COM FOR DETAILS. THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES MY REPORT. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UH, WITH THAT THEN WE'LL GO TO [ Consideration of the June 22, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ] APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 22ND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, WHICH WERE IN YOUR PACKET. IF THERE ARE NO ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES, IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? MOTION CLARK CLARK. SECOND GARZA GARZA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? AYE. THE MOTION CARRIES. UM, PLATING ACTIVITY ROMAN NUMERAL [Platting Activities a & b] ONE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS RA LEE. SECTIONS A AND B ARE PRESENTED AS ONE GROUP, WHICH INCLUDES CONSENT AND REPLANT ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION. SECTIONS A AND B ARE ITEMS ONE THROUGH 1 25 SECTION A. CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 61 AND SECTION B REPLANT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS 60 [00:05:01] TO 62 THROUGH 1 25. MADAM CHAIR, WE HAVE A CHANGE IN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM FIVE BEAGLE ACRES. IT HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM DEFER TO APPROVE PER THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM. CONDITIONS. NO ITEM, NO ITEMS NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND THERE ARE NO OTHER CHANGES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MADAM CHAIR, IF THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSENT AND REPLANT ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN THE CHAT? IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ANYTHING? UM, ON UNDER THE CONSENT, UH, OR REPL SECTION THAT SECTIONS A AND B, ITEMS ONE THROUGH 1 25. IF NOT, WE'LL PROCEED WITH VOTING COMMISSIONERS. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING WE NEED TO TAKE SEPARATELY? COMMISSIONER SIGLER? UM, YES. ITEMS NINE THROUGH 14, 24 25. 28 29. OKAY. COMMISSIONER HY? YES. ITEMS NINE THROUGH 1445. 53 THROUGH 55. 1 0 7 AND ONE 12. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. UM, THEN WE WILL, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ALL ITEMS AND SECTIONS A AND B SAVE. AND EXCEPT FOR ITEMS NINE THROUGH 14, 24, 25, 28, 29, 45, 53 THROUGH 55, 1 0 7 AND ONE 12. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? ROSENBERG ROSENBERG, SECOND ALLMAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. AND NOW ON THE REMAINDER, WHICH FOR THE RECORD IS NINE THROUGH 14, 24, 25, 28, 29, 45, 53 THROUGH 55, 1 0 7 AND ONE 12. ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? CLARK TAHIR TAHIR? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. AND NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER, HE AND SIGLER ABSTAINED. UH, WITH THAT WE GO TO SECTION C, [c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Devin Crittle, Arum Lee, Wilson Calvert, John Cedillo and Aracely Rodriguez)] PUBLIC HEARINGS REQUIRING NOTIFICATION. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JOHN PHILLIPS WITH YOU. ITEM 1 26 IS ALMOST THE STATES. OH, THERE'S A SCANDAL. JUST HEADS UP. SHALL I WAIT, I, IS THERE A PROBLEM GETTING IT, UH, LOADED UP. GOOD AFTERNOON, MA'AM. MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION, MY NAME IS TI MATHUR. THERE IS A DELAY IN THE PRESENTATION, SO WE ARE HOPING IT'LL GET FIXED AS WE PROGRESS IN THE MEETING. SO AS WE PRESENT, THERE WILL BE TWO SECONDS, 30 SECONDS DELAY ON THE PRESENTATION. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WE'LL GET USED TO THAT. IT'LL BE LIKE THE VOTING VIRTUALLY. YEAH. YES. OKAY. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT GO WITH IT. OKAY. A CONSTANT TEST FOR OUR BRAIN. OKAY. PLEASE, PLEASE CONTINUE. , ITEM 1 26 IS AMMO STREET ESTATES. THE SUBJECT SIDE IS AN OVER 15,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON. THE LIMITS SPANNING BETWEEN LAAL STREET AND AMMO STREET EAST OF, UH, STATE HIGHWAY 2 88 AND SOUTH OF YELLOWSTONE BOULEVARD. UH, THE PLAT IS, WAS DEFERRED LAST CYCLE TO CONSIDER RIGHT OF WAY WIDENING FOR LAHA STREET, WHICH IS AN UNIMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY. THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE ARROW, AN EIGHT NARROW FRONT LOADING SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM, AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICATION SET. RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. MADAM CHAIR WOULD PLEASE THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. OKAY, THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 1 26, AMOS STREET ESTATES IS CONTINUED. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. WE HAVE NO ONE IN THE CHAT. IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 26? HEARING NO RESPONSE? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. UM, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? ROBINS? I'M SORRY, ROBINS AND SECOND JONES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. UM, AND LET ME JUST, UM, FOR OUR COMMISSIONERS, UH, WHO ARE VIRTUAL V COMMISSIONER VIRA BLAND AND COMMISSIONER VAR, WE CAN HEAR YOU, COMMISSIONER, UM, KANE, BUT WE'RE NOT HEARING YOU WHEN YOU VOTE. AND IN ORDER TO COUNT FOR THE QUORUM, YOU HAVE TO SPEAK UP WHEN YOU VOTE IF YOU WOULD PLEASE. OKAY. ITEM 1 27. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY LIMIT RODRIGUEZ. ITEM 1 27, [00:10:01] CARTER STATE, WE PLANT NUMBER ONE. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN, IN THE ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY, WEST OF HU SMITH COURT ROAD AND EAST OF STATE HIGHWAY 2 49. THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLOT IS TO CREATE ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND ONE WAS RESERVE RESTRICTED TO MULTI-FAMILY TO BUILD THREE UNITS. THE APP BEGINNING REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES. ONE IS TO NOT EXTEND OR TERMINATE SOLOMON ROAD EXTENSION WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC. AND THE SECOND ONE IS TO NOT PROVIDE AN EAST WEST PUBLIC STREET STAFF COORDINATING WITH HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING OFFICE AND STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. HARRIS COUNTY REVIEWED THIS PROPOSAL AND CREATED A GRID OF MINOR COLLECTOR STREET, UM, TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE TRAFFIC COLLISION TO ADDRESS FUTURE TRAFFIC, WHICH WOULD HELP TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. SO, REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATE THAT THE PLOT WILL NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION. THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLANS SUBJECT TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM. CONDITION. MADAM CHAIR IS TO PLEASE TO THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME, AND THAT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UM, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 1 27 CARTER ESTATE IS CONTINUED. THE APPLICANT IS, UH, PRESENT FOR QUESTIONS. WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER TORQUE ON CARTER. ARE YOU ALSO AN APPLICANT? JUST QUESTIONS OR DID YOU WANNA SPEAK? JUST QUESTIONS. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DO NOT THINK SO. UM, IF THERE IS NO ONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 27 CARTER ESTATES, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLAT. ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION SIGLER SIGLER SECOND VICTOR. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. AYE. ITEM 1 28 CHATWOOD PLACE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. 1 29 ITEM 1 29 FR PLACE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMIT NORTH OF SWINGLE ROAD SOUTH OFFORD DRIVE. THE PURPOSE OF THE REPL IS TO CREATE TWO LOTS. REVIEW BY LEGAL HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST DOES NOT VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE COMMENTS FOR THIS PLAT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. MADAM CHAIR, IF I PLEASED WITH THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 29 PLACE IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. WE HAVE NO ONE IN THE CHAT. ANYONE LISTENING WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ER PLACE? PLEASE SPEAK UP. HEARING NO RESPONSE, A PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? HI, SECOND JONES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES ITEM ONE 30, ITEM ONE 30, LITTLE YORK PARTIAL REPL NUMBER THREE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMIT, SOUTH OF EAST LITTLE YORK ROAD WEST OF NORLING ROAD. THE PURPOSE OF THE REPLANT IS TO CREATE ONE RESERVE. REVIEW BY LEGAL HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RESTRICTIONS. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS PLAT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLATS PER CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. OKAY. AND THIS IS A, WE'RE WAITING FOR THE, SHOULD WE, IS IT COMING SOON? IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S BEEN LONGER THAN 30 SECONDS. NO, IT'S, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO WAIT. OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD THEN. UM, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ONE 30, LITTLE YORK PARTIAL REPL NUMBER THREE IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. UM, IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 30 LITTLE YORK PARTIAL REPL NUMBER THREE, HEARING NO RESPONSE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION? CLARK CLARK GARZA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. I HATE THAT YOU'RE DOING THIS. [00:15:02] OKAY. WE'RE GONNA ASK OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, OUR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, MS. NICHOLSON, DO WE, SHOULD WE WAIT FOR THESE THINGS TO BE LOADED UP SO PEOPLE CAN SEE THEM? YEAH, I, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT BECAUSE THERE MAY BE INFORMATION ON THOSE SLIDES THAT, UM, ARE IMPORTANT TO MEMBERS WHO ARE, OR INDIVIDUALS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE WATCHING. OKAY. I I I KNOW IT WILL SLOW THINGS DOWN UNTIL IT GETS GOING. NO. OKAY. WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE UP TO, WE'RE UP TO, UP TO SPEED RIGHT NOW. GO RIGHT AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS WILSON CALVERT. ITEM NUMBER 1 31 IS MANNERS ON LIVE OAK. THE SUBJECT SITE IS A 5,775 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY ON LIVE OAK IN THIRD WARD. THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE THREE LOTS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED. AND THE PLAT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS REVIEW OF BY LEGAL SHOWS. THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 CONDITIONS. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. OKAY. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 31 MANNERS ON LIVE OAK IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED IN ADVANCE. NO ONE IN THE CHAT. IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON 1 31? YES. MADAM CHAIR THERE IS. OKAY. WHO SAID THAT? I'M DR. DIZZY COFIELD, PASTOR OF THE GOOD HOPE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH AND A RESIDENT IN THE AREA. OKAY, GO RIGHT AHEAD. ARE YOU, YOU'RE WITH US VIRTUALLY? YES, I AM. OKAY, GO RIGHT AHEAD. UM, I AM OPPOSED TO THIS REPL. UH, THIS, THIS HAS BEEN A SINGLE FAMILY LOT. UM, I LIVE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. WE'VE ALREADY HAD MULTIPLE FLOODING INCIDENTS, UH, ON OUR BLOCK. UNABLE TO PARK OUR CARS ON THE STREET WHENEVER THERE IS RAIN BECAUSE OF DRAINAGE PROBLEMS. UM, THIS IS JUST GOING TO ADD, UM, MORE STRESS AND STRAIN ON AN ALREADY STRAINED SYSTEM. UH, WE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF CHILDREN IN THE AREA. AND TO DIVIDE A 5,700 SQUARE FOOT LOT WHERE ALL OF THE HOUSES ON THIS BLOCK ARE ON 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, I THINK WOULD BE TWO MUCH OF A STRAIN ON OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS. UH, WE HEAR YOU. THIS PLAT IS, UM, MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENT, CURRENT REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 42. SO FOR US, UNDER STATE LAW AND CITY ORDINANCE, IT'S A SHALL APPROVE AND WE ARE, UH, LEGALLY BOUND TO APPROVE IT. BUT, UM, WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO, UM, TO OUR ORDINANCES TO MITIGATE A LITTLE BIT OF THIS. I THINK THESE ARE ACTUALLY PRETTY WIDE LOTS. THESE ARE 30 FEET, ONE OF THEM'S 30 FOOT WIDE. UM, THEY'RE NOT NARROW, NARROW LOTS, SO WE APPRECIATE THAT. YOU KNOW, THERE AREN'T FOUR LOTS CRAMMED IN THERE, BUT, UM, UH, BUT WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. THEY'RE PART OF THE RECORD AND, UM, WE, WE TAKE YOUR COMMENTS SERIOUSLY, BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A CHOICE IN THIS MATTER. THANK YOU. WELL, MADAM CHAIR, LET ME JUST SAY THAT THAT ADDRESS IS BEING SHIFTED FROM THE STREET ON CLEBURNE BEING MOVED TO THE OTHER SIDE. SO IN TERMS OF, YOU'RE SAYING IT'S, IT'S 30 FOOT WIDE, UM, ANOTHER 700 SQUARE FEET TO ADD THREE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ON THAT PROPERTY. WHEN YOU CAN'T PARK YOUR CAR ON THE STREET RIGHT NOW, WHENEVER IT RAINS, UM, LITERALLY IT'S COMING UP IN THE TRUCKS ON THE CORNER AND TO ADD THREE PEOPLE THERE. UM, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS THEN WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE OPTION? WELL, THE, WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THIS CASE IF THE, THE PLAT PROCESS IS BASICALLY TO APPROVE A DRAWING. UM, AS THIS PROJECT GOES FORWARD, ASSUMING THAT IT DOES GET BUILT, IT WILL REQUIRE PERMITS. PUBLIC WORKS WILL BE REVIEWING, UH, THE DRAINAGE, WHAT KIND OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES ARE REQUIRED TO BUILD THIS PROJECT. AND IT ACTUALLY MAY HELP SOME OF THE, THE FLOODING ON THE STREET AT THIS TIME JUST BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE SOME, YOU KNOW, NEW INFRASTRUCTURE OR NEW, UH, DETENTION REQUIRED. UM, BUT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS BODY HANDLES, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S HANDLED DOWN THE ROAD BY PUBLIC WORKS IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS. UM, I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. BUT THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. UM, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 1 31 MANNERS ON LIVE OAK? IF NOT, THE PUBLIC HEARING THEN IS CLOSED. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. [00:20:01] ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONERS? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? ROBINS. ROBINS. IS THERE A SECOND? TAHIR? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. AYE. ITEM 1 32. OKAY, I'M GONNA USE THIS. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS DEVON CRIDDLE. ITEM 1 32 IS OAK FOREST VILLAS. THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF DEL NORTE STREET AND OAK FOREST DRIVE. THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ALONG A SHARED DRIVEWAY. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THIS PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. MADAM CHAIR. CURRENTLY THE SHARE DRIVEWAY OVERLAPS AN EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT STAFF WILL REQUIRE THE RELOCATION OR ABANDONMENT OF THE EASEMENT PRIOR TO THE FINAL SUBMITTAL OF THE PLAT. I WOULD, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT LOTS SIX AND SEVEN ARE WITHIN A SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE AREA AND THE LOTS DO COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT. THE SITE IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN A FLOODPLAIN, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN APPROVED DRAINAGE PLAN AT THE FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL. ALSO, IT WILL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SEVEN PROPOSED LOTS TO MAINTAIN THE SHARE DRIVEWAY AND NOT THE E FOREST HOA. WE'VE RECEIVED MANY COMMENTS RELATED TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND WE HAVE CONSULTED WITH THE CD'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND DETERMINED THAT THE PLAT DOES RE, EXCUSE ME, CONSULTED WITH THE CITY'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND WE'VE DETERMINED THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT. MADAM CHAIR, YOU DO HAVE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED PLAT, AND THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO MADE HERSELF AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, AND JUST TO REVIEW, BECAUSE WE, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THIS, UM, AT THIS POINT, IS THIS A SHALL APPROVE ITEM? THAT IS CORRECT, YES, MA'AM. OKAY. I WANNA PERSONALLY THANK THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THEY WENT TO, THEY, THEY ALWAYS DO AN EXTREMELY THOROUGH REVIEW OF EVERY APPLICATION, BUT THEY REALLY WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND IN THIS CASE. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND, AND EXPERTISE THAT WAS WAS SPENT ON IT. UM, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL. UH, WE HAVE PROBABLY OVER 20 SPEAKERS ON THIS HERE AND VIRTUALLY, UM, MOST OF YOU HAVE SIGNED UP IN ADVANCE, WHICH IS GREAT. IF YOU HAVE SPOKEN ON THE ITEM BEFORE, YOU'LL GET ONE MINUTE PER OUR RULES. IF YOU'RE A NEW SPEAKER FOR THE FIRST TIME, YOU'LL GET TWO MINUTES. SO I'LL ASK OUR TIMEKEEPERS, I'M GONNA TRY TO ANNOUNCE IT WITH EACH SPEAKER. IF YOU JUST GIVE US A HEADS UP, WHETHER IT'S TWO OR ONE. OKAY. AND IF, IF I SAY YOU'VE ONLY GOT ONE AND YOU HAVEN'T SPOKEN BEFORE, JUST FEEL COMFORTABLE TO CORRECT ME AND I WILL BELIEVE YOU. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THE FIRST, UH, SPEAKER WHO IS A NEW SPEAKER IS BETH CALDWELL, AND I THINK SHE IS VIRTUAL. BETH CALDWELL DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. UH, JOHN NEY, ALSO VIRTUAL JOHN. NO WATNEY IS NOT PRESENT. UM, DAVID BURKE. OKAY, GREAT. YOU'RE OUR FIRST SPEAKER . AND YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS DAVID BURKE. I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH THE LAW FIRM OF HAL TOLET, AND WE REPRESENT ELIE FOREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS A COMMUNITY OF 166 LOTS. AND TO SPEAK TO HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS TO THE COMMUNITY, SINCE THE LAST MEETING, WHICH WAS ONLY ABOUT 20 DAYS AGO, 120 OF THE 166 HOMEOWNERS HAVE COME TOGETHER TO OPPOSE THIS REPL. AND THE FACT IS, WITH RESPECT TO, WITH, WITH GREAT RESPECT TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, THIS PLAT DOES VIOLATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS. THIS PLAT ON ITS FACE VIOLATES THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THAT PROHIBIT ONE SHARED DRIVEWAYS IN THE SUBDIVISION. THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS PLAINLY PROHIBIT SHARED DRIVEWAYS IS DEFINED AS A DRIVEWAY THAT CONNECTS MORE THAN ONE LOT TOGETHER. THE PLAT ON ITS FACE CONNECTS TWO LOTS. THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ALSO [00:25:01] PROHIBIT ANY GRAVEL OR PAVED SURFACE THAT WOULD CONNECT A LOT IN THE SUBDIVISION. AN EE FOREST SUBDIVISION TO A LOT OUTSIDE THE SUBDIVISION. ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT, THE PLAT CONNECTS TWO LOTS. ONE AN EE FOREST SUBDIVISION WITH A LOT OUTSIDE OF EE FOREST SUBDIVISION. AND I, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS BODY IN LEGAL HAS, HAS NOT REVIEWED IN DEPTH THE RESTRICTIVE CO THE NEW RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, I SHOULD SAY. AND I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE THIS BODY TO DO SO. THERE ARE 117 WORDS. THEY'RE ABOUT THE LENGTH OF A LONG BIRTHDAY CARD, AND THEY'RE VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND THEY MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS PLAT AS APPROVED, WOULD VIOLATE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, DULY ENACTED AND RECORDED IN THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF THIS COUNTY. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. AND I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND JUST, UH, I BELIEVE THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED SUCH DEED RESTRICTIONS. I JUST WANT TO HAVE A STATEMENT FROM LEGAL. YEAH. WE, WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS, WHICH WERE FILED ON MONDAY. OH. UM, THESE DID NOT COME IN AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A VERY STRICT, WELL, WE HAVE A VERY LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH PLANNING COMMISSION CAN REVIEW, UM, AN APPLICATION FOR A PLAT OR A REPL THAT'S LIMITED TO 30 DAYS. TODAY'S IT FOR THIS PLAT. WE CANNOT DEFER, WE CANNOT TAKE ANY, UM, OTHER DELAY ON THIS, ON THIS ITEM. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, PLAT APPLICATIONS ARE REVIEWED BY BOTH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT IS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THAT THAT APPLICATION IS FILED. IT MAY BE, WE HAVE NOT HAD TIME TO REVIEW THESE AGAIN. THEY WERE SUBMITTED ON MONDAY, OR THEY WERE FILED OF RECORD ON MONDAY. I BELIEVE WE HAVE A LETTER FROM MR. BECK, UM, DATED THE 12TH, UM, WITH THOSE, WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS, SO WE CAN LOOK AT IT ON ITS FACE. BUT THAT'S NOT PART OF THE EVALUATION THAT WAS UNDERTAKEN. WE CANNOT OPINE AT THIS POINT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THOSE WERE DONE PROPERLY, THOUGH I WOULD TRUST MR. BECK IN HIS, IN HIS PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE. BUT WE CAN'T LOOK AT THAT. IN ADDITION, UM, THIS WILL COME BACK AS A FINAL PLAT. IT WILL ALSO HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR PER PERMITTING AT HPW, AT WHICH POINT IN TIME ALSO THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO VERIFY THAT IT DOES OR DOES NOT VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS. SO OUR RECOMMENDATION ALONG WITH STAFFS IS THAT THIS MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS AS OF THE TIME IT WAS SUBMITTED. AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THANK YOU. AND DOES, IT'S A DIFFICULT ONE AND I I UNDERSTAND THAT. WE UNDERSTAND. AND, AND THANK YOU MR. BURKE FOR YOUR, YOUR COMMENTS. I THINK THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE THIS PLAT FROM SEEKING OTHER LEGAL REDRESS DOWN THE ROAD, WHICH MAY BE THE COURSE THAT YOU NEED TO TAKE. OUR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE IS THE CITY OF HOUSTON LEGAL DEPARTMENT. SO WE'RE, WE'RE BEHOLDEN TO TAKE THEIR ADVICE ON THIS, BUT THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. THANK YOU ALL. OKAY. I'M SORRY. YES, COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG. JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, UM, WHEN THE PERMIT FOR THE BUILDINGS ARE, IS SUBMITTED, THEY WILL ASK THE SAME DEED RESTRICTION QUESTION, HAVE TO PROVE IT. SO IF THESE, THESE RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THEN, THEN THEY WOULDN'T PASSED PERMIT AT THAT TIME? CORRECT. OKAY. AND AND IT MAY BE AS NOTED, THEY COULD GO TO COURT. NO, I UNDERST REPRESENTED, PLUS WE HAVE THIS OTHER STOP GAP. THIS IS TECHNICALLY DIFFICULT. TECHNICALLY THAT PROCESS IS ROLLING. THAT MAY PROVE BENEFIT. IT MAY WORK ITSELF OUT. OKAY. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. THANKS. CAN I, UH, I'D LIKE TO ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION AS WELL. YES, GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER ROBBINS, WERE THERE DEED RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE THAT WERE NOT ENFORCEABLE 'CAUSE OF THE TECHNICAL APPLICATION OF THE STATE LAW PRIOR TO THIS? OR IS THIS A BRAND NEW SET OF DEED RESTRICTIONS? THERE WERE DEED RESTRICTIONS. THEY DID NOT LIMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY IN THE WAY THAT THE AMENDMENTS PURPORT TO DO. GOT IT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CLARK? SO DON'T THEY HAVE VESTED RIGHTS, MS. NICHOLS? DON'T THEY HAVE VESTED RIGHTS AT THIS POINT? WELL, VESTED RIGHTS IS BECAUSE MY QUESTION IS, ANYONE COULD DO THIS. ANYONE COULD BUY A PIECE OF LAND, THEY COULD BRING IT INTO US FOR PLA SUBMITTAL OR FOR PUBLIC HEARING. AND THEN A GROUP OF US DECIDES, WELL, WE DON'T WANT THIS. AND WE GO AND TRY TO ENFORCE DEED RESTRICTIONS IS LAWFULLY IS THAT CORRECT? I MEAN, ANYONE COULD STOP ANYTHING AT THAT POINT. THE SPEED WITH WHICH THE SCOTT AMENDED IS, IS A [00:30:01] DESERVES A COMMENDATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THESE ARE NOT EASY TO DO. AS WE'VE SEEN, VESTED RIGHTS PROTECTS THE, THE APPLICANT FROM CHANGES MIDSTREAM. AND THE A GOVERNING, UH, EXCUSE ME, A PUBLIC ENTITY LIKE OURSELVES IS RESTRICTED TO USING, UM, OR APPLYING THE RULES THAT ARE IN PLACE AT THE TIME AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT OR A PLAT IS MADE. IT'S NOT DIRECTLY OUR RULE. THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE A PRIVATE COVENANT, BUT IT IS ALONG THOSE SAME LINES. AND IT IS REALLY WHY WE LOOK AT THE PLAT BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT IS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION IS MADE. SO WE ARE SURE WE'RE COMPLYING WITH THAT SECTION. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. ADDITIONAL COMMENT? NO, I'M SORRY. I'VE GOTTA GO CALL. WE GOT, YOU GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE BEHIND YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, THAT ARE, THAT, THAT WAS THEIR ONLY, UH, FIRST TIME SPEAKERS. SO WE'LL NOW GO WITH THE ONE MINUTE SPEAKERS. ANN HOLIC, H-O-L-I-K. MS. HOLIC, ARE YOU HERE? SHE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. CHRIS BYERS, B-Y-E-R-S NOT PRESENT. DANIELLE MUELLER. M-U-E-L-L-E-R IS DANIELLE MUELLER IS NOT PRESENT. JEFFREY MATHES, M-A-T-H-E-S. OKAY. IS THERE, IF I COULD MY, MY COMMENTS, THE ONES YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKETS ARE FROM LAST HEARING FOR WHATEVER REASON, THESE DIDN'T COME THROUGH, BUT I CAN DISTRIBUTE COPIES. YEAH, YOU'RE FINE. YEAH. ALRIGHT. AND I UNDERSTAND. I'LL HAVE A MINUTE AND APPRECIATE YOUR TIME ALL. I'M JEFFREY MATHIS. I LIVE AT 1403 DEL NORTE STREET, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS RE PLAT. UM, AGAIN HERE TO OPPOSE THIS RE PLAT AS YOU IMAGINE. UH, AND DO ASK YOU DISAPPROVE. UM, WE'VE COVERED CHAPTER 42 IN DETAIL. UNDERSTAND LEGAL REVIEW. UM, WE SPOKE ABOUT THE NEW AMENDMENT, BUT IF WE LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL D RESTRICTIONS, THEY DO DISALLOW THIS. AND WE HAVE SUBMITTED ALSO FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, WHICH IS THE BODY THAT ACTUALLY ENFORCES THESE, THESE RESTRICTIONS. THEY HAVE SENT A LETTER IN, UM, AFFIRMING THAT. AND AGAIN, THEY, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT LIVE AND BREATHE THIS. THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR DECADES REINFORCING THIS. I UNDERSTAND LEGAL HAS LIMITED TIME TO LOOK AT THAT AND FULLY RESPECT THAT. BUT AGAIN, LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THOSE THAT ENFORCE IT WILL TELL YOU THIS ALREADY DIDN'T COMPLY. THIS AMENDMENT WAS SIMPLY TO CLARIFY, MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR. UM, IF THIS DOES HAVE TO GO DOWN THE ROAD, BUT FRANKLY WE AS HOMEOWNERS WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN. THAT'S GONNA BE MONEY OUT OF OUR POCKET FIGHTING THIS WHEN IT SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE FOUGHT. UM, APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. UH, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS JESSICA REDA, REDA. MS. REDA NOT PRESENT. UM, JONAH LEE, LEE PRESENT, UH, JONNA SUMMERS. S-U-M-M-E-R-S. HI. HI. HELLO. I APOLOGIZE, I'M OUTTA BREATH RUNNING OVER HERE FROM FEDERAL COURT WHERE I HAD A HEARING NOT EVEN END BEFORE I WALKED OUT TO MAKE IT HERE. UM, SO CAN YOU MAKE IT A CONDITION OF FINAL PLATTING THAT LEGAL AGREES THAT IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS? I, I, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. I'M GONNA HAVE TO ASK HER LEGAL, GO AHEAD AND LET HER FINISH. OKAY. THAT IS MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION IS, I KNOW THAT THE RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW IS TO A APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS. AND SO CAN ONE OF THOSE CONDITIONS BE THAT AS A CONDITION TO FINAL PLATTING THAT LEGAL FINES THAT THIS REPL DOESN'T VIOLATE OUR NEW DEED RESTRICTIONS? WELL, I THINK WE'VE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION THAT WE YEAH, I KNOW SHE CAN'T CONSIDER IT. 'CAUSE AREN'T WE AT THE PRELIMINARY STAGE? SO I'M ASKING A CONDITION FOR FINAL PLATING THAT THEY LOOK AT IT BEFORE FINAL PLATING. I'LL LET LEGAL GO AHEAD. YEAH. HEY, I LIKE THE CREATIVITY I DO. UM, BUT I THINK THAT'S DIFFICULT IN THE WORLD OF PLATTING. UM, PLATTING IS A MINISTERIAL ACT. IF IT'S DETERMINED TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW AND LOCAL ORDINANCES, IT MUST BE APPROVED. THE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT GIVES TO AN APPLICANT A REASONABLE, UH, COMFORT LEVEL THAT THE FINAL PLAT WILL BE APPROVED. THAT HE'S CHECKED THESE BOXES BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN YOU START SPENDING, UH, MORE MONEY FOR ENGINEERING AND YOUR FINAL, YOUR DRAINAGE STUDIES AND STREET DRAWINGS AND SO FORTH. SO, UM, I THINK NOT, UM, I THINK IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT AWARE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS [00:35:01] AT THIS POINT AND DOESN'T CONSIDER THEM, THAT'S, UH, AN ISSUE ON THEIR SIDE. BUT I, I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT CONDITION. OKAY. OKAY. UM, THE OTHER THING IS, IS I RECEIVED SOMETHING ABOUT THE AFFIDAVIT OF OWNER AND I WOULD ASK EACH ONE OF YOU TO LOOK AT THIS AFFIDAVIT OF OWNER AND SEE IF THIS AFFIDAVIT OF OWNER, THIS LIMITED LANGUAGE HERE COMPLIES WITH SECTION 42 43. AND I GOT THIS TODAY THAT WAS SENT OVER THIS STEP 10 THAT THEY SAY THAT THIS COMPLIES WITH. AND THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AND THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IS NOT IN HERE. AND SO I ASK EACH OF YOU TO LOOK, DID, DOES THIS PIECE OF PAPER, DID THIS RIGHT HERE, COMPLY WITH SECTION 42, 40, 42, 41, AND 42 43. AND HE SAYS IN HERE, HE'S THE OWNER. AND NOW THEY'RE SAYING, OH, WELL HE'S REALLY THE EXECUTOR. HE'S NOT BEING FORTHRIGHT WITH THIS BODY, AND THIS BODY CAN DISAPPROVE BECAUSE HE HASN'T BEEN FORTHRIGHT ABOUT WHO ALL THE OWNERS ARE OF THIS PROPERTY. AND SO HE SHOULDN'T NOW BE ABLE TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THIS EARLIER FILED APPLICATION AND NOT BE ABLE TO LISTEN AND PAY ATTENTION TO OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS WHEN HE WASN'T BEING FORTHRIGHT WITH YOU GUYS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. AND HE STILL HASN'T IDENTIFIED WHO ALL THE OWNERS ARE. AND SO NOW HE'S SAYING, I CAN DO THIS AS AN EXECUTOR. WELL, THAT'S NOT WHAT'S IN ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS. AND THESE DOCUMENTS DON'T ACTUALLY COMPLY WITH 42 40, 42, 41 AND 42 43. OKAY. I THINK YOUR TIME'S UP. I WILL JUST SAY OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT REVIEWED THIS IN EXCRUCIATING DETAIL AND THEIR ANSWER TO US IS, IT'S, IT'S OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS CHRIS BRANHAM. B-R-A-N-A-M. CHRIS BRANHAM IS NOT PRESENT. LEAH SALINAS, S-A-L-I-N-A-S. HELLO. LAST TIME I WAS HERE, I ASKED FOR A TRAFFIC STUDY TO BE DONE PRIOR TO APPROVAL. AND THAT WAS DISMISSED WITH A SLIGHT CHUCKLE BY THE APPLICANT ENGINEER THAT SAID IT'S NOT NECESSARY 'CAUSE IT'S ONLY SIX HOMES. WE ARE A SINGLE ENTRANCE COMMUNITY THAT HAS BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN TO RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE WE EXCEED THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOMES FOR A SINGLE ENTRANCE. THIS IS NOT FUNNY. THIS IS NOT DISMISSIVE. I'M PROPOSING THAT YOU DO A TRAFFIC STUDY BECAUSE THIS PROPOSES 12 MORE VEHICLES IN OUR STREET PRODUCING UNNECESSARY BURDEN, ESPECIALLY ON THE TWO PEOPLE THAT ARE TAXPAYERS ON THOSE CORNERS THAT ARE GONNA NOW HAVE TO TAKE ON THOSE PEOPLE'S TRASH BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A WAY TO ACCESS THEIR TRASH COLLECTION. IT'S GONNA HAVE TO GO INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE THAT PARKS IN A TOWN HOME. THOSE HOMES ARE GONNA HAVE TO GO, THOSE CARS ARE GONNA HAVE TO COME UNDER OUR STREET. IT DOES VIOLATE OUR DEED RESTRICTION. I'M SORRY. IT IS NOT OUR PROBLEM THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN TIME TO REVIEW ALL OF OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS. WE HAVE DONE WHAT YOU HAVE ASKED. WE ARE HERE IN RESPONSE TO YOUR REQUEST FOR COMMENT. WE ARE DOING OUR PART. WE ARE TAXPAYERS. THANK YOU. YOUR TIME'S EXPIRED. NATHAN BENISH, B-E-N-E-S-H. NATHAN VANISH IS NOT PRESENT. PAIGE BRANHAM. B-R-A-N-A-M. HI THERE. I ONLY HAVE A MINUTE, SO I'M GONNA TRY TO MAKE MY THREE POINTS QUICKLY. FIRSTLY, I CANNOT WRAP MY MIND AROUND THIS SUB SUBDIVISION. IT IS A NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THEN YOU ARE NOW ALLOWING ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. TO ME, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT WITH THIS FOURTH REVISION OR MAYBE FIFTH THAT HAS COME IN, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO HAVE OUR REVISIONS, UM, RECOGNIZED. IT DOES SAY THAT, UH, EXCUSE ME. UM, BASED ON THE SHARED DRIVEWAY, THAT THERE ARE FIVE HOMES THAT WILL UTILIZE THE SHARED DRIVEWAY LOT. SIX AND SEVEN ARE NOT EVEN UTILIZING THE SHARED DRIVEWAY THAT IS ON THEIR PROPERTY. SO HOW DOES THAT NOT VIOLATE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE THAT'S GOING THROUGH? ADDITIONALLY, IT SAYS THE REASON FOR THE REPL IS TO CREATE SEVEN LOTS AND A SHARED DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT. AGAIN. LOT SEVEN AND SIX ARE IN LLE FOREST. SO HOW ARE YOU CREATING A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH SEVEN LOTS AND A SHARED DRIVEWAY WHEN TWO OF THE HOMES ARE GOING TO REMAIN MEMBERS OF LLE FOREST? HEY, I'M SORRY, YOUR TIME EXPIRED. THANK YOU. OKAY. I WAS ASKING QUESTIONS. IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET ANSWERS? WE CAN ANSWERS NOT, NOT WHILE YOU'RE SPEAKING. OKAY. WE'RE GONNA CALL ALL THE SPEAKERS. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, REBECCA BYRNE, B-Y-R-N-E. REBECCA BYRNE, NOT PRESENT. UM, RICARDO MARCHES. M-A-R-T-I-N-E-Z. RICARDO MAREZ NOT PRESENT. UH, RUSSELL MCCARTY. M-C-C-A-R-T-Y. [00:40:01] RUSSELL MCCARTY IS NOT PRESENT. SAMANTHA WEST. SAMANTHA? WEST. WEST NOT PRESENT. TANDY MIDDLETON. MIDN. TANDY. MIDDLETON NOT PRESENT. TIMOTHY MIDDLETON. HI. COME ON UP. AND ALL RIGHT. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSION. UM, MY NAME'S TIM MIDDLETON. I LIVE IN THE LOT RIGHT NEXT DOOR. UH, SOME OF THE THINGS I WANNA TALK ABOUT, UM, I'LL BE QUICK. LAST MEETING. THE, UM, THE APPLICANT INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT HOUSES ON LOT SIX AND SEVEN IS STAYING PUT AND THAT THE, UH, THE THIRD DRIVER WOULD NOT BE USED BY THE CURRENT LOT, LOT SIX AND SEVEN. UM, I THINK THIS VIOLATES OUR DE DESCRIPTION NUMBER ONE AS WRITTEN, WHICH SAYS ALL LOTS IN SUBDIVISION EXCEPT FOR THE HEARING ACCEPTED SHALL BE USED FOR RESIDENCE PURPOSES ONLY, NOT RESIDENTIAL RESIDENCES. THEN WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY DESCRIBES THAT WORD AS A PLACE OR LOT IN THIS WHERE ONE ACTUALLY LIVES. DOES THAT SHARED DRIVEWAY ACTUALLY SERVICE THE LOT? SIX? IT DOES NOT. AS WE'VE HEARD, AND WE FIND THIS VIOLATES THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. AND I WONDER LEGAL, HOW WHAT YOU WOULD READ THAT STATEMENT, HOW YOU READ NUMBER ONE. SECOND ONE IS, UM, THIS REQUIRES DETENTION. SOMEBODY'S SMART. SHOW ME THAT MAP. WHERE'S DETENTION ON THAT LOT? THERE IS SEVEN LOTS. THERE'S NO ACTUAL GROUND SPACE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE PUTTING DETENTION. THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO. AND THEN ONE THING THAT I THINK IS JUST A COP OUT, I'M SORRY TO HAVE TO SAY IT. LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS HAD NOT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE THE NEW RESTRICTIONS AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO THE CURRENT APPLICATION THAT WAS A LETTER DIRECTLY TO OUR COUNCILWOMAN. THAT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S LIVES AND THEIR PROPERTY VALUE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. AND WE'LL TRY TO PICK UP THESE QUESTIONS AT THE END. TOM HUGHES, HUG HS. TOM HUGHES IS NOT PRESENT. AND THEN LARRY PORTERFIELD, THANK YOU FOR HEARING US. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY MOST OF US ARE SPEAKING OUT OPPOSED TO THIS. THIS IS A VIOLATION OF OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS, WHETHER THEIR LEGAL BELIEVES IT OR NOT, OR HAS HAD TIME TO REVIEW IT. BUT IT'S AN UNFAIR SYSTEM TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO CHANGE AND CHANGE AND CHANGE AND CHANGE RIGHT UP TO THE LAST MINUTE. AND YET THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S AFFECTED CAN'T CHANGE YET. WE HAVE CHANGED OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THEY WILL AFFECT FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS AND TO APPROVE THIS IS GONNA RESULT IN TIME AND MONEY SPENT FIGHTING IT. SO THE BEST THING TO DO WOULD'VE BEEN TO DECLINE IT TWO WEEKS AGO WHEN THE APPLICATION DID NOT COMPLY. MM-HMM . RATHER THAN DEFER IT. SO THE BEST THING TO DO NOW IS TO DECLINE IT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A RUBBER STAMP FOR THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. YOU CAN TAKE ALL THIS INFORMATION AND SAY, NO, WE DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE APPROVED. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE I HAVE CALLED OR ANYONE NEW WHO WANTS TO SPEAK WHO WASN'T CALLED? OH YES. COME, COME FORWARD. YOU CALL ME. PARDON ME, STEVE. MARKER. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CALLED ME, DID I DON'T THINK WE DID, BUT GO AHEAD. STATE, STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN. UH, STEVE MARKER. I I DID FILE IN ADVANCE. OKAY. I'M SORRY. WE MISSED YOU SOMEHOW. OH, OKAY. OKAY, GO AHEAD. OKAY, SO I, I JUST WANNA SPEAK TO INTENT. I DUNNO IF THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED. , THAT WAS NOT ME. , THAT'S MY KIDS. SORRY. SO I IMAGINE IF YOU HAD IN 1955 WRITTEN THIS, NO STRUCTURE SHALL BE ERECTED OR PLACED ON ANY RESIDENTIAL PLOT OTHER THAN ONE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ONE PRIVATE GARAGE. NOW IMAGINE THAT YOU WERE, I WAS GONNA ADDRESS DRIVEWAYS, BUT I DIDN'T. WOULD I HAVE WRITTEN YES, I WANT MULTIFAMILY SHARED DRIVEWAYS OR WOULD I IN THE SPIRIT? AND THE INTENT OF THIS MESSAGE SAID, NO, I WANT A SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE USE DRIVEWAY. ESPECIALLY IF YOU ALSO WROTE THE PHRASE BEFORE THAT, WHICH IS ALL LOTS SHALL BE USED FOR RESIDENTS, OR YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD THIS RESIDENTS SINGULAR USE. ONLY THAT THOSE ARE TWO STATEMENTS IN OUR D RESTRICTIONS THAT REFLECT INTENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT AND VOTED ON IT. AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN TRANSLATE THIS INFER THAT NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, OH, THAT'S NOT WHAT IT REALLY MEANS. IT REALLY MEANS A SHARED DRIVEWAY IS, IS WELCOME. SO PLEASE CONSIDER THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS AND THAT SINCE NINETEEN FIFTY FIVE, ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY PLUS DRIVEWAYS HAVE COMPLIED WITH THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 32? OKAY, LAST CALL. IF HEARING NO [00:45:01] RESPONSE, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND, UM, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND CONFER A LITTLE BIT. I DO WANNA, UM, MAKE THE POINT ABOUT DETENTION ON THE QUESTION, WHERE IS DETENTION? THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET IN THE PROJECT. IT WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE, UH, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IN THE PERMITTING STAGE. THERE WILL BE A PLAN REQUIRED AND THEN THAT QUESTION WILL BE ANSWERED. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERS. UM, AND I WANNA ALSO, AND I'LL ASK MS. MICKELSON, IT, IT'S NOT THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME TO REVIEW THE RESTRICTIONS. IT'S THAT THE, THE NEW DEED RESTRICTIONS WERE NOT IN PLACE AT THE STAGE OF THE APPLICATION WHEN WE REVIEW THEM. AND SO THERE IS POSSIBLY A VESTING ISSUE. IT'S, IT'S NOT THE THE LE WHETHER OR NOT I HOPE YOU, YOU PREVAIL IN YOUR DEED RESTRICTIONS IF, IF, YOU KNOW, THAT MAKES YOU HAPPY. BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN MINCE OUT AT THIS TABLE. WE ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO DO IT. WE RELY ON OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE CAN SAY? WE'RE NOT, I DON'T THINK THAT WE ARE OVERLOOKING YOUR DEED RESTRICTIONS. NO. WE'RE TAKING THE ADVICE OF OUR LEGAL COUNSEL AND THIS IS WHAT THEY SAY. NO, I I, I WOULD AGREE. AND, AND THAT'S A BETTER WAY OF SAYING IT IS, IS NOT SO MUCH, ALTHOUGH WE DIDN'T, LIKE I SAY, I MEAN THIS CAME IN YESTERDAY, SO THAT IS A VERY DIFFICULT TIME TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT, UM, ORIGINAL RESTRICTIONS AND SO FORTH. BUT AS MENTIONED, BECAUSE OF THE RULES IN STATE LAW THAT WE LOOK AT APPLICATIONS UNDER THE RULES THAT ARE IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF THAT APPLICATION, THAT DICTATES TO US WHAT COMES IN ON A TITLE REPORT. THEY SUBMIT THAT AND THEN WE PULL, WE PULL FULL TITLE. THESE WEREN'T THERE. AND SO THESE, THESE OBVIOUSLY EVERYBODY KNOWS CAME IN LATER. UM, SO NO, THAT IT'S, IT'S A VERY TOUGH SITUATION. I I, I TOTALLY AGREE. I YEAH, WE WISH WE COULD BE MORE ANY SIDE THIS RESPONSIVE COMMISSIONER, TAHIR, MADAM CHAIR, UM, QUESTION FOR OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. UM, THEY DO HAVE A RECOURSE LEGALLY. I MEAN, THEY CAN TAKE IT TO DISTRICT COURT AND CHALLENGE THIS THING. IT'S NOT LIKE DEAD END. UH, OF COURSE THEN THERE'S ANOTHER STEP OF PERMITTING WHERE A LOT, LOT OF THESE THINGS WILL BE CAUGHT. CORRECT. BUT, BUT YOU CAN CHALLENGE THIS DECISION OF THE COMMISSION, UH, IN A COURT OF LAW, RIGHT? OR, OR, OR THE APPLICABILITY OF THESE RESTRICTIONS TO HIS INTENDED USE. YES. YES. AND AS WE'VE NOTED BEFORE, IN COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A REPL, EVEN IF SOMEONE THINKS IT VIOLATES THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, DOESN'T OVERRULE DEED RESTRICTIONS. BUT THE ANSWER IS TO HAVE THAT JUDICIAL DECISION TO TELL US THAT THAT IS APPLICABLE TO AN APPLICATION ALREADY IN PROGRESS. OKAY. OKAY. COMMISSIONER GARZA. UM, MS. MICKELSON, I JOTTED DOWN JUST A COUPLE OF, UH, QUERIES SO THAT WE CAN JUST ANSWER THEM. CAN YOU HEAR ME? SO THAT WE CAN JUST ANSWER THEM AND MAKE SURE THAT WE GET, WE GET EVERYONE THE INFORMATION THAT THEY WANTED. SO, UH, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS MENTIONED A NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I CAN TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME OR SHALL I LIST 'EM ALL OUT FOR YOU? THERE'S JUST A FEW. SO, NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT WAS ONE, RIGHT? UM, A SECOND WAS, UH, THE EXECUTOR WHO WAS BASICALLY ACTING AS OWNER. UM, AND IN MY MIND THAT GIVES THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACT CAPABLY AS AN OWNER. BUT THAT'S FOR YOU TO DECIDE. UM, WE TALKED ABOUT DETENTION AND NEW RESTRICTIONS. UM, UH, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS MENTIONED THAT THE APPLICANT KEPT CHANGING. UH, BUT THAT IS OF COURSE, AS WE KNOW HERE AROUND THIS HORSESHOE THAT THAT IS TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE AND THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. AND THEN THE LAST SPEAKER, I BELIEVE SPOKE ABOUT INTENT VERSUS ACTUAL LANGUAGE. SO THOSE ARE THE, THE FOUR ITEMS THAT I GLEANED FROM THESE QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT ANSWER ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS. IF YOU DON'T MIND, I MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER ALL OF THEM, AND I WOULD PROBABLY DEFER TO PLANNING STAFF AS FAR AS NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT I'LL NOTE THAT THERE'S A STREET THAT GOES UP THAT WAY TO PARK, IS IT PARK LANE? PINE, PINE MOUNT. PINE MOUNT. I KNEW IT BEGAN WITH A P. UM, I'LL, I'LL ASK PLANNING STAFF TO ADDRESS THAT. THERE, THERE, AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, THERE'S NOT A PROHIBITION AGAINST THIS TYPE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE. UM, AS YOU NOTED, AS FAR AS CHANGES TO PLATS, UM, THE APPLICANT MUST COMPLY WITH OUR ORDINANCE. THAT'S THE TEST. SO IF STAFF NOTICES ON AN APPLICATION THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS AMISS, THEY WILL MARK IT UP. [00:50:01] HE HAS THAT OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK THAT'S EMBODIED IN STATE LAW. UM, WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM NOTICE OF WHAT'S WRONG AND THEY, THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING IT BACK. AND THEN WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THAT WITHIN JUST A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. SO AGAIN, THE 30 DAYS THAT SET BY STATE LAW, UM, I KNOW THAT MS. WOODS LOOKED CAREFULLY AT THE QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP AND THE PROBATE DOCUMENTS AS FAR AS HIM BEING THE APPLICANT SLASH OWNER BEING, UM, THE INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF HIS MOTHER. AND IT WAS GIVEN VERY BROAD AUTHORITY WITHIN THAT REGARD WITHIN THAT DOCUMENT TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE SUBJECT OF THE ESTATE, EXCUSE ME, SUBJECT TO THEN ULTIMATE DISPERSAL OF ANY PROCEEDS. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY PLAN TO SELL THIS. I DO NOT KNOW. WE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T INQUIRE INTO THEIR INTENT. UM, I'D ASK MS. WOODS IF SHE HAS ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD ON THAT. AND ALSO TO MAYBE INTENT OF, UM, FOLLOWING INTENT OF DEED RESTRICTIONS. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF DEED RESTRICTION LAWS THAT THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT HAS HELD, THAT YOU HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL AND INTERPRET THE LANGUAGE IN DEED RESTRICTIONS VERY STRINGENTLY. SO, UM, BUT I'LL DEFER TO MS. WOODS' EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE IN THAT REGARD. IF SHE HAS MORE TO ADD. MS. WOODS, GO AHEAD AND, AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD. THIS IS YOLANDA WOODS. I'M YOLANDA WOODS. I'M A ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY WITH THE CITY OF HOUSTON LEGAL DEPARTMENT. ONE OF THE THINGS AS FAR AS THE WILL OF MS. DORIS HARGROVE, IT DID NAME MR. RANDY HARGROVE AS THE EXECUTOR, AND SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT ALONG WITH WHATEVER POWERS ARE NORMALLY GRANTED TO SUCH THAT HE WOULD HAVE THE POWER TO SELL PROPERTY, THE POWER TO MAKE NON-PRO RATTA DISTRIBUTIONS, AND THE POWER TO PARTITION ALL OR PART OF, UM, ANY INTEREST AND EQUALIZE THE DIFFERENCES WITH CASH OR OTHER PROPERTY WITHIN THE EXECUTOR'S VALUATION. SO HE HAS THIS POWER, UM, AND DOES NOT, AND WHATEVER HE DOES IS BINDING ON THE OTHER PARTIES TO THE WILL. SO HE HAS THIS BROAD POWER TO DO THIS. SO HE IS, HE DOES MEET THE OWNERSHIP NECESSARY TO REPL OR, UM, DISTRIBUTE TO DO WHATEVER WITH THIS PROPERTY THAT'S GRANTED TO HIM WITHIN HIS MOTHER'S WILL. AS FAR AS THE INTENT OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, WE LOOK AT THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE PAPER AND THAT'S WHAT WE BASE OUR DECISIONS ON. WHAT DO THE RESTRICTIONS STATE? BECAUSE ONE PERSON MAY SAY THIS, THE DEVELOPER INTENDED THIS, WHILE SOMEBODY ELSE MAY INTERPRET THE INTENT DIFFERENTLY, WE LOOK AT WHAT IS SAID ON THE FOUR CORNERS AND THAT'S WHAT WE FOLLOW. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER MS. MICKELSON OR MS. WOOD? COMMISSIONER ROBBINS, UM, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS SUGGESTED THAT WE MAKE A CONDITION FOR, UM, FOR FINALIZING THE PLAT THAT LEGAL FINDS THERE'S NO VIOLATION OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. AND YOU SUGGESTED THAT WE SHOULDN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS SPENDING MONEY WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT THEY WILL RECEIVE A FINAL PLAT IF THEY GO THROUGH THE NORMAL STEPS. BUT IN THIS CASE WHERE THERE'S A CON THERE IS THIS HANGING OUT THERE THAT'S OBVIOUS. YOU SAID THEY SHOULD BE AWARE OF IT. IS IT NOT OUR, I MEAN, DON'T WE HAVE A DUTY TO FLAG IT FOR ANY, ANY, ANYBODY REVIEWING THE APPLICATION AND THE NEXT INTERMEDIATE STEPS AND TO PUT THE APPLICANT ON FORMAL NOTICE THAT THIS IS NOT A NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE AN INVESTMENT OF THAT CAPITAL IS WITHOUT RISK. AND I THINK IF YOU WANNA MAKE THAT A CONDITION OF, OF THAT, WE PLACE SOMETHING IN THE CPC 1 0 1 THAT THE APPLICANT BE ADVISED TO LOOK INTO THIS PRIOR TO FILING A, A FINAL PLAT, THAT'S CERTAINLY A CONDITION THAT COULD BE ADDED. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG? UM, KIM, UH, PLATS LAST FOREVER. SO THIS COULD HAVE BEEN RE PLATTED FIVE YEARS AGO. AND IF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WERE [00:55:01] FILED BETWEEN THEN AND THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT WAS FILED, DID DEED RESTRICTIONS HAVE A RETRO, DO THEY HAVE PRIORITY OVER WHEN THAT PLAT WAS DONE ORIGINALLY? WOW. I, I THINK THE RETROACTIVITY OF THESE RESTRICTIONS IS PART OF WHAT IS AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE. AND, UM, NOT A JUDGE VERSED IN THIS, IN THIS ISSUE. I DON'T KNOW IF MS. WOODS HAS ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT, BUT THAT IS AGAIN, PART OF THE REASON WHY WE LOOK AT IT BASED ON THE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND DOCUMENTS THAT ARE IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION. BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS PLATS ARE DONE MANY YEARS IN ADVANCE, RIGHT? AND THINGS CAN CHANGE. SO IF A PLAT WAS DONE A LONG TIME AGO, THE PLAT WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY ANY FUTURE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE PLACED ON ALL THE PROPERTY. OR WOULD THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS THEN, SINCE THEY WERE APPROVED BY A GROUP, HAVE IMPACT ON A PREVIOUSLY, UM, APPROVED PLAT? I SUSPECT THAT THAT IS A VERY FACT SPECIFIC QUESTION AND IT MIGHT HINGE MORE ON THE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT WAS PLATTED VERSUS WHAT WAS CHANGED IN THE RESTRICTIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING MS. WOODS OR CAN RESPOND IN MORE DETAIL IS YOUR QUESTION. IF THIS REPL WERE DONE FIVE YEARS AGO, BUT THEY HAD NOT ACTUALLY STARTED THE CONSTRUCTION UNTIL FIVE YEARS LATER AND IN THE INTERVENING TIME THESE NEW RESTRICTIONS HAD BEEN FILED. RIGHT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD NOT AGAIN, GO AND REVIEW RIGHT. AND CHANGE THE, SO THE REPL WOULD STAND. BUT JUST AS THEY CAN GO TO A COURT NOW TO TRY TO, UM, ARGUE THAT THE NEW RESTRICTIONS ARE APPLICABLE, IF THIS REPL IS APPROVED TODAY, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO SO. IF IT WASN'T, IF IT WAS APPROVED FIVE YEARS AGO, AND THIS HAPPENED, WHAT I'M ACTUALLY GETTING AT THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT, WHEN THEY GO TO PERMIT THIS PROJECT, THEY'RE ALSO REQUIRED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROJECT DOESN'T, UM, VIOLATE DE RESTRICTIONS, VIOLATE DE RESTRICTIONS. SO THIS TECHNICALLY COULD HAVE HAPPENED IN GREATER THAN A A WEEK AND, AND WE WOULDN'T GET IT BACK, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION. SO, AND THIS IS QUITE FREQUENT. I MEAN, PEOPLE PUT PLATS ON PROPERTY MANY, MANY YEARS IN ADVANCE. UM, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, JUST OUT OF MY OWN EDIFICATION, MAINLY IT WOULD VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS. BUT TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS OF PRIORITY OVER THE APPROVED PLAT, UH, AGAIN, VERY SPECIFIC CASE BY CASE, BUT UM, TECHNICALLY WHEN YOU END FOR A PERMIT, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO APPROVE IT. AND SO WHERE WOULD THAT GO AND WHAT WOULD THAT PROCEDURE BE? 'CAUSE WHAT I'M TRYING TO ALSO DO IS, WHILE IT'S NOT FIVE YEARS OR 10 YEARS, IT COULD BE THAT WHAT HAPPENS IN THREE MONTHS. RIGHT? RIGHT. SO, AND I, I WOULD EXPECT THAT THEN THAT REPL WOULD COME BACK IN FOR ANOTHER REPL THAT WOULD CONFORM. SO THE DEALERSHIPS WOULD THEN HAVE PRIORITY OVER THE PLA. RIGHT. A AS I MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, APPROVAL OF A REPL DOESN'T VIOLATE ANY APPLICABLE RIGHT. DEED RESTRICTIONS OR DOESN'T, DOESN'T VOID OR OVERRIDE THOSE BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. 'CAUSE I THINK THIS COMMISSION'S RESPONSIBILITY ISN'T SO MUCH THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY, BUT THE SHARED PUBLIC SPACES THAT THEY ACCESS. AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING REALLY HARD TO GET SHARED DRIVEWAYS AND MAKE SIDEWALKS SAFER AND STREET SAFER. AND SO OUR, MY TYPICAL PRESENCE WOULD BE WHAT'S BEST FOR THE COMMUNITY. STREETS DON'T BELONG TO THE PERSON WHO LIVES AT THE ADDRESS THE STREETS IN FRONT OF. THEY BELONG TO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. AND SO LONG AS, UM, OUR SYSTEM IS IN PLACE THAT WOULD SEND THIS BACK TO US MOST LIKELY, UM, AT THE TIME OF, UH, PERMIT, UM, AS WELL AS OTHER RECOURSES, UM, IT, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT, UM, THIS IS NOT THE END NOR DOES IT, UM, UM, CHANGE ANYTHING THAT, UH, PEOPLE HAVE A CONCERN WITH. 'CAUSE THIS ISN'T WHAT GETS IT BUILT. THEY'LL HAVE TO DO THEIR UNDERGROUND ATTENTION AND ALL THAT STUFF WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED. OKAY. OKAY. QUESTION DIRECT YOUR WALLACE BROWN. YEP. I, I THINK I WANNA PLAY OFF YOUR QUESTION FOR A MOMENT AND JUST MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THIS. 'CAUSE I SHOULD KNOW THIS, BUT I DON'T, I I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS WITH THE NEW, WITH THE NEW DEED RESTRICTIONS, WHEN IT GOES TO PERMIT, IF THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION THAT VIOLATES THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, HOW WILL IT BE HANDLED AT THE PERMITTING STAGE? [01:00:01] WELL, THERE'S OF COURSE THE UNWORN STATEMENT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TO SIGN THAT WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DO DOES NOT VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS. AND IF HE SIGNS THIS OR SHE SIGNS THIS AND THEY DO VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND IT'S BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THEN A PERMIT, WHATEVER IS REQUESTING TO BE PERMITTED, MAY NOT BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE BEING VIOLATED. YEAH, I'M THINKING PER SPECIFICALLY FOR THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE PERMITTED. YES. A SHARED DRIVEWAY ACTUALLY HAS TO MORE COMPLICATIONS BECAUSE IT A OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? SO YES, COMMISSIONER VICTOR. SO PLAYING OFF ON THAT, UH, THE, THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT THEN. UM, SO THEY, THE APPLICANT COULD POTENTIALLY SIGN OFF THAT THEY DON'T RE YOU KNOW, THEY MEET THE DEED REQUIREMENTS. UM, HOW WOULD THE NEIGHBORHOOD KNOW? SO THEY HAVE TO BE ON TOP OF IT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY LET THE PUBLIC WORKS KNOW HOW DOES THAT PROCESS WORK? BECAUSE HOW WOULD THEY KNOW WHEN THEY'RE FILING FOR THE PERMIT? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE COULD AS ON CPC FORM, WE COULD AT LEAST LET THE PERMIT DEPARTMENT KNOW AND FLAG IT SO THAT, AND THAT WOULD WORK, RIGHT? YES. SO THE PERMIT DEPARTMENT WOULD KNOW. I THINK THAT'S, YEAH. OKAY. MM-HMM . AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION, WHICH IS I FEEL I REALLY FEEL THE PAIN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, BUT WHEN WE DO MINIMUM S SIZE LOT APPLICATIONS, IT IS WHAT COMES IN IN TIME. SO IF THE MINIMUM LOTS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT HAVE THE MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS, WE TAKE THE APPLICATION AS IT COMES IN AND THE WEEK LATER SOMEBODY FILES FOR THE APPLICATION AND THE PROCESS STARTS. RIGHT? BUT THE FIRST APPLICATION WE GET IS AS IS BASED ON THOSE FACTS. UM, IT'S SO WEIRD THAT IN DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. THE DEED RESTRICTIONS TAKE PER, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN AMEND THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THE, AND THE APPLICANT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS BECAUSE THEY DID START THE PROCESS BEFORE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WERE AMENDED. UM, SO IT'S A VERY GRAY AREA, I FEEL. UM, NOT THAT WE CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, BUT I, I JUST WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT IT'S, IT'S DIFFICULT IN DEED RESTRICTIONS IS THE APPLICATION THAT CAME IN THAT DID NOT HAVE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AT THE TIME. UH, BUT NOW ONCE YOU AMENDED IT, IT'S JUST DIFFICULT FOR US TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. IT'S NOT SIMILAR TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. RIGHT. AND I THINK SOMEBODY MADE THE POINT THAT IT'S VERY HARD TO AMEND DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD DID YEOMAN'S WORK. YES. KUDOS, KUDOS TO THIS. GET THIS DONE AND IT, BUT IT'S JUST, WE HAVE TO HAVE A, YOU KNOW, A CUTOFF TIME. COMMISSIONER CLARK. YEAH. TO PLAY OFF OF COMMISSIONER VICTOR'S COMMENT, I SYMPATHIZE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS ALWAYS A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION WHEN WE HEAR, UM, ITEMS LIKE THIS. BUT I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IS WHAT WERE WE LOOKING AT DURING THE APPLICATION TIME? NOT WHAT'S COME BEFORE US TWO DAYS IN ADVANCE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THIS WON'T, IT, IT'S GONNA GO FORWARD, YOU KNOW, WITH FLYING COLORS, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO DO IT WHATEVER THEY WANT TO. IT IS JUST THE FIRST STEP AND WE CAN'T, I DON'T KNOW, IN MY OPINION, WE CAN'T SET A PRECEDENT OF SAYING, WELL, IF YOU BRING SOMETHING TO US, AND I KNOW IT WAS A LOT OF HARD WORK, SO I'M NOT DOWNPLAYING THE HARD WORK OF GETTING ALL OF YOU GUYS TO TO AGREE. BUT IF WE START THAT, WHERE DO WE STOP THAT? I MEAN, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE APPLICATION AND WHAT IS IN PLACE WHEN WE RECEIVE THAT APPLICATION. THEN WHEN IT GOES TO THE NEXT STEP, WHETHER THAT BE FINAL PLA UH, PLAT OR WHETHER IT BE PERMITTING AT THAT POINT, THEN THAT NOTE ON THE PLAT, WHICH IS A GREAT IDEA THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, NOTIFY PUBLIC WORKS OR WHOEVER THAT, HEY, YOU NEED TO WATCH OUT FOR THIS. I THINK THAT THAT'S WHERE WE DO THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S JUSTICE. UM, I THINK, I THINK OTHERWISE WE'RE KIND OF BEING JUDGE AND JURY FOR ALL THIS, AND WE'RE NOT REALLY JUDGE AND JURY. WE'RE HERE JUST TO SAY WHAT YOUR SETBACKS CAN BE AND WHAT YOUR RIGHT AWAY CAN BE AND WHAT YOUR LOT SIZE, UM, IS THAT OKAY? I MEAN, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT HERE TO BE JUDGE AND JURY FOR EVERYTHING, BUT, UM, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. AND, AND I KNOW IT, IT'S FRUSTRATING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE CANNOT FIX THIS FOR YOU HERE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT I BELIEVE THERE WILL BE REDRESS DOWN THE ROAD. IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT THIS BODY IS PROBABLY NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO YOUR, TO YOUR REQUESTS THIS TIME. COMMISSIONER JONES? YES. THANK YOU, MR. MADAM. CHAIR. UH, I MISSED THE MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO OUT [01:05:01] OF TOWN, SO I'M PICKING THIS UP FRESH. UH, I WANT TO COMMENT TO A, A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE BY ONE OF, UH, THE SPEAKERS ABOUT A TRAFFIC STUDY NOW THAT WOULD BE PRODUCED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THE TIA TRAFFIC IMP IMPLICATION OR IMPACT STUDY. UM, BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF IT TO ME SAYS, WITH THIS DEED RESTRICTIONS, NOW I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH 'EM. I BUY LAND, I DEVELOP, I KNOW THAT PROCESS. THEY HAVE TO STAND UP TO THE TEST. IF THEY STAND UP TO THE TEST MEETING, MORE THAN LIKELY POTENTIAL COURT OF LAW OR, OR WHATEVER THE MEANS NECESSARY, UH, THEN THEY COULD PREVAIL. BUT THAT'S NOT FOR FORTUNATELY, THIS GROUP TO BE THAT COURTROOM, SO TO SPEAK. UH, I THINK THAT HAS TO COME DOWN LATER. I DO EMPATHIZE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I GET WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. UM, IT'S JUST A FOCUS OF, YOU KNOW, LIMITATIONS AND TIME. BUT I WOULD SAY BE PATIENT, BE PERSEVERANT AND, AND, UH, SEE THEN HOW THIS PLAYS OUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SEGLER. UM, YES, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, UM, PLANNING STAFF. IS OAK FOREST DRIVE DE, IS IT A DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY TO PINE MOUNT OR DOES IT STOP THERE? IT IS A DEDICATED RIGHT OF TO PINE WAY TO PINE, YES, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU. OH, MADAM CHAIR. YES. UM, COMMISSIONER VAR WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. OKAY. YES. COMMISSIONER VAR. HELLO? YES. UM, I HAVE A TECHNICAL QUESTION. I WAS LOOKING AT THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PAGE 30 OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS PACKET AND NOTED THAT THIS, THIS POINT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE BEEN RAISED YET. UM, ABOUT THE 18 FOOT, SORRY, WE, WE'VE LOST YOU ABOUT THE 18 FOOT SHARED DRIVEWAY. I KEEP GETTING MUTED. I'M SORRY. AND EVERY TIME IT MUTES IT TAKES LIKE ANOTHER 30 SECONDS TO UNMUTE. OKAY. WE, YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE 18 FOOT. YES. SO ON PAGE 30, THEY'RE, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, UM, THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT. I'M SORRY, THE D YES, THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SHARED DRIVEWAY TO INTERSECT WITH THE PUBLIC STREET THAT HAS A ROADWAY WITH 18 FEET OR MORE. UM, AND THEN THERE'S A PICTURE AND THEY'RE SHOWING THAT IT'S EIGHT FEET OR LESS AT THE NARROWEST PART OF THE ROADWAY ADJACENT TO THE TRACK. AND I, I JUST HADN'T HEARD ANYBODY ADDRESS THIS UNLESS I MISSED IT. UM, AND I WOULD JUST, UM, APPRECIATE, UM, EITHER MS. MICKELSON OR, OR SOMEONE WHO STOOD OPINE ON THAT. I, I THINK MAYBE MR. CRIDDLE CAN ANSWER THAT. DEVIN? YES. UM, SO THERE'S A CONDITION ON THE CCPC 1 0 1 FOR, UH, THE APPLICANT TO COORDINATE WITH HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS. THERE'LL BE REQUIRED TO MAKE RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENTS, UH, AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING. OKAY. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT'S REFERENCED ON THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM. GOT IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG, UM, ONE OF THE RESIDENTS AND SPEAKERS GAVE ME AN IDEA, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE THAT, UM, THE PLAT HAS A NOTE THAT ANY TIME, ANY PERMIT OR ANY APPLICATION RELATED TO IT, THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S OFFICE IS NOTIFIED? THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO REACH OUT AND TALK TO THE COMMUNITY AS WELL, SINCE OBVIOUSLY THE COUNCIL MEMBER HAS SOME INTEREST. JUST A NOTE ON THE SYSTEM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OR, I, I THINK WE HAD A SUGGESTION TO NOTIFY PUBLIC, WELL, PUBLIC PERMITTING, PERMITTING, AND THEN WE COULD ASK PERMITTING TO NOTIFY RATHER THAN JUST THE POINT THAT THAT, THAT THERE COULD BE A CLEAR COMMUNICATION THAT, THAT WAY, ESPECIALLY IF IT HAPPENS SOON. UM, COUNCIL MEMBER WHO'S CLEARLY CONCERNED, WILL BE INFORMED, WOULD BE ALSO KEPT IN UP TO DATE. AND I, I THINK IS MR. BROWN IS HERE FOR PUBLIC WORKS. CORRECT. HI, COME FORWARD. LET'S JUST MAKE SURE YOU'RE ON THE RECORD HERE. IF YOU'D GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JOHN BROWN. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC WORKS. THANK YOU. AND HE'S FILLING IN FOR, FOR MR. SMITH FOR WHILE HE'S ON VACATION. UM, BUT PUBLIC WORKS IS VERY AWARE OF THIS SITUATION, THE PERMITTING SECTION. WE'LL KNOW. ARE YOU, I JUST SORT OF WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE UNDERSTANDING SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. YES, MA'AM. UM, THE PROTOCOLS WITH PERMITTING AND HOUSTON PERMITTING CENTER AND THE CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE ARE, ARE VERY DISTINCT. AND NORMALLY IN MOST SCENARIOS, THERE IS A RECIPE OR AN ANSWER IN AN ORDINANCE OR A CODE OR SOMETHING. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF FINDING THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT TO DEFINE IT. BUT [01:10:01] I FEEL LIKE THAT IS COVERED. OKAY. AND IN TERMS OF THIS COMMUNICATION, YOU KNOW, EITHER TO A COUNSEL OFFICE OR SOMETHING, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD, I WOULD HAVE TO GET WITH THEIR OFFICE AND SEE HOW THAT, HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO, HOW THAT.IS CONNECTED YEAH. IF IT'S DONE SO, AND HOW IT'S DONE. SO, BUT I'M, I WOULD FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT THERE IS A REPOSITORY OR CHECKS AND BALANCES. YES. BUT I'LL FIND OUT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS? THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONER JONES? YES, THANK YOU AGAIN. UH, JUST DO WANNA COMMENT HERE ON THE CPC 1 0 1 CONDITIONS AND ONE OF WHICH IS CENTER POINT. UH, AND CENTER POINT, UH, I'LL JUST SAY HAS A BIG STICK. YOU KNOW, THERE'S OVER, UM, OVERHEAD POWER AND THEY SAY GAS, GAS, I'M SURE IS UNDERGROUND. THOSE ARE CLEARLY TIGHT CONDITIONS THAT, THAT CENTERPOINT WILL REGULATE, UH, HOW THEY WANT PAVING OVER. IF THEY WANT PAVING OVER, THAT'S A CONVERSATION WITH THEM. UH, BUT IT IS A NOTE HERE, AND THAT WILL BE A REQUIREMENT, UH, GOING FORWARD, WHETHER IT'S BACK THROUGH OUR GROUP OR THROUGH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, UM, EVEN, YOU KNOW, ARCHITECT, UH, A PERMITTING CENTER FOR CONSTRUCTION. SO RECOGNIZING THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE STILL OTHER OPPORTUNITIES AND THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET. ABSOLUTELY. ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY, CHAIR? YES. COMMISSIONER HINES? UH, HERE WE, THIS IS A SHALL APPROVE, RIGHT? YES, IT IS. OKAY. UM, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, UM, CAPTAIN CHAIR. YES. WHO SAID THAT? OH. OH, YOU, UH, SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT STAFF COULD PUT SOME TYPE OF HOLD ON THE PROJECT UNTIL SOME OF THESE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED UNTIL WE FIND SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO ADDRESS THESE SITUATIONS. UH, STAFF COULD PUT A HOLD, UM, ON THE PROJECT, ON THE, ON THE PERMITTING SIDE. ON THE PERMITTING SIDE. ON THE PERMITTING SIDE, YEAH. WOULD, WOULD THAT BE A NOTE? OR JUST TO CLARIFY, IT WON'T BE A HOLD, BUT WE COULD, IT COULD BE A NOTE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY PROPERTY SIX AND SEVEN, AND I'M LOOKING TOWARDS, UH, THE LEGAL COUNSEL THAT ON PROPERTY SIX AND SEVEN, WE COULD PUT A PERMITTING HOLD IN, WHICH WE COULD SAY, INFORM COUNCIL MEMBER ABOUT THIS. SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OKAY. I, I HAVE SEVERAL OLD BUILDINGS AND, UM, TRUST ME, THERE'S A LOT OF NOTES THEY CAN PUT IN THERE. 'CAUSE ANYTIME WE TRY TO DO ANYTHING, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN RESOLVED OR LITTLE THINGS. SO, UM, THOSE NOTES WORK REALLY WELL. OKAY. SO I, I THINK THE STAFF UNDERSTANDS KIND OF WHERE, WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS THAT WE WANNA BUILD IN THESE NOTIFICATIONS, IN THIS COMMUNICATION, IN, IN THE PROCESS AS IT GOES FORWARD. BECAUSE THERE ARE A HUGE NUMBER OF, OF HOOPS THAT HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, BE BE JUMPED THROUGH BEFORE ANYTHING HAPPENS WITH THIS. UM, OKAY. WELL, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE A MOTION OF SOME KIND? AND I THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO INCLUDE IN THE MOTION SOME OF THE COMMENTS, SOME OF THE NOTES THAT WE, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. SO PLEASE, UM, COMMISSIONER ROBBINS, I'LL MAKE A MOTION, UM, IN SUPPORT OF STAFF WITH A CONDITION THAT, UH, THERE'S A REVIEW PRIOR TO FINAL PLATTING THAT THERE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND ALSO, UH, PERMITTING REVIEWS OF DEED RESTRICTIONS TO ENSURE THAT NONE OF THE BUILDINGS OR THE IMPROVEMENTS VIOLATE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. OKAY. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION, ROBIN. SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION QUESTION? COMMISSIONER GARZA. GARZA, DO WE NEED TO MAKE A NOTE AS COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG HAD REQUIRED THAT, OR REQUESTED RATHER THAT SAID THAT WE WOULD, WE WOULD MAKE A NOTE FOR PERMITTING. WE'D ALSO MAKE A NOTE FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. YEAH, YEAH. NOTIFIED AND, WE'LL, THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PART OF, FOR STAFF TO, TO DEVISE THAT PROCESS. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE, PARDON ME. I WANT TO CLARIFY REAL QUICKLY, , UM, WITH, WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER ROBBINS AMENDMENT ON THOSE, UM, ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS. UM, AS I'VE ADVISED, I DON'T RECOMMEND THAT, THAT WE IMPLY LEGAL IS GOING TO MAKE THAT REVIEW, BUT THAT I UNDERSTOOD THE CONVERSATION TO BE ILMS NOTE AND REVIEW WITH AT THE PERMITTING STAGE. IS THAT YOUR INTENTION? MY INTENTION WAS BOTH. BUT IS THAT, I MEAN, IF YOU, IF IF I, WHAT I'VE HEARD IS YOU DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO REVIEW THE RESTRICTIONS PRIOR TO TODAY. THIS WOULD GIVE YOUR OFFICE ENOUGH TIME TO REVIEW THEM PRIOR TO FINAL, IT WOULD PUT THE, UM, APPLICANT ON NOTICE THAT THERE ARE ISSUES THAT MAY, UH, LEAD THEM TO MITIGATE THEIR INVESTMENT UNTIL THAT FINAL DETERMINATION THAT'S MADE. ARE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT? YES. OKAY. I HEARD, I'M SORRY TO MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE. I HEARD FROM THE, FROM, FROM THE DEED RESTRICTION ATTORNEY? YES. . OKAY. I MEAN, EXPLAIN TO ME WHY, BECAUSE I DO UNDERSTAND THE TIME LIMITATIONS THAT YOU WERE UNDER AND TRYING TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THOSE, BUT I'D HATE FOR THE PROJECT TO GET BUILT [01:15:01] FOR THERE TO BE A LAWSUIT AND FOR THE COURT DETERMINATION TO BE THAT THE DEVELOPER ASKED TO TEAR THIS DOWN BECAUSE THEY WERE IN VIOLATION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS. YEAH. YEAH. AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN OF THE COMMISSION. I I SHARE THAT CONCERN. TRUST ME. OKAY. THIS IS NOT AN EASY APPLICATION ON OUR END. I, I THINK THAT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD WAS THIS ISN'T, AND WHEN THEY'RE FINISHED TALKING, WE'LL HEAR THE ANSWER. IT'S NOT SO MUCH A MATTER OF JUST TIME. IT WAS THAT TIMING THE PROCESS ALLOW THAT THEY, THEY REVIEW THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION. THAT'S WHAT THE STATE LAW REQUIRES. SO THIS WOULD BE DIVERT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE I HEAR YOU. AND WHAT I, AND WHAT I HEARD WAS TO THE EXTENT THAT THE APPLICATION THAT WHAT IS SUBMITTED FOR APPLICATION IS CHANGING THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, THAT CHANGES THE DATE THAT THE APPLICATION, IS THAT NOT ACCURATE? THAT'S NOT ACCURATE, YEAH. OKAY. I MEAN, THAT, THAT WOULD BE A HUGE CHANGE IN THE WHOLE PLOTTING PROCESS AND THEN MAY RUN AFOUL WITH STATE LAW. SO, OKAY. YES. COMMIT DIRECTOR. WHAT I, WHAT I HEARD YOU ASK FOR A FEW MOMENTS AGO WAS SIMPLY A NOTE ON THE PLAT THAT NOTIFIED THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION, THAT THERE WERE NEW DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THAT THEY NEEDED TO CHECK INTO THOSE. THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID, BUT IF YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT, I'M, I'LL CERTAINLY CONSIDER IT. BUT WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS THAT IT THAT WE ALLOW THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TIME TO FULLY REVIEW. WHAT I HEARD IN THE BEGINNING, AND MAYBE I MISHEARD YOU, WAS THAT YOU RECEIVED THEM ON MONDAY AND REALLY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO REVIEW THEM TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WERE THIS WAS IN VIOLATION OF THOSE. WELL, THERE, THERE ARE TWO ASPECTS TO THIS. ONE IS THAT WE REVIEW AN APPLICATION BASED ON THE TITLE RESEARCH THAT IS DONE AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION IS FILED AND PULLED BY OUR OFFICE, WHICH WAS ROUGHLY A MONTH AGO. UM, THAT HAP AND, AND THAT IS HOW WE PROCEED WITH EVERY RE PLAT. THAT IS, THAT IS DONE. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT DEED RESTRICTIONS IN OUR ORDINANCE BE RE-REVIEWED AT FINAL PLAT. I THINK THAT WE CAN ONLY IMPOSE CONDITIONS THAT ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WHAT'S INCLUDED IN OUR, IN OUR CODE, AND THIS IS NOT THERE. UNDERSTOOD. UM, MY PERSPECTIVE, IF WE REVIEW THEM, IF WE AGREE TO REVIEW THEM BEFORE FINAL PLATTING AND YOU MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THEY'RE A VIOLATION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS, THEN THE LANDOWNER CAN SUE AND GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND POTENTIALLY PROVE THAT THOSE ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE BECAUSE OF THE TIME. I MEAN, IT'S A VERY GRAY AREA AND NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE. SO THE QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT THE PROPERTY BUILT IN THE LITIGATION TO HAPPEN, OR DO WE WANT THE PROPERTY NOT BUILT IN THE LITIGATION TO HAPPEN? AM I OVERSIMPLIFYING? IT? IS, IS THE APPLICANT EVEN HERE? YEAH. HAVE WE HEARD A, HAVE WE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT? BECAUSE THEN REMEMBER WE ALSO HAVE A SITUATION WHERE, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A MANDAMUS SITUATION. YOU'VE BEEN ADVISED BY STAFF AND LEGAL THAT THIS MEETS REQUIREMENTS. UM, WHILE WE CAN IMPOSE CONDITIONS THAT MAKE IT COMPLY WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WE'RE AWARE OF, SUCH AS REQUIRING THE CONSENT WITH, UH, CENTER POINT RELOCATION OF UTILITIES THERE IF NECESSARY AND SO FORTH. UM, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, RE-REVIEWING, ADDING IN A CONDITION THAT'S NOT IN OUR ORDINANCE TO RE-REVIEW, UM, DEED RESTRICTIONS IS, I THINK, LEGALLY PROBLEMATIC. UM, DID YOU WANNA, DID SOMEBODY ASK TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? NO, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER SEGLER. MY QUESTION, I THINK, AGAIN, IS FOR LEGAL, BECAUSE I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M FULLY UNDERSTANDING. THERE ARE TIMES WITH WHEN WE DEFER AND WE GIVE THE APPLICANT TIME TO HAND IN NEW DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT YOU DO REVIEW OR TO, I MEAN, WE ASK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OFTEN DURING A DEFERRAL PERIOD. SO HOW IS, HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT? SO WE ASK FOR THAT WHERE SOMEONE BELIEVES THAT THERE ARE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN FILED AND ARE IN EXISTENCE AND, AND ARE APPLICABLE TO A PROPERTY AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION IS FILED, THAT FOR SOME REASON OUR TITLE PLANT HAS NOT PICKED UP ON. UM, WE DON'T ASK THEM ARE THERE NEW ONES? HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING WITH THAT? THE, THIS IS A SITUATION, I THINK WHERE THESE WERE DEVELOPED IN RESPONSE TO THIS PLAT AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT THE CASE IN THOSE OTHER SITUATIONS. IT'S, OH, WE HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, WAS IN MY TITLE REPORT. WHY DIDN'T YOU SEE IT? BUT THERE, THEY'VE BEEN LONG [01:20:01] FILED IN MOST CASES. YOU KNOW, AND, AND I GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER VICTOR'S POINT THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE A MATTER OF A DAY, BUT WHOEVER GOT THE PLAT FILED OR IF THE PLAT WAS FILED BEFORE THE APPLICATION FOR THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, THE PLAT IS, IS VESTED. CAN WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF THEY UNDERSTAND? YEAH. MS. HODGES IS HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS MC HODGES WITH LIQUIDITY ENGINEERING AND WE ARE THE APPLICANT FOR THIS, UM, PROJECT. UH, WE ARE NOW AWARE OF THE NEW RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE FILED WITH, UM, FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I WILL GO BACK TO THE CLIENT AND LET HIM KNOW THAT THIS IS A PIECE OF NEW INFORMATION THAT CAME AFTER THE PLAT WAS FILED. UM, DUNNO WHAT ELSE TO SAY THAT, UM, EVERYTHING WAS FILED. UM, THE APPLICATION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE. IT IS A PRELIMINARY APPLICATION AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES, UM, GOING FORWARD THAT HE NEEDS. THE CLIENT NEEDS TO SETTLE BEFORE HE CAN SUBMIT FOR FINAL PLA APPROVAL. ONE BEING COORDINATION OF THE UTILITIES AND THE UTILITY EASEMENTS WITH CENTER POINT. THE OTHER WOULD BE THE POSSIBILITY OF FEASIBILITY OF BURIAL OF THE POWER LINES, THE POWER LINES, 1, 2, 3 POWER, THE POWER LINES THAT RUN ALONG THE SHARED DRIVEWAY. UH, GETTING A DRAINAGE PLAN DONE AND APPROVED IS ANOTHER REQUIREMENT THAT YOU'LL HAVE TO DO BEFORE, UH, HE CAN SUBMIT FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. AND THEN OF COURSE, WHEN THAT HAPPENS AND TITLE IS PULLED, I ASSUME THESE NEW RESTRICTIONS WILL COME IN ON THAT TITLE REPORT AT THAT TIME. OKAY. OKAY. SO ARE YOU IT WAS BEEN SECOND. YES, IT WAS. HOW YOU SECONDED? I I DID SECOND. I MEAN, IF I MAY TOO. I MEAN, I MEAN THIS IS, THIS IS VERY COMPLICATED AND I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD COMMISSIONER ROBBINS MOTION. I I THOUGHT WHAT WE WERE DOING WAS WE WERE PUTTING NOTICE ON THE ONE ON ONE FINAL IF THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO GO DO SOME FURTHER RESEARCH, UNDERSTAND, RIGHT. BECAUSE TO MS. MOLSON'S COMMENT EARLIER THAT THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL GIVES THEM SOME CONFIDENCE THAT THEY CAN PROCEED WITH ENGINEERING AND OTHER THINGS AS THEY GO TO FINAL. AND SO WE ARE JUST PUTTING THEM ON ASKING, YOU KNOW, MAKING THEM AWARE THAT THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER RESEARCH YOU NEED TO DO. I'M, I'M FINE WITH THAT. UH, I'M, I'M OKAY WITH THAT BEING THE CONDITION. SORRY, GO AHEAD. I, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. MY ISSUE, AND THIS IS A BROADER ISSUE THAN JUST THIS, THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE, IS THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THROUGHOUT OUR CITY THAT OFTEN, UH, TURNS OUT AFTER THE FACT, ONCE A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER COMES IN, THAT IT TURNS OUT THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS WEREN'T ENFORCEABLE, THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S THOUGHT WERE. AND I THINK A, I I UNDERSTAND, UH, THAT IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS MANDATED REGARDING OUR ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WITHIN OUR CITY. BUT I THINK A BROADER INTERPRETATION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS JUST BARELY JUST A LITTLE BIT, WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR A LOT OF THE COMMUNITIES IN OUR CITY, INCLUDING THIS ONE THAT SUFFER FROM BELIEVING THEY HAVE DEED RESTRICTION PROTECTIONS THAT THEY END UP NOT HAVING. AND I THINK IT'S A PROBLEM I'VE, I SEE YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR HERE THAT I'VE TALKED WITH MS. MICKELSON ABOUT, I'VE TALKED WITH EVERYBODY ABOUT TRYING TO CHANGE AND WE REALLY HAVEN'T MADE ANY PROGRESS. AND THIS FEELS LIKE ONE LITTLE BABY STEP OF PROGRESS, BUT I'M WILLING TO, UM, MAKE THE, UH, MOTION AS YOU DESCRIBED IT, BUT JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR ON WHERE I'M COMING FROM. OKAY. SO IN LIGHT OF FURTHER DISCUSSION, AND SO WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION IN A A SECOND, IS THAT MM-HMM . OKAY. BUT I'M GONNA ASK THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT A QUESTION. I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M SAYING THIS . YOU SHOULDN'T. OKAY. WE CAN'T BELIEVE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, OKAY, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YOU CAN SUE YOU. OKAY. SO IF, WHAT IF WE DENIED THIS TODAY, WHAT IF WE WENT AHEAD AND DENIED IT? NO CLAPPING. NO CLAPPING. WHAT IF, AND SO THE, WE WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF OUR STATE REQUIRED, YOU KNOW, WE TOOK AN OATH TO FOLLOW STATE LAW. WE WOULD BE IN, IN VIOLATION OF THAT, BUT BECAUSE WE FELT THAT THERE WAS, UH, THAT THIS WAS A SPECIAL CASE. WHAT, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? WELL, I I THINK THE MOTION WOULD BE SOMETHING AKIN TO MOTION TO DENY THE REPL BASED ON A FEELING AMONG THE MEMBERS THAT THE REPL WOULD VIOLATE [01:25:01] THIS NEW DEED RESTRICTION, WHICH WOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. UM, I ALWAYS APPRECIATE HOW THIS COMMISSION LISTENS TO LEGAL. UM, IT'S ALWAYS NICE TO HAVE A CLIENT THAT DOES SO, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO DO THAT ALL THE TIME. I CAN'T BELIEVE I SAID THAT, BUT, UM, YEAH, DON'T, DON'T, DON'T TAPE RECORD THAT. UM, BUT, UM, NO, IF, IF YOU, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT COULD BE A FINDING THAT THIS, THIS COMMISSION COULD MAKE IN THE MOTION AND, BUT I THINK IT WOULD, I THINK YOU COULD MAKE IT IN A WAY THAT WOULD PRESERVE IT UNDER STATE LAW THAT YOU, YOU BELIEVE THIS, THIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND IS APPLICABLE. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT I'M NOT, I'M JUST ASKING WHAT IF COMMISSIONER CLARK. SO I WANNA UNDERSTAND THIS BETTER. IN ALL OF OUR, BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION A LONG TIME AND ALL OF OUR ETHIC CLASS ETHICS CLASSES, WE'VE BEEN TAUGHT YOU SHALL YOU HAVE TO DO A SHALL APPROVE IF SOMETHING HAPPENS AND THE CLIENT THAT WE DISAPPROVED ON A SHALL APPROVE SUES THE CITY, WE BECOME PERSONALLY LIABLE. IS THAT CORRECT? SO, BECAUSE AS I'VE NOTED, PLAT APPROVAL AND REVIEW IS MINISTERIAL, IF IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS, THEN IT MUST BE APPROVED UNLESS YOU FIND A REASON IN THE CODE THAT IT DOES NOT. UM, AS WE'VE ADVISED YOU, WE'VE REVIEWED THIS WITH REGARD TO THE MATERIALS THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION WERE MADE. YOU HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH NEW INFORMATION. IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOOD FAITH THAT THAT IS, AND AND TO YOUR POINT, YES, AN APPLICANT CAN SUE FOR WRONGFUL DENIAL OF A PLAT. UM, TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU ARE MAKING THAT BASED ON NEW INFORMATION AND FINDING A RATIONALE IN THE CODE THAT A REPL CANNOT VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS, I THINK YOU ARE, YOU ARE ACTING IN YOUR OFFICIAL CAPACITY SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH STAFF OR LEGAL ON THAT MATTER. DOESN'T, DOESN'T EXPOSE YOU TO THAT UNLESS YOU HAVE NO REASON TO DO SO. AND FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I WOULD NOT VOTE TO DENY, I WOULD VOTE AGAINST A DENIAL. MM-HMM . I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A, A, IT'S VERY UNCLEAR. OUR LEGAL COUNSELS MADE A DETERMINATION AND A RECOMMENDATION. I'M COMFORTABLE THAT THEY MADE THE BEST DETERMINATION THAT THEY COULD WITH THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAD. I THINK MORE TIME AND A MORE IN DEPTH REVIEW OF THE, BASICALLY ANSWERING THE QUESTION OF WHEN DOES THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS BEGIN, IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE ANSWERED. AND I, I THINK A DENIAL IN MY JUDGMENT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE OKAY. MADAM CHAIR, UM, COMMISSIONER COLVARD, UM, HAS HER HAND UP. OKAY. COMMISSIONER COLVARD, THANK YOU. UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, ADD OR POINT OUT THAT, UM, ONE OF THE POINTS THAT HAS BEEN MADE BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY IS THAT IT'S A CLARIFICATION, UM, TO THE EXISTING DEED RESTRICTIONS. THAT, THAT THE AMENDMENT IS NOT NEW, BUT A CLARIFICATION. AND IT BETTER, UM, ELUCIDATE THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL DEED RESTRICTIONS IN CASE IT WAS NOT CLEAR. SO I, UM, I, I GUESS I'M WONDERING FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, WOULDN'T IT BE POTENTIALLY JUSTIFIABLE TO DENY IT? I, I THINK THAT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE NEW IS, IS THAT THESE ARE JUST FILED, IT'S JUST RECENTLY FILED NEW DEED RESTRICTIONS. IT WAS AN AMENDMENT. YES. IT, IT'S, IT'S A NEW AMENDMENT. I HEARD IT WAS AN RECENTLY FILED, BUT I THINK TO HER, TO COMMISSIONER CULVER'S POINT, IT IS THAT, UM, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS MENTIONED THAT THESE WERE MADE TO CLARIFY AH, OKAY. THE INTENTION OF THE EARLIER DEED RESTRICTIONS. SO I THINK THAT'S A, SO THAT'S A GOOD POINT. YEAH. I HE, OKAY, SO NOT TO ANOTHER WRINKLE IN THIS IT, WE ARE PUTTING NOTES. OKAY. SO WE WOULD BE PUTTING A NOTE ON THE, THE CPC 1 0 1 THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO THESE NOTIFICATIONS, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT AT PERMITTING TO SAY THIS, THIS, THIS DOES NOT VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS. AND YET WE KNOW HE HAS BEEN MADE AWARE THAT IT ACTUALLY MAY VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS AT THAT POINT. PUBLIC WORKS CAN ASK THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW THEM BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD DO. AND THEY COULD SAY, WE THINK IT DOES VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THEN NO PERMITS COULD BE ISSUED. IS THAT HOW THAT WOULD WORK? IS THAT THE PROCESS? I I THINK IF THEY ARE NOTIFIED THAT THERE IS, IF, IF PERMITTING IS NOTIFIED THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE AND A CONCERN, YES. I THINK THAT'S HOW IT WOULD BE. OKAY. AND ASSUMING YOU DO [01:30:01] REVIEW THEM AND THEY DO OKAY. ASSUMING PERMITTING SENDS INTO LEGAL SO THAT THEN THE PROCESS. RIGHT. SO MADAM CHAIR, WHEN YOU CLEAR EVERYTHING AWAY, WHAT WE WANT TO GIVE IS THE APPLICANT NOTICE THAT THERE MIGHT BE AN ISSUE. AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE DONE THAT TODAY, JUST SO YOU KNOW. YEAH, I THINK WE NEED TO DO ABOUT 10 MORE . OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE, A SECOND AND WE HAVE A SECOND. AND THE MOTION IS ROBINS. AND IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE ARE GONNA VOTE ON THIS MOTION? YES. COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG, CAN YOU REPEAT THE MOTION PLEASE? . OKAY. YEAH, I HOPE SO. WE JUST WANT THE 1 0 1 FINAL, UH, TO HAVE THESE, THESE NOTES ON THERE. THE BURDEN'S ON THE APPLICANT, NOT ON CITY LEGAL FOR THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT RIGHT. EVERYTHING COMPLIES. AND THEN THERE WOULD BE AN AFFIDAVIT THAT'S SIGNED, I GUESS PRIOR, PRIOR TO THE FINAL BEING RECORDED OR, UH, APPROVED. RIGHT. AND I THINK COULD WE ADD THAT LEGAL THAT WHEN ON THE C WHEN PERMITTING REVIEWS IT, THEY CONTACT LEGAL AS WELL? 'CAUSE I THINK SOMETIMES WHEN THAT FORM IS SIGNED, THAT THAT IS IT. IF YOU SIGN AS THE APPLICANT, YOU'RE NOT IN VIOLATION. THAT'S, THERE ISN'T A REVIEW. YEAH, I, AND I THINK THE, THE MOTION IT INCLUDED NOTIFYING THE APPLICANT BUT ALSO NOTIFYING THE PERMITTING SECTION AND THERE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY COUNCIL PERSON AND CITY COUNCIL. WELL, AND WE SAID THAT WE'D ASK PERMITTING TO COUNCIL, COMMISSION COUNCIL IF I MAY CLARIFY THAT, IF, IF I CAN, YES. OKAY. SO THE TWO CONDITIONS I THINK THAT YOU, YOU COMMISSION, UH, COMMISSION IS DISCUSSING IS ONE THAT ON THIS APPLICATIONS APPROVAL FORM CPC APPROVAL FORM FOR THIS PRELIMINARY APPLICATION, A CONDITION OR AN FYI STATEMENT BE PLACED THAT THE OWNER OR THE APPLICANT BE INFORMED THAT THERE ARE ACTIVE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT MAY APPLY. SO CHECK BEFORE YOU SUBMIT THE FINAL PLOT. THAT'S ONE CONDITION. AND THE OTHER CONDITION IS IF THEY SUBMITTED THE FINAL AND IT, IT'LL STILL GO THAT WE WILL STAFF WILL PUT A CONDITION ON THE PERMITTING SYSTEM THAT ONCE IF THE FINAL IS APPROVED AND THEY HEAD TO THE PERMITTING, THAT PERMITTING STAFF WILL INFORM THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER THAT THIS IS BEING A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR THIS PLA DOES THAT HELP? IT HELPS. I WOULD SAY SO. SO IS THAT THE MOTION AND THE SECOND. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. AND SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL THE, ANYONE OPPOSED? AYE THE MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU ALL. THAT WAS A GREAT DISCUSSION. UM, PINE CREST 1 33 HAS BEEN, UH, WITHDRAWN. THAT TAKES US TO 1 34. ALRIGHT, ITEM 1 34 IS QUICK TRIP STORE NUMBER 79 51. THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST ALONG I 10 FREEWAY NORTH OF MARKET STREET ROAD AND WEST OF DALE DALE AVENUE. THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS CREATE ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. AND REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. UM, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 1 34, QUICK TRIP STORE NUMBER 79 51. I'M KIND OF WAITING. OH, IS THAT'S IT, RIGHT? OKAY. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. YES, MA'AM. OKAY, GOOD. IS, UH, IS CONTINUED? I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE IN THE CHAT. IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 34? OKAY. WITH THAT THEN 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? JONES JONES SECOND ALLMAN ALLMAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. A. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. UH, ITEM 1 35 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. ITEM 1 36. ITEM 1 36 IS WH HOLDINGS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS SOUTH ALONG SWINGLE ROAD AND WEST OF DONGA WAY. THE PURPOSE OF THE REPLAY IS CREATE ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTER INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT EXTENDING A STUB STREET. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE INTENDED FOR WAREHOUSE [01:35:01] USE. THE SITE IS A PARTIAL REPL OF THE SHAMROCK SUBDIVISION, WHICH CREATED THE STRUB STREET, THE STUB STREET, ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY. THE PROPOSED RESERVE ONLY HAS 30 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG THIS STUB STREET AND A FULL RIGHT OF WAY. DE DEDICATION WOULD REQUIRE MULTIPLE TRACKS TO PROVIDE PARTIAL DEDICATION. ULTIMATELY, THE SURROUNDING AREA IS LOW DENSITY IN NATURE AND DOES NOT WARRANT A STREET EXTENSION FROM THIS PLAT STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED ATTRACTIVE LAND MIDBLOCK THAT IS SUITABLE FOR NORTH SOUTH STREET CONNECTION. THIS RE PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED. SEPARATELY. STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVING A PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR, UM, ITEM 1 36 IS OPEN. WE HAVE SPEAKERS. UH, THE FIRST IS LINDA JOHN, UH, LINDA DAVIS JOHNSON. OKAY. UM, I'LL CALL THE NEXT RAYMOND HANDY. OH, OKAY. LINDA DAVIS JOHNSON? YES. HI. I'M RIGHT FORWARD. YES, MS. LINDA DAVIS JOHNSON. GO RIGHT AHEAD. OH, I WAS CALLED, I WAS UP HERE ABOUT THE PROPERTY THAT I OWN THERE. WHAT DO I DO ABOUT SQUATTERS? SQUATTERS? YES, MA'AM. UM, I THINK PROBABLY CALL 3 1 1. OKAY. SO WE, MY MOTHER RECEIVED A LETTER AND SHE JUST REALLY CAME UP HERE. SO WE HAVE REALLY NO IDEAL JUST TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING. I'M GONNA ASK MR. MR. CRIDDLE TO STEP OUT AND MEET WITH YOU AND EXPLAIN THE WHOLE SITUATION, OKAY? OKAY. THAT'D BE FAIR. THAT'D BE FINE. AND HE CAN PROBABLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU. BUT LET US, LET US SORT OF GO AHEAD AND DO OUR REVIEW HERE AND THEN, 'CAUSE WE DON'T WANNA LOSE HIM YET. OH, OKAY. YOU JUST TAKE ONE SECOND. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 36? UM, IF NO ONE WISHES TO SPEAK, THEN THAT THERE ARE THESE TWO. OH, SORRY. UM, AND THAT WAS RA RAYMOND HANDY, RIGHT? YES, MA'AM. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UM, THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT CONDITIONS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? VICTOR, VICTOR, SECOND CLARK. CLARK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU MR. CRIDDLE. AND IF YOU'D GO, GO FOLLOW UP ON THAT. OKAY. UM, ITEM 1 37. ITEM 1 37 WEST 12TH STREET, MANORS. THE SITE IS LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 11TH STREET AND WEST OF DURHAM DRIVE. THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLOT IS TO CREATE A SHARED DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT WITH FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOT. TAKING ACCESS TO PRINCE STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FIVE FEET RIGHT AWAY. DEDICATION INSTEAD OF 10 ALONG PRINCE STREET STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. PRINCE STREET IS A LOCAL STREET ABOUT SIX BLOCKS LONG, AND IT'S MAINLY A RESIDENTIAL STREET. OTHER PROPERTY ALONG PRINCE STREET ARE RESIDENTIAL LOT EXCEPT THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET. THAT IS A COMMERCIAL, A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. BECAUSE OF THIS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, THE APPLICANT REQUIRE TO DEDICATE 10 FEET FOR, FOR PRINCE STREET, HOWEVER, THE REQUIRED 10 FEET RIGHT AWAY, DEDICATION WOULD NOT IMPROVE THE OVERALL STREET BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, REASON WITH DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE STREET ALREADY HAD BEEN RE PLOTTED WITH FIVE FEET RIGHT AWAY. DEDICATION ONLY PUBLIC WORK REVIEW THIS PROPOSAL AND THAT THE PROPOSED FIVE FEE RIGHTWAY DEDICATION WILL BE ADEQUATE MEETING THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. ALSO, IT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RECENT PREVIOUS RIGHTWAY DEDICATION. WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON TREE PARKING ALONG THE STREET WOULD ALSO BE PRESERVED AND AVAILABLE FOR FUTURE GETS. SO, REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS RE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTION ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT, ALTHOUGH FILED SEPARATELY. AND THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBSTITUTE THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION THAT, UM, BECAUSE THIS IS A VARI APPLICATION, AND STAFF DID RECEIVE PROTESTS MORE THAN THE, THE MINIMUM 20% OF POSTED AREA LAND. SO THE COMMISSION CAN ONLY APPROVE THE [01:40:01] PLOT OR THE VARIANCE BY AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF AT LEAST THREE FOURTH OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT. THEREFORE, UH, MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE OF THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. OKAY. UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 1 37 WEST 12TH STREET IS OPEN. THE APPLICANT IS, UH, PRESENT FOR QUESTIONS. WE DO HAVE SPEAKERS. AND THE FIRST IS DINA BAZAAR. EVA, HI, UM, COPIES I MADE, UH, HANDWRITTEN NOTES, BUT I COULDN'T DO IT FOR ALL OF YOU. SO I HAVE SOME ORIGINAL DATA RESTRICTIONS. HOPEFULLY IT'LL BE ENOUGH, BUT I'LL COVER EVERYTHING. THANK OKAY, GO RIGHT AHEAD. YOUR TIME'S RUNNING. HELLO EVERYONE. MY NAME IS, UH, DINA BAVA. I OWN THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1609 WEST 12TH STREET. RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. OUR SUBDIVISION OPPOSES THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND WE HAVE SUBMITTED PROTEST FORMS. AS MENTIONED, I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS, UM, ON ONE OF THE KEY ARGUMENTS TODAY THAT THE APPLICATION MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS BARRED BY THE DEEDS RESTRICTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 1941. WHEN I PURCHASED MY HOME IN 2022, OUR TITLE INCLUDED THE ENTIRE SECTION, WHICH IS ATTACHED REGARDING DEED RESTRICTIONS. I REQUESTED THE DOCUMENTS AND MADE MY DECISION TO PURCHASE THAT HOME KNOWING THAT I WOULD BE COVERED UNDER THESE RESTRICTIONS. THESE RESTRICTIONS ESTABLISHED A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 59 50 SQUARE FEET. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ATTACKING FIVE TOWN HOMES ONTO A SINGLE LOT IN VOLUME 1204, PAGE 1 37, LINES 43 THROUGH 47 STATES THAT UNDER THEM UNTIL JANUARY 1ST, 1970, WHICH SAID COVENANTS SHALL BE, SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED FOR SUCCESSIVE PERIODS OF 10 YEARS, UNLESS BY A VOTE OF THE MAJORITY OR THEN THE OWNERS OF LOTS, IT IS AGREED TO CHANGE THE SET COVENANTS IN WHOLE OR IN PART, THERE IS, UM, NO PROOF THAT SUCH A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING IN THE ARCHIVES. ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT ON PAGE 1 36, LINES 45 THROUGH 48, IT STATES THAT THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS, UH, WHICH SHALL APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL LOTS IN SAID SUBDIVISION TO BE CONSIDERED AS COVENANTS RUNNING WITH THE LAND AND BINDING UPON ALL FUTURE OWNERS AND ENFORCEABLE BY ANY OF THE LANDOWNERS SAID ADDITION. AND IT STATES THAT INVALIDATION OF ANY OF THESE COVENANTS BY JUDGMENT OR COURT ORDER SHALL BE NO WISE EFFECT BY ANY OF THE PROVISIONS WHICH SHALL REMAIN IN FULL, FULL ENFORCE EFFECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE MORE, BUT IT'S OKAY. I, I KNOW. AND I, AND WE'RE GONNA RELY ON OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT FOR, FOR THEIR READ ON THIS AND WE'LL TALK TO THEM IN A SECOND. OKAY. BUT, UM, LET ME GO AHEAD AND CALL THE NEXT SPEAKER. OKAY. IF I CAN. LINCOLN LACO, LINCOLN LACORE, I THINK IS VIRTUAL. ARE YOU THERE? YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN GO RIGHT AHEAD. GREAT. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. SORRY I COULDN'T BE THERE IN PERSON. MY NAME IS LINCOLN LECO AND I RESIDE AT 1212 PRINCE STREET. UH, THIS IS THE PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE, UH, RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE VARIOUS REQUEST AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. UH, TO PREFACE, LIKE MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS, I'M CONFUSED AS THE WINES REQUEST IS BACK IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE WHEN THE SAME REQUEST WAS DENIED FIVE MONTHS AGO DUE TO OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS. UH, WHY IS IT NOW BEING DETERMINED THAT OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE HERE? AND THE LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY DEFINES MINIMUM SETBACKS AND MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE CLEARLY VIOLATE. SO I REQUEST THAT LEGAL SPECIFICALLY SPEAK TO AS WHAT HAS CHANGED THEIR MIND IN A SHORT TIMEFRAME BECAUSE NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THE ORIGINAL RESTRICTIONS FOR MANY DECADES. UH, THESE ARE NOT NEW AND HAVE NOT BEEN AMENDED, UH, AT ANY TIME. SO, UH, IN REGARDS TO THE VARIANCE ITSELF, I RESPECTFULLY, UH, REQUEST THAT THIS CAN BE DENIED THE REDUCTIONS THE RIGHT OF WAY, UH, CLEARLY FOR JUST THE SAFETY OF THE PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS AND EVEN CHILDREN WHO ROUTINELY USE THIS AREA AS A SAFE HAVEN TO GET OUTTA THE WAY OF ONCOMING MOTORISTS AND TURNING TRAFFIC FROM 12TH STREET. UH, AS REFERENCED IN MY SUBMITTED COMMENTS AND PHOTOS, THIS SECTION OF PRINCE, UH, IS A VERY NARROW STRETCH OF ROAD. AND THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS HERE. THERE ARE ROUTINELY CARS PARKED ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. SO TWO CARS ARE UNABLE TO PASS EACH OTHER ON EITHER SIDE, THE NARROWER ROADS AND LACK OF SIDEWALKS OR UNIQUE ATTRIBUTES COMPARED TO OTHER PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCES IN THIS AREA. AND I'D ARGUE THAT THAT SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTLY COMPARED TO THE ONES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY SHOWN. UH, FURTHER UP PRINCE STREET, THEY HAVE SIDEWALKS IN THAT AREA. WE DO NOT. UM, YOU KNOW, I, I DO BELIEVE, UH, FOR AN APPROVAL TODAY, THIS WOULD ALSO GO AGAINST HOUSTON'S VISION ZEROED INITIATIVES. HOUSTON INITIATIVES DIRECTLY ADDRESS SAFER, MORE ACCESSIBLE NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS AND SIDEWALKS FOR BED PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS. UH, FINALLY, IF THIS VARIES, IS NOT DENIED OUTRIGHT [01:45:01] TODAY AND REQUESTING A DEFERRAL. SO US RESIDENTS OF SHADY WOOD ARE GIVEN A FAIR CHANCE TO REGROUP AND OBTAIN OUR OWN OPINION ON THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. OKAY, THANK YOU. I'M SORRY, I'M GETTING SOME FEEDBACK HERE. NO, THAT'S FINE. YOUR, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED, BUT, UM, WE'LL LET US DISCUSS THIS A LITTLE BIT, BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT. CAN I SAY ONE MORE THING, PLEASE? I JUST ASK THAT THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT SPECIFICALLY TELL US WHAT HAS CHANGED. OKAY. YEAH, WE WE'RE, THERE'S CLEAR DISCREPANCIES HERE. EITHER THEY WERE WRONG LAST TIME OR THEY, THEY'RE WRONG THIS TIME. SO, OKAY. THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON HERE THAT, RIGHT. WE DESERVE A OPINION, WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT OPINION ON. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM WHO IS, HAS NOT SIGNED UP OR IS LISTENING? ANYBODY IN THE CHAT? OKAY. UM, THE A I, I'M SORRY. MADAM CHAIRMAN. YES. CHAIRWOMAN. I'M SORRY. UH, THIS IS RILEY SAWYER. I SUBMITTED A WRITTEN DOCUMENT. UM, AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THE SAFETY ISSUE THAT, UH, A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE MENTIONED ON THIS. THIS IS, UH, REDUCING THE VARIANCE, UH, TOWARDS PRINCE STREET AND IT'S GONNA, UH, POTENTIALLY CREATE A BLIND SPOT AT 12TH AND, AND PRINCE STREET. THERE'S ALREADY A BOTTLENECK AT 13TH AND PRINCE STREET WHERE YOU ALLOW THE VARIANCE TO BE REDUCED TO, TO FIVE FOOT. UH, THAT'S NOT A BIG PROBLEM THERE. 'CAUSE 13TH DOESN'T GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH, BUT 12TH STREET IS A CUT THROUGH STREET. LOT OF TRAFFIC BETWEEN PRINCE AND 12TH. UH, I THINK THE CHARACTERIZATION THAT THIS IS JUST A, YOU KNOW, JUST A, A LOW DENSITY, UH, RESIDENTIAL AREA IS NOT REALLY ACCURATE AT WHAT'S HAPPENING. I'VE LIVED ON PRINCE FOR OVER 23 YEARS AND TRAFFIC HAS INCREASED DRAMATICALLY ON THAT AND 12TH. SO I WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT THAT REDUCING THAT VARIANCE TO FIVE IS GONNA CREATE CARS PARKED THERE. IT'S GOING TO CREATE BOTTLENECKS AND IT'S GONNA GONNA CREATE A SAFETY HAZARD AT THAT STOP SIGN AT 12TH AND PRINCE. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND RILEY, WHAT WAS YOUR LAST NAME? COULD YOU SPELL IT FOR US? CERTAINLY. IT'S SAER. S-A-L-Y-E-R. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM? WE'RE ON 1 37 WEST 12TH STREET. UM, MR. COLE, DID YOU WANNA MAKE ANY COMMENTS? QUESTION? OKAY. UM, OKAY. SO DID, HAD WE DISCUSS, HAD WE CONSIDERED THIS BEFORE AND DENIED IT ON THE BASIS OF DEED RESTRICTIONS, WHAT, WHAT'S CHANGED BRIEFLY, I'LL INTRODUCE THIS AND THEN, THEN ASK MS. WOODS TO UPDATE ON THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. BUT THE PRIOR ATTORNEY WHO WAS REVIEWING THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS, EXCUSE ME, HAD DETERMINED THAT THE, THE, UH, PLAT APPLICATION VIOLATED THOSE RESTRICTIONS. UM, WE WERE CONTACTED BY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE TITLE COMPANY WHO SUBMITTED AND PROVIDED ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. I THINK TO COMMISSIONER SIGLER'S EARLIER, UH, QUESTIONED. THESE WERE OTHER EXISTING, UH, PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT WERE REVIEWED. SO I KNOW, UH, MS. WOODS HAS REVIEWED ALL OF THAT IN GREAT DETAIL. OKAY. MS. WOODS, SO EXPLAIN. OKAY. LET ME FIRST START OFF BY SAYING, ONCE WE PULL THE TITLE REPORT, I GO THROUGH ALL THE DOCUMENTS MYSELF AND MAKE A DETERMINATION. I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE PRIOR ATTORNEY'S DETERMINATION. I DID NOT LOOK AT ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS BY ANY OUTSIDE ATTORNEY OR ANYBODY ELSE. I FIRST LOOK AT WHAT'S GIVEN TO ME IN THE TITLE REPORT AND MAKE MY OWN DETERMINATION. AND FROM MY EXAMINATION OF THE TITLE DOCUMENTS, I DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS. LET ME EXPLAIN AND IT'S OKAY, LET ME JUST GO THROUGH IT. BACK IN 1938, MR. HEAD, WHO IS THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PROPERTY, PUT DEED RESTRICTIONS ON BLOCKS B AND C OF SHADY WOOD. THAT'S THE SUBDIVISION. THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS TERMINATED JANUARY 1ST, 1962. THEN IN 1940, IN AUGUST OF 1940, HE WANTED TO AMEND THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. HOWEVER, HE HAD SOLD A LOT OUT OF THAT SUBDIVISION OUT OF BLOCK C. AND SO IN ORDER TO AMEND THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, HE HAD TO GET THE CONSENT OF THAT OWNER BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN CASE LAW. AND I'M QUOTING FROM ONE OF THE CASES, ORIGINAL LAND OWNER [01:50:01] DEVELOPER HAS A UNILATERAL LIGHT TO RIGHT TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS, ALTER, CANCEL, ET CETERA. SO LONG AS NO LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION HAVE BEEN SOLD AFTER LOTS HAVE BEEN SOLD, DEVELOPERS' POWER TO AMEND MAY CONTINUE, BUT ONLY IF THE DEDICATING INSTRUMENT, THAT'S THE INSTRUMENT, CREATING THE ORIGINAL RESTRICTIONS, ESTABLISHED BOTH THE RIGHT TO AMEND THE RESTRICTIONS AND A METHOD OF DOING SO. THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, NOR THE AMENDMENT HAD ANY TYPE OF LANGUAGE ABOUT HIM RETAINING THE POWER TO AMEND THE RESTRICTIONS OR A METHOD TO DO IT. THEREFORE, HE HAD TO GET THE CONSENT OF THE LOT OWNER IN ORDER TO AMEND THE RESTRICTION, WHICH HE DID FOR THIS FIRST AMENDMENT THAT ALSO HAD A TERMINATION DATE OF 1962. IT JUST AMENDED ONE LITTLE PROVISION. THEN IN APRIL OF 1941, MR. HEAD PLACED THE RESTRICTIONS THAT THE SPEAKER SPOKE OF GOV. HE DID NOT GET THE CONSENT OF THE PRIOR LOT OWNER. AND, AND THIS IS FURTHER DOWN IN MY, UM, EXAMINATION. WHEN I DID LOOK AT OTHER DOCUMENTS PROVIDED THERE WERE FOUR OR FIVE OTHER LOTS THAT HAD BEEN SOLD BEFORE HE TRIED TO PLACE THESE NEW RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY. HE DID NOT GET THE CONSENT OF ANY OF THESE PROPERTY OWNERS. AND AS I SAID PREVIOUSLY, OR I THINK I SAID HIS RESTRICTIONS WERE FOR BLOCKS B AND C. AND NOW HE'S TRYING TO RESTRICT ALL OF SHADY WOOD, WHICH INCLUDES BLOCKS BLOCK C, WHICH THE CURRENT PROPERTY THAT'S BEFORE YOU IS IN BLOCK C. AND ALL THE LOTS I'VE SPOKEN OF THAT HAD BEEN SOLD WERE IN BLOCK C. SO THESE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT CONSENT TO THESE NEW RESTRICTIONS. THEREFORE, MY DETERMINATION IS HE COULD NOT PLACE THESE NEW RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY PER CASE LAW. SO THEREFORE THE RESTRICTIONS THAT HE DID PLACE THAT WERE VALID TERMINATED IN 1962. AND THAT'S WHERE MY DETERMINATION COMES FROM, THAT THIS WOULD NOT VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS. OKAY. AND I, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THE DOCUMENT THEY ARE REFERRING TO, THEY ARE IN THE CHAIN OF TITLE. I REVIEWED IT AS I SAID, AND THAT'S, THAT'S HOW I CAME TO THAT DETERMINATION. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? WE'RE, WE'RE MORE IN THE WEEDS. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON THIS THAN WE USUALLY ARE . UM, OKAY. UM, SO WERE WE AN ERROR? I HAVE QUESTION. CAN YOU HEAR ME HOLD WHO IS SPEAKING? UH, IT'S MICHELLE. I HAVE COMMISSIONER COLBERT. I HAVE QUESTIONS. OH, GO AHEAD. OKAY. UM, SO THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE MIN, YOU KNOW, THE MINIMUM SETBACK, THE MINIMUM RIGHT AWAY, UM, THAT IS NOT A SHALL APPROVE, CORRECT? CORRECT. THAT IT'S ACTUALLY ACTUALLY A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION INSTEAD OF 10 FEET. THANK YOU. OKAY. GOT IT. YEAH. UM, OKAY. SO A COUPLE THINGS. FIRST, UM, I DO DRIVE BY THAT LOT ON A REGULAR BASIS AND THAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST SIGN HAD BEEN UP FOR WEEKS AFTER THE LAST MEETING THAT WE CONSIDERED IT. AND I THINK THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN DOWN. BUT SECONDLY, THE TODAY'S MEETING DATE HADN'T BEEN PROPERLY POSTED ON THE VARIANCE REQUEST NOTICE SIGN WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE TIME. AT LEAST THAT IS MY BELIEF, MY UNDERSTANDING, UNLESS THEY CAN, IF THEY CAN SHOW THAT IT WAS, THAT, THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT . BUT I, UM, UNLESS I AM JUST LOSING MY MIND, IT WAS NOT IN, YOU KNOW, UM, UPDATED WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE PERIOD OF TIME. UM, SO THAT'S ONE POINT THAT I WOULD LOVE FOR THE APPLICANT TO, UM, PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE ON. BUT THE, THE, SHE'S TALKING ABOUT THE SIGN WAGE. THE SECOND POINT IS, HOLD ON, LET, LET'S, I'M SORRY. LET ME JUST ASK STAFF TO RESPOND TO THAT. 'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. THE ORDINANCE REQUIRE TO UPDATE THE SIGN 20 DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. AND BECAUSE OF THE THREE WEEK CYCLE, I THINK PEOPLE [01:55:01] GOT CONFUSED WHEN THE 20 DAY FALL. BUT THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE THE UPDATED PICTURE OF THE UPDATED SIGN 20 DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. OKAY. SO COMMISSIONER COLVARD, CAN YOU, ARE YOU, CAN YOU SEE THE, YOUR SCREEN WITH THE PICTURE OF THE UPDATED SIGN SIGN? I CAN SEE IT MM-HMM . YES. AND THAT LOOKS JUST LIKE THE SIGN, BUT, UM, SO, BUT SOMEBODY DID GO BY AND DOUBLE CHECK AND VERIFY THAT IT WAS UPDATED IN THE APPROPRIATE YEAH, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO SEND US A PICTURE TO PROVE THAT THEY HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENT. AND SO THIS IS THAT PICTURE. SO STAFF DETERMINED FROM THAT THAT THEY WERE IN COMPLIANCE. OKAY. OKAY. UM, NOW AS FAR AS, AS FAR AS THE VARIANCE REQUEST GOES, I MEAN, BECAUSE I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA AND OH MY GOODNESS, I'M JUST GONNA TELL YOU ALL RIGHT NOW, IT IS NOT A SAFE AREA TO BE WALKING THROUGH. IT'S NOT A SAFE AREA TO BIKE THROUGH. IT'S NOT EVEN A SAFE AREA TO DRIVE THROUGH. AND I JUST AM FEARFUL THAT THIS IS GOING TO, WE'RE MAKING A BAD SITUATION ALREADY BAD WORSE. AND EVEN IF THERE'S A PRECEDENT, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF WE'VE, WE'VE, YOU KNOW, APPROVED SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN THE PAST, THE FACT REMAINS THAT IT, NOW THAT WE SEE THE CONSEQUENCE OF IT AND WE NOW SEE THAT YOU CAN'T SAFELY WALK IN THAT SORT OF SCENARIO. I, I'M JUST QUESTIONING WHY WE WOULD CONTINUE TO APPROVE THAT , YOU KNOW, KNOWING THAT NOT ONLY THAT, BUT IT'S GOTTEN WORSE SINCE THE LAST, YOU KNOW, ANY, ANY LAST, UH, VARIANCES WERE, WERE APPROVED FOR THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, THE RIGHT OF WAY, REDUCED RIGHT OF WAY. I MEAN IT'S JUST, IT, IT, IT FEELS A LITTLE INSANE. I JUST, UM, BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE, I, I JUST WOULD OPPOSE THE VARIANCE THAT, I MEAN I JUST, I'M VERY FEARFUL FOR HOW THIS IS GOING TO, UM, FURTHER IMPACT THE PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THIS AREA. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER CLARK? WELL, I KNOW THAT WE'VE BEEN ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO USE SHARED DRIVEWAYS AND ONE OF OUR, UM, OFFERS TO THEM IS A REDUCED SIDE SETBACK. IS THAT CORRECT? ISN'T THAT CORRECT? I MEAN, HAVEN'T WE BEEN DOING THAT? NO. NO. YES. NO. WHICH ONE? I'M SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. IT HAS BEEN THAT RIGHT FOR MANY YEARS. WE ARE NOT CHANGING THAT BECAUSE JUST LIKE WE'VE BEEN DEBATING IN THIS, UH, ROOM FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS, AND SONNY AND I, AND MARTY AND MARGARET AND A FEW OF YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN BEEN INVOLVED FOR THREE YEARS, WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE SHARED DRIVEWAYS FOR THE, WHAT WE'VE CALLED THE SAFETY FACTOR OF NOT HAVING ALL OF THESE STREET CONNECTIONS. SO I GUESS I'M RESPONDING TO COMMISSIONER VART THAT WE NEED TO DECIDE WHAT IS SAFE CURB CUTS, OR A FIVE FOOT, YEAH, YEAH. WITH A SHARED DRIVE AND FIVE FOOT SIDE VARIANCE. I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT BACK TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION. THAT'S THE ROUTE WE'VE BEEN GOING BECAUSE WE ALL FELT THAT WAS SAFER. AND SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND ALL OF US THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING. OKAY. UM, AND, AND THE SITUATION WITH THE, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. SO THE ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE NORMALLY THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TO DEDICATE 10 FEET ALONG FOR THE PURPOSE THAT THE STREET WOULD BE WIDENED AT SOME POINT, RIGHT. BUT WE'VE ALREADY GRANTED THESE OTHER VARIANCES, SO IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO WIDEN THAT STREET TO THE, THE WIDTH. IS THAT, IS THAT, AM I RIGHT IN THAT? WELL, WELL IN THIS CASE, UH, COMMISSION, THERE WAS A, IN, UH, CHAPTER 42 INTERPRETATION THAT WAS CLARIFIED A FEW YEARS BACK. SO THIS IS, UM, IDEALLY A RESIDENTIAL STREET WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT PROPERTY RIGHT ACROSS FROM THIS IS COMMERCIAL. SO WHEN THE PROPERTIES NORTH OF THIS DEVELOPED, AND IF YOU WOULD SHOW THE AERIAL WILSON THAT WOULD HELP, THE PROPERTIES NORTH OF THIS WERE PLOTTED INTO PROBABLY, UH, FRONT LOADING TOWN HOMES. IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDICATING ANY WIDENING. AND WHEN THEY WERE PLOTTED AT THAT TIME, NO WIDENING WAS REQUIRED BECAUSE IT IS STILL 50 FEET RIGHT AWAY. IN 2018 WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS FULLY WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, THE ORDINANCE IS PRETTY CLEAR. IT SAYS THE STREET HAS TO BE EXCLUSIVELY SINGLE FAMILY FOR IT TO REMAIN 50 FEET. SO SINCE 2018 THE STAFF HAS BEEN MARKING UP THE PLAIDS. EVEN IF YOU ARE SINGLE FAMILY, BUT YOU'RE PROPOSING ALONG A STREET THAT IS NOT RESIDENTIAL EXCLUSIVELY, THEN YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE WIDENING OF 60 FEET. SO THAT IS WHY THIS IS A VARIANCE. AND OTHER LOTS THAT ARE ON THE SCREEN THAT YOU LOOK LOOKING LIKE MORE, MORE OF THEM PROBABLY ARE SUBDIVIDED LOTS, EITHER ACCESS FROM THE STREET DIRECT ONE OR FROM THE BACK. BUT ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND THIS PROBABLY IS THE LAST TRACK [02:00:01] TRYING TO DO THE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. SO IT WOULD, AND IT WOULD CONTINUE ON, IT'LL CONTINUE THIS WAY, BUT, BUT THE VARIANCE IS ONLY ON THIS ITEM. IT WAS NOT ON THE PREVIOUS ONES THAT WERE APPROVED UNDER SHALL APPROVE. I SEE. OKAY. SO WE DIDN'T APPROVE THEM BEFORE. IT WAS JUST, THEY WEREN'T, IT WASN'T REQUIRED BEFORE. IT WASN'T REQUIRED. OKAY. THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. OKAY. THAT EXPLAINS JUST BY WAY WHY THE STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING WHAT THEY RECOMMENDED. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? UM, OKAY. DID I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS? I DO NOT AT DON MIND. OKAY. SO IF THERE'S NO ONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 37, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. UM, THIS HAS, THIS IS A, UH, HAS A VARIANCE SO IT'S NOT A SHALL APPROVE. UM, AND I'M LOOKING AROUND TO SEE IF ANYBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION. I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION FOR STAFF RECORD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION GARZA. IS THERE A SECOND? JONES? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? AYE. NAY. NAY. OKAY. WE, I OPPOSED? OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. MS. COLVARD, COMMISSIONER CULVER? YES. RIGHT. WITH COMMISSIONER COLVARD VOTING NO. [d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests (Aracely Rodriguez,Tammi Williamson, Devin Crittle, John Cedillo, and Petra Hsia)] UM, OKAY. THAT WILL TAKE US THEN TO VARIANCES. SECTION DI ITEM 38 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. OH, SORRY. THANK YOU. UH, ITEM 1 39, ITEM 1 39 TON FRIEDMAN TOWN. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE FOURTH WORTH SOUTH OF WEST DOLLAR STREET AND EAST OF T STREET. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW UM, TWO BUILDING TO EN CLOSE INTO THE 10 20 AWA LINE ABOUT 8.7 FEET. AND, UM, STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE SUCH PROPERTY IS PART OF JUSTIN KA SUBDIVISION THAT WAS RECORDED IN 1848. AND THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE TWO RESIDENTIAL HOME BY RENOVATING THE ASSISTANT HOME THAT IS ON THE PROPERTY AND RELOCATING ANOTHER HOME AND MOVE IT TO PROPOSED LOT ONE WITHIN THE PROPERTY. SO THE ASSISTANT HOME RIGHT NOW SIT ABOUT 8.7 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN THAT BUILDER LINE FOR BOTH STRUCTURES. THE PER THE SITE PLAN WITH THIS, WITH THE BUILDER LINE, UM, A 10 FOOT COMMON DRIVER WILL BE PROVIDED WITH PARKING ON THE BACK WITH PARKING AND ALSO, UM, IT'S THE APPLICANT WILL BE DEDICATING A ONE FOOT SIDEWALK EASTMAN TO MAINTAIN A FIVE FEET SIDEWALK. SO GRANTING AT THE VARI WILL NOT BE INJU TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE. AND ALSO IT WILL BE IN KEEPING OF THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANT AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBSTITUTE THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION AND STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN EVENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. RODRIGUEZ? UM, MADAM CHAIR, I ACTUALLY NEED TO ABSTAIN FROM THIS. OKAY. NOTE THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER HINES WILL BE ABSTAINING. UM, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS? I DON'T HAVE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE, UH, VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IS THEIR DISCUSSION CHAIR? YES. COMMISSIONER GARZA. ONLY THAT I WANTED TO THANK STAFF, UH, AND UH, THE APPLICANT FOR DOING A SHARED DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT LIVABLE PLACES HAVE BEEN PUSHING FOR SOME THREE YEARS NOW. SO IT'S GREAT TO SEE ONE. THANK YOU. YEAH, THIS IS A REALLY COOL DEVELOPMENT. IT'S, YEAH. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OH, WE DIDN'T EVEN GET A MOTION. IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? SIGLER SIGLER. SECOND CLARK. CLARK. CLARK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES WITH COMMISSIONER HINES ABSTAINING ITEM ONE 40, ITEM 40, ITEM ONE 40 STATE AT MALLOW PLACE THE SITE IS LOCATED EIGHTH OF JUTLAND ROAD AND NOR OF REED ROAD. THE APPLICANT PROPOSING A SHARED DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT WITH FIVE LOT AND ONE PARKING RESERVE AND THE APPLICANT ALSO REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW LOT TO BE LESS THAN 3,500 SQUARE FOOTAGE IN SIZE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLA CHAPTER 42 STANDARDS AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF IN THE DEFERRAL PERIOD? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS? UM, OKAY. UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER ITEM ONE [02:05:01] 40 IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL? MOTION GARZA GARZA, ALLMAN ALLMAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 41 THAT WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ITEM 1 41 AND 1 42 TOGETHER. OKAY, SO ITEM 1 41 AT FALCON RANCH BROCHURE DP AND ITEM 1 42 AT HARRIS COUNTY MUD NUMBER 5 0 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN NUMBER ONE. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY EAST OF FARM MARKET 2100. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A VARI TO EXCEED INTERCESSION FACING ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERN GP BOUNDARY BETWEEN FUTURE MILLER WILSON ROAD AND SCOTT ROAD. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH DRAINED DETENTION, WATER PLAN AND LIFT STATION AT THE SOUTHEASTERN AREA ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ONE NORTH SOUTH PUBLISHED STREET EAST OF THE MAJOR, UH, MAJOR FAIR MILLER WILSON ROAD. HOWEVER, PROVIDING THIS PUBLIC STREET WILL BE INVISIBLE DUE TO THE ASSISTING 300 FEET WIDE DRAINAGE CHANNEL THAT IS LOCATED IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF THE DP BOUNDARY. SO THE LIKELIHOOD TO TO, UH, HAVE THIS PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET TO CLOSE TO CROSS THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL IS VERY LOW. SO OVERALL THE GPE PROPOSES TWO NORTH SOUTH STREET CONNECTION FURTHER TO THE WEST VIA TWO CONNECTION THAT HAS BEEN ALREADY ESTABLISHED BY THE COASTAL WATER AUTHORITY, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL. AND OF COURSE, TRAFFIC CIRCULATION WILL BE ADDRESSED BY THE ADJACENT STREET PATTERN. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING OFFICE REVIEWED THIS PROPOSAL AND HAS NO OBJECTION. SO THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARI AND APPROVE THE GP P SEPARATE TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION. OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. RODRIGUEZ? UM, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. DOES ANYBODY WANNA SPEAK ON 1 41 OR 1 42? IF NOT, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN, WHICH IS TO GRANT AND APPROVE ON 1 41 AND APPROVE THE PLAT ON 1 42. AND OF COURSE, THE SITUATION WILL BE ADDRESSED BY THE ADJACENT SLEEP PATTERN. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING OFFICE, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU. I THINK THE DELAY, OH, THAT'S A DELAY. I WAS GONNA SAY. YEAH, I THOUGHT YOU JUST SAID THAT. . OKAY. I'M LOSING MY MIND. ALRIGHT, SO IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON BOTH ITEMS? 1 41 AND 1 42. MOTION HINES, VICTOR, SECOND HINES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION? AYE. THE MOTION CARRIES LIKE HEARING VOICES AN ECHO CHAMBER RIGHT. 1 43. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS TAMMY WILLIAMSON. ITEM 1 43 IS GARRETT COMPLEX. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON'S ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY NORTH AND ALONG GARRETT ROAD, SOUTH OF NORTH LAKE HOUSTON PARKWAY, WEST OF EAST SAM HOUSTON TOLLWAY, NORTH AND EAST OF GREENS BAYOU. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND ONE RESERVE RESTRICTED TO COMMERCIAL AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG GARRETT ROAD AND ALONG THE WESTERN AND EASTERN PLATTE BOUNDARIES. BY NOT PROVIDING ANY PUBLIC STREETS, STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE SURROUNDING AREA IS MOSTLY UNDEVELOPED OR LOW DENSITY, AND IS A REPL OF TWO TRACKS FROM LINCOLN PARK FARMS SUBDIVISION. ALL OF THESE NORTHERN TRACKS IN THIS BLOCK WERE SUBDIVIDED WITHOUT HAVING ANY STREET FRONTAGE OR ACCESS, AND ARE THEREFORE IN THE SAME OWNERSHIP AS THEIR ADJACENT SOUTHERN TRACKS. DESPITE THE TRULY EXCESSIVE INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG GARRETT ROAD OF MORE THAN 12,000 FEET BETWEEN MESA DRIVE AND GREEN CORAL DRIVE, OR TO THE FUTURE CONNECTION OF JOHN RALSTON ROAD NORTH TO NORTH LAKE HOUSTON PARKWAY OF MORE THAN 10,000 FEET. THIS AREA IS QUITE CHALLENGING. GREEN'S BAYOU AND ITS FLOODWAY BISECT. THE UNIMPROVED PORTION OF GARRETT ROAD DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH IS AN H-C-F-C-D DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND A MOTOR SPORTS PARK COMPLEX, WHICH ANY NORTH SOUTH PUBLIC STREET WOULD STUB INTO BESIDES THE FUTURE JOHN RALSTON ROAD CONNECTION. SOME OF THE INTERSECTION DEFIC DEFICIENCY CAN BE MINIMIZED WEST OF THE BAYOU. LIKEWISE, THESE TRACKS WERE NOT SUBDIVIDED NOR OWNED IN A MANNER CONDUCIVE TO OBTAINING AN EASTWEST THROUGH STREET BETWEEN GARRETT ROAD AND THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUEST. THEREFORE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC [02:10:01] 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MS. WILLIAMSON? UM, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR THIS ITEM. UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STEP? MOTION? MOTION JONES. SECOND. SECOND. CLARK. CLARK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. UH, ITEM 1 44. THIS IS A MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS COMMISSIONER COLBERT. I NEED TO STEP AWAY FROM THE MEETING. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR LETTING US KNOW. ALRIGHT, THANK TAKE CARE. MADAM CHAIR. STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ITEM 1 44 AND ROMAN NUMER FOUR TOGETHER AS THEY ARE RELATED. OKAY. SO ITEM 1 44 IS HYDE PARK HOTEL. THE PROPERTY'S LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF STANFORD STREET AND HYDE PARK BOULEVARD. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AND REQUESTING A SUBDIVISION PLAT VARIANCE TO NOT PROVIDE FIVE FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO STANFORD STREET, WHICH IS A MINOR COLLECTOR. THE SITE IS PROPOSED TO BE A 52 ROOM BOUTIQUE HOTEL, AND THE HOTEL ORDINANCE REQUIRES THREE VARIANCES. THE FIRST VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW A HOTEL TO BE LOCATED WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL AREA OF 90%. THE SECOND REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THE HOTEL TO HAVE PRIMARY ACCESS FROM A STREET THAT IS NOT A MAJOR FAIR FARE AND DOES NOT HAVE FOUR LANES OF MOVING TRAFFIC. AND THE THIRD VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW PRIMARY ACCESS FROM A RESIDENTIAL STREET, WHICH IS HYDE PARK BOULEVARD. STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFER, DEFERRING BOTH PLAT, EXCUSE ME. STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRING THE PLAT AND THE HOTEL APPLICATION FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW AND TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. STAFF HAVE RECEIVED ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICATION AND I BELIEVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE APPLICANT HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE, UH, QUITE A FEW PUBLIC SPEAKERS. UM, THE FIRST IS, UH, STEVE LONGMEYER, L-O-N-G-M-I-R-E, MR. LONGMEYER MADAM CHAIR. IF THIS IS GONNA BE DEFERRED, I'D PREFER TO WAIT UNTIL IT COMES BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO DO MY, UH, PRESENTATION. OKAY? OKAY. YOU OKAY? YOU CAN SPEAK BOTH TIMES. I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. UM, ROBERT GUTAR, G-U-T-H-A-R-T, ROBERT GUTAR. UM, TED POWELL. I'M HERE. OKAY, GO AHEAD MR. POWELL. I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON YOUR SYSTEM. IT'S REALLY HARD. WELL, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE CALLING IN ARE GETTING, YOU GET AUTOMATICALLY MUTED AND SO IT'S, IT'S KIND OF COMPLICATED TO STAY CONNECTED. UM, OKAY. SO YEAH, I THINK THAT, I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT YOU'RE DEFERRING THIS BECAUSE, UH, THE, THE, THE, UH, APPLICANT IS SAYING HE WANTS, UH, 25,000 SQUARE FOOT, UH, PUBLIC AMENITIES INCLUDE A RESTAURANT, THREE BARS AND A BEER GARDEN. AND WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, RESTAURANTS IN LIKE BARNABY'S ON THE NEXT, UH, UM, WITHIN A BLOCK OF THIS PROPERTY. AND IT'S A RELATIVELY MONETIZED, UH, RESTAURANT, BUT WE HAVE SOME LARGE DELIVERY TRUCKS THAT ACTUALLY BLOCK A LANE ON FAIRVIEW, OR THEY PARK ILLEGALLY ON HOPKINS. AND THESE ARE DETACHED TRAILER TYPE TRUCKS. AND SO WHEN I'M DRIVING OUT AT INTERSECTIONS, THESE BLOCKS ARE ONLY 200 FOOT SQUARE. 'CAUSE THEY WERE ORIGINALLY EIGHT RESIDENTIAL LOTS. SO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE BLIND SPOTS AND IT'S VERY DANGEROUS 'CAUSE PEOPLE SPEED TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO THAT, YOU KNOW, I I I'M GLAD THEY'RE DEFERRING THIS 'CAUSE THIS IS JUST NOT THE RIGHT LOCATION FOR SUCH A, SUCH A HUGE FACILITY. THAT, THAT'S MY COMMENT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I SUBMITTED WRITTEN COMMENTS TOO, SO THEY'RE ALREADY IN THE RECORD, I HOPE. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR OUR, UM, TECHNICAL ISSUES TODAY. WE'RE, WE'RE HAVING A NUMBER OF TECH TECHNICAL ISSUES AND I KNOW IT'S VERY FRUSTRATING FOR EVERYBODY. UM, BUT THANKS FOR STICKING WITH US. UH, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ETHAN, MICHELLE TZ. HEY Y'ALL. I'M ETHAN MICHELLE GANS AND I'M THE CO-FOUNDER OF THE MONTROSE RESIDENCE COALITION. UM, THIS, WE DO NOT WANT THIS HERE. WE WILL FIGHT THIS VERY, VERY HARD. WE DO NOT WANT YOU TO DENY THIS. I MEAN, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO, TO, WE WANT YOU TO DENY IT TODAY. WE DON'T EVEN WANT YOU TO, TO PUT IT TILL LATER BECAUSE THIS IS DANGEROUS. THE STREETS ARE NOT, ARE NOT, UH, SET UP FOR ALL THIS. THIS IS LIKE REGULAR LITTLE BITTY STREETS, YOU KNOW? AND FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE A HOUSING [02:15:01] CRISIS IN MONTROSE. WE HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS. THEY WANT TO TAKE UP OUR RESIDENTIAL AREA AND PUT A HOTEL THERE AGAINST THE, THE, UH, I MEAN, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO PUT THAT ON A MAJOR THROWAWAY AND THEY'RE TRYING TO PUT IT IN OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH VERY LITTLE STREETS. MONTROSE IS THE ONLY L-G-B-T-Q NEIGHBORHOOD IN HOUSTON. IT IS THE, IT IS HISTORICALLY QUEER. IT IS THE BIGGEST HISTORICALLY QUEER NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE SOUTH. IT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO QUEER HISTORY AND FOR THEM TO PUT THIS IN RIGHT WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO PUT IT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE, THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHAT THEY'VE DONE TO FRIEDMAN'S TOWN. THEY'VE PUT US INTO THIS LITTLE BITTY BITTY AREA WHERE OUR BUSINESSES ARE. AND NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO INVADE THAT WITH HOTELS. I I WAS JUST SO TAKEN BACK THAT THEY WERE EVEN TRYING TO DO THIS, THAT, THIS, THAT THIS WAS EVEN BEING CONSIDERED. I CAN'T EVEN BELIEVE THAT THIS EVEN IS EVEN BEING CONSIDERED. I MEAN, WE ARE VERY, VERY ADAMANTLY AGAINST THIS. AND WE WILL FIGHT THIS IF Y'ALL APPROVE IT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANT THAT'S, THOSE ARE THE ONLY SPEAKERS I HAD SIGNED UP. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK THIS WEEK ON EITHER OF THE ITEMS? YES, PATTY JOINER. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE ALSO THE PRIMARY DEVELOPER FOR THIS PROJECT. MANISH PATEL, WHO ALSO IS A RESIDENT OF, OF MONTROSE. AND WE APPRECIATE THE DEFERRAL AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING HARD WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TRYING TO, UM, MEET WITH RESIDENTS, MEET WITH ASSOCIATIONS, TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS. UM, WE, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, AND WE'RE TALKING TO, TO STEVE, UH, AND HIS GROUP TOMORROW MORNING AT NINE 30. ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THE HOTEL, IT IS A SMALL BOUTIQUE HOTEL. IT'S ONLY 52 ROOMS. THE, UM, OPTION THAT WE GAVE THE STAFF IS WE COULD DO FIVE FOOT OF WIDENING ON STANFORD AND THEN WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE. BUT BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT HAS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED, UH, VARIANCES TO NOT REQUIRE FIVE FOOT OF DEDICATION ON STANFORD PREVIOUSLY UP AND DOWN STANFORD, WE THOUGHT WE WOULD JUST GO WITH THE POLICY OF THE CURRENT COMMISSION. BUT IF THE, IF THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE US DO A, A FIVE FOOT DEDICATION, THEN WE WOULD LIKE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK INSTEAD OF A 10. SO, JUST TO CLARIFY THAT. BUT THAT IS AN OPTION THAT WE GAVE TO STAFF WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS. ALSO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS IS, UM, NEE AND HIS PARTNERS HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON ON THE HOTEL SCHOOL AND THEY WILL BE HIRING INTERNS. ABOUT THREE TO 400 PEOPLE WILL BE EMPLOYED AT THIS SMALL HOTEL TO BE CUSTOMER CENTRIC. AND WE WILL ALSO, THEY'RE ALSO NOT GONNA BE MERCHANT HOTELIERS. THEY'RE GONNA ACTUALLY OPERATE THE HOTEL. SO THIS IS A LONG-TERM PLAY. HELLO? UH, YEAH, THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS, UM, YOU KNOW, MOST DEVELOPERS I THINK HIDE FROM THE COMMUNITY AND TRY TO COME TO THIS THING AND, AND SPEAK AND GET THINGS PASSED. WE'RE ACTUALLY ALL OVER NEXT DOOR. I'VE TRIED TO REACH OUT TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO IS AGAINST US PUBLICLY TO GO HAVE COFFEE AND TALK ABOUT IT, TALK TO ABOUT THREE OR FOUR FOLKS OF THE, ABOUT 10 THAT ARE VERY ADAMANT. AND I'D LOVE TO HAVE COFFEE WITH ETHAN, EVEN THOUGH HE HATES ME. 'CAUSE I THINK WE GOTTA TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS. BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF SIGNATURES. THERE'S A LOT OF QUEER PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WANT THIS THING. AND IT'S NOT A MARRIOTT, IS IT A, A CENTRAL MEETING PLACE? WE CALL IT AN EXTENSION OF THE LIVING ROOM FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THERE ARE A TON OF PEOPLE IN MONTROSE THAT WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT HAPPEN. AND I'D LOVE TO JUST WIN OVER THE GUYS THAT, AND THE GIRLS THAT DON'T AGREE OR AT LEAST HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT. SO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. WE APPRECIATE YOUR ATTEMPTS TO YEP. TO REACH OUT AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO MEET WITH THEM BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK THIS WEEK ON THE HYDE PARK HOTEL? UM, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE TRY TO GET A MOTION TO DEFER? COMMISSIONER GARZA? UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A PARKING GARAGE AND UH, I WOULD JUST LIKE CLARIFICATION OF THAT, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. HOW MANY CARS IT HAULED. THEY'RE GONNA HIRE THAT MANY PEOPLE IN ADDITION TO 50, YOU KNOW, ROOMS. YOU'RE GONNA NEED A LOT OF PARKING. SO, UH, THAT'S OKAY. WE, WE'LL IN, IN THE INTERVENING TWO WEEKS. I JUST WANT SOME CLARIFICATION WHAT THE PARKING GONNA LOOK LIKE. YES, I DO. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN TWO WEEKS OR BEFORE TWO WEEKS? SO COMMISSIONER VICTOR, SO THIS, JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT NEAR A CHURCH OR A SCHOOL, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE NOTIFICATION, CORRECT? THAT IS, THAT IS CORRECT. YES, MA'AM. WHICH STILL, I BELIEVE WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT. UH, COMMISSIONER TO CLARIFY THE, THE NOTIFICATIONS FOR THE, I DID, I THINK WE HAVE FOR CHAPTER FOUR, THE NOTICES FOR THE SUBDIVISION PLAT. THE SUBDIVISION PLAT VARIANCE REQUIRES A SEPARATE NOTICE THAN THE HOTEL, RIGHT? UH, NOTICE YES, HONOR. [02:20:01] OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONERS. UM, THEN IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER BOTH ITEM 1 44 AND ROMAN NUMERAL FOUR. MOTION? CLARK. CLARK IS GARZA GARZA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? ROMAN NUMERAL FIVE. OH, SORRY. YES. YEAH. FIVE. SORRY, I THOUGHT GOD THOUGHT SHE SAID FOUR. I SAID FOUR. IT'S IT'S FOUR. I SAID FOUR. HE SAID FOUR EARLIER. WAIT, IT'S FOUR. IT'S FIVE. IT'S FIVE. IT'S FIVE. IT'S FIVE. FIVE. HE KNOWS, BUT HE DID SAY HIS NUMBERS SAY FOUR. I SAID FOUR, BUT ANYWAY, HE SAID, OKAY. SO IT'S FIVE. WAS THAT A VOTE? DID WE VOTE? YES. OKAY. WE HAVE DEFERRED ITEM 1 44 AND ROMAN FIVE. OKAY. 1 45. ITEM 1 45 IS LAY ROAD BUSINESS PARK. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON'S CITY LIMITS NORTH AND ALONG LAY ROAD AND EAST OF NORTHWEST SIDE DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE NOT TO EXTEND NOR TERMINATE IN A CUL-DE-SAC. TWO PUBLIC STUBB STREETS, DEWITT ROAD, AND GREEN RIVER DRIVE. STAFF RECOMMENDS TO DEFER THE APPLICATION FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO PROVIDE REVISED INFORMATION. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICATION, BUT I BELIEVE SOMEONE IS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. UM, WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER. KATRINA CARR. MS. CARR, GOOD AFTERNOON. HOW ARE YOU DOING TODAY? RIGHT? I'M HERE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS FAIR TO BUILD A BUSINESS IN BETWEEN RESIDENTS AND THEN WANT TO COMPLETE THE ROAD, BRING IT THROUGH. THERE'S A TOTAL OF SEVEN HOMES ON THOSE TWO STREETS. SO IF YOU PUT A BUSINESS THERE, THAT MEANS THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC, A LOT OF DISRUPTION IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IT'S ONLY TWO STREETS, BUT IT'S ONLY SEVEN HOMES. IT'S TWO, FOUR ON MINE, TWO ON THE OTHER ONE, BUT IN BETWEEN. IT'S NOT A BUSINESS THAT IS A RESIDENCE. LAY ROAD IS A BUSINESS, WAYSIDE IS A BUSINESS, BUT NEXT TO MY HOME IS NOT A BUSINESS. SO I'M ASKING YOU ALL TO RECONSIDER. DO NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU. UH, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 45 LAY ROAD BUSINESS? CAN I CLARIFY? YES. THE, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS NOT TO EXTEND OR TO CUL-DE-SAC AND SO RIGHT. SHE WOULD BE IN SUPPORT. YEAH, THAT'S, I WAS GONNA ASK YOU TO DO THAT. OKAY. I JUST WAS MAKING SURE THERE WAS NOBODY ELSE WHO WANTED TO SPEAK. OKAY. UM, SO AGAIN, IF YOU WOULD MAYBE TOUCH BASE WITH THE SPEAKER AND CLARIFY THAT, UM, THAT MIGHT HELP. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THEN IS TO DEFER ITEM 1 45. IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER ISH. SECOND. ALL ALLMAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 46. ITEM 1 46 IS RIVER OAKS HIGHLAND RESERVE. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF WEST ALABAMA COURT, EXCUSE ME, AT WEST ALABAMA AND ALABAMA COURT. THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO NOT DEDICATE 20 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY TO ALABAMA COURT AND TO ALLOW A RESERVE TO FRONT A RIGHT OF WAY LESS THAN 60 FEET. STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A ONE POINT 16 ACRE RESERVE WITH AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL SHOP SHOPPING CENTER FRONTING WEST ALABAMA STREET IN TWO RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN THE REAR OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ALABAMA COURT IS A 22 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC STREET WITH SOME RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES. THE APPLICANT STATES THE SHOPPING CENTER IS TO REMAIN AT THIS TIME, BUT WILL EVENTUALLY BE DEMOLISHED WITHOUT KNOWING THE FUTURE USE OF THE TRACK. WE HAVE NO WAY OF DETERMINING HOW THE ACCESS WILL BE PROVIDED BETWEEN ALABAMA COURT AND WEST ALABAMA STREET. AND THE GOAL WOULD BE TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ALONG WEST ALABAMA COURT. EXCUSE ME, ALABAMA COURT. WE'VE HEARD FROM RESIDENTS IN THE COUNCIL'S OFFICE VOICE CONCERNS ABOUT VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ISSUES ALONG ALABAMA COURT. AT THIS TIME, WE BELIEVE IT'S PREMATURE TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE REQUEST. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO [02:25:01] DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO PROVIDING THE NECESSARY RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO ALABAMA COURT. MADAM CHAIR, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE, UH, TO SPEAK AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YES. AND WE'LL CALL, SHE WOULD LIKE TO BE CALLED ON LAST. I'M GONNA CALL ON THE SPEAKERS WHO HAVE NOT SPOKEN BEFORE SINCE THEY'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. UH, THE FIRST OF THOSE IS, UM, MARGARET AMON, A-M-B-R-O IS NOT PRESENT. UM, RICK HOWARD. RICK HOWARD NOT PRESENT. UM, TARA LEE PETERSON IS NOT PRESENT. UM, OKAY. AND THEN ROBERT LAZY, LEZY. ROBERT LAZY IS NOT PRESENT. AND DANIEL PETERSON HERE. ALL RIGHT. UH, EXCUSE ME. UH, CYNTHIA HANEY. I HAD, WELL, I'M SORRY. HELLO? HELLO. HELLO. OKAY, WE'LL GET BACK TO HER. GO AHEAD, MR. PETERSON. ALL RIGHT. I'M DANIEL PETERSON. YOU JUST NAMED ALL THE NAMES OF MY NEIGHBORS. I THINK THEY DIDN'T SHOW UP BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT THE, UH, VARIANCE REQUEST WAS BEING DENIED. BUT I WANTED TO COME SPEAK ANYWAY TO BASICALLY THANK THE DEPARTMENT AND THE COMMISSION FOR DENYING THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. UM, I'VE HEARD ALL THE OTHER REQUESTS FOR, UH, RIGHT OF WAY VARIANCES. WE DON'T HAVE A 56 OR A A 50 FOOT OR A 60 FOOT STREET. WE HAVE A 20 FOOT STREET AND IT'S BARELY A PATCH OF CONCRETE THAT CONNECTS AND IT'S OUR ONLY ACCESS, UM, TO OUR HOMES. SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR RECOMMENDING, DENYING THIS. UM, I ONLY HAD A COUPLE OF FUTURE CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS. UM, 'CAUSE I KNOW THESE DEVELOPERS WILL COME BACK AT YOU MULTIPLE TIMES AND REQUEST FOR THIS VARIANCE AGAIN AND AGAIN. UH, WE JUST WOULD REQUEST THAT WE HAVE A BETTER NOTIFICATION NEXT TIME, SO WE'RE BETTER PREPARED. AND LASTLY, MY QUESTION IS ABOUT, UM, I SEE THAT THE PLAT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, SO I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THOSE CONDITIONS WERE. BUT AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR DENYING THE REQUEST, THE VARIANCE REQUEST. OKAY. WELL, AND WE'LL, I'LL LET THE STAFF ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AT THE END. WE HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER. RICHARD MERCADO. AYE. AYE. THANK YOU. RICHARD MERCADO. UH, I SPOKE BEFORE, SO I'LL BE QUICK. UH, YES. THANK YOU FOR, UH, DENYING THE, UH, THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND, AND YOU SAID, I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE. SO THAT'S ONE THING. WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE IS. AND I GUESS YOU SAID IT WAS GONNA BE A, HE SAID IT WAS GONNA BE A SHOPPING CENTER FOR A WHILE STILL, AND THEN SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE. OUR CONCERN IS IF THERE'S ANY MAJOR DEVELOPMENT THAT EMPTIES OUT ONTO ALABAMA COURT, EXCUSE ME, IT'S NARROW. EVEN WHEN YOU GET TO ALABAMA, THERE'S A HUNDRED FEET TO EDLO AND THAT BACKS UP. THERE BARELY IS ROOM FOR TWO CARS TO GET BY. THERE'S BARELY ROOM FOR FIRE TO GET DOWN THERE. UM, AND WE THINK IT WOULD BE VERY DANGEROUS AND VERY DIFFICULT AND EVERYONE IN THERE BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY IN AND OUT. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, OKAY, I'M GONNA CALL THE APPLICANT, UH, JENNIFER CURTIS. BUT BEFORE THAT, WAS THERE SOMEBODY OUT THERE WHO HAD BEEN MUTED WHO WANTED TO SPEAK? UH, YES. THIS IS CYNTHIA HANEY. I'D SIGNED UP, UH, A COUPLE, A FEW DAYS AGO TO SPEAK. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YEAH. SAY YOUR NAME AGAIN. CYNTHIA. CYNTHIA HANEY. H-A-Y-N-I-E. OKAY, GO AHEAD. YEAH. SO, UM, THANKS AGAIN FOR LETTING US, UH, SPEAK HERE TODAY. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT, UH, THIS WILL BE DENIED. UM, MY NAME'S CYNTHIA HANEY. I'M THE PROPERTY AND RESIDE AT ONE ALABAMA COURT, WHICH IS A PROPERTY THAT IS ABUTTED ON TWO SIDES NORTH AND WEST OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING THE VARIANCE. SO ON THAT LITTLE CARVE OUT THAT YOU SEE , UH, UH, WITHIN THE, UH, THE PLOT AREA. SO, UM, AS, UH, AS EXPRESSED, UH, IN THE COMMENTS THAT I SUBMITTED, JUST AGAIN, RAISING THE OBJECTIONS, UH, DUE TO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IT WOULD HAVE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CREATING HARDSHIP AND RISK, UH, OF ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY AND CITY AND UTILITY SERVICES, UH, WHICH WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST. AND AGAIN, I WON'T, I WON'T GO ON ANY ANYMORE BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED, UM, MY RESPONSE. BUT I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE TIME AND VERY MUCH APPRECIATE, UH, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY. IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER, UH, OPPOSITION SPEAKERS, UH, CYNTHIA OR JENNIFER CURTIS, SORRY. ALL RIGHT. [02:30:02] GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. MADAM CHAIR. I'M JENNIFER CURTIS WITH META PLANNING AND DESIGN. UM, WANTED TO WALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF THE FACTS OF THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY. SO, UM, YES, THE EXISTING BUILDING IS NOT BEING CHANGED. THE DEVELOPERS NOT, DOES NOT HAVE ANY PLANS FOR REDEVELOPMENT. THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING A BIG TOWER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THEY'RE TRYING TO CONSOLIDATE THESE PROPERTIES BECAUSE THEY WANT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER. THEY WANT TO USE THE PROPERTY IN THE REAR FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY UNDER SEPARATE OWNERSHIP. THEY WANT TO ADD SOME BACK DOORS TO THE EXISTING TENANTS THAT ARE IN THIS BUILDING. THEY CAN'T DO ANY OF THIS. THEY CAN'T GET THAT PERMITTED IF THE PROPERTY IS IN PIECES, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE EXISTING BUILDING IS ONLY A COUPLE FEET FROM THE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE. SO THE WHOLE REASON THAT THEY'RE DOING THAT IS THEY'RE CONSOLIDATING THESE PROPERTIES. THEY HAVE NO PLANS TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING RIGHT NOW. THEY UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, 20 YEARS FROM NOW, WHO KNOWS WHAT CAN HAPPEN, BUT THAT'S NOT IN THEIR VISION. SO, LOOKING AT SOME OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, THERE ARE SEVERAL PREVIOUS PLATS THAT HAVE OCCURRED ON ALABAMA COURT THAT DID NOT GIVE ANY WIDENING. AND THAT INCLUDES THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ACROSS ALABAMA COURT, WHICH WAS PLATTED IN 2008 AND DID NOT GIVE ANY WIDENING. ADDITIONALLY, LOOKING FURTHER DOWN THE STREET, IF ALL OF THE SUBSEQUENT PROPERTIES ARE REQUIRED TO ALSO GIVE 20 FEET OF WIDENING, THAT'S GONNA CUT A LOT OF HOUSES IN HALF, INCLUDING MISS WELL'S PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH. SO EVEN IF THIS TRACT GIVES WIDENING, IT'S NOT GOING ANY FURTHER. THE, THE STREET'S NEVER GOING TO BE 60 FEET. SO MAKING ONE PROPERTY GIVE A PARTIAL RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, WHICH ALSO ISN'T GONNA AFFECT THE PAVING. I DON'T SEE HOW THAT SOLVES ANYTHING. AND THEN, UM, I THINK THAT'S EVERYTHING THAT I WAS GONNA SAY. I, SO BASICALLY WHAT THEY'RE ASKING TO DO IS KEEP THE STREET IN ITS EXISTING CONFIGURATION AND BE ABLE TO DO THE SAME THING THAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS ALREADY DONE ON THIS STREET. THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE INTENSITY OF THE USE. EVERYTHING IS GOING TO STAY PRETTY MUCH THE SAME ON THE PROPERTY. AND EVEN IF, YOU KNOW, 20 YEARS FROM NOW SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN, IT'S STILL, IT'S ON THE CORNER, SO IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE HOUSES BEHIND THEM. THAT CONDITION ISN'T CHANGING UNLESS THOSE HOUSES REDEVELOP AND THEN THEY HAVE TO GIVE WIDENING TWO AND THEN THOSE HOUSES GOES AWAY. SO, I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SITUATION THAT, THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. MM-HMM . SO, AND MR. CRIDDLE, UM, SO THE, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY THE VARIANCE FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY IDENTIFICATION, BUT APPROVE THE PLAT AND APPROVING THE PLAT WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO MAKE, TO CONSOLIDATE THE PROPERTY AND, AND MAKE THE CHANGES. AND I'LL LET MS. CURTIS RESPOND TO THAT. I'M SORRY. THERE WAS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT I FORGOT TO MAKE. UM, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS ALSO ONLY A FEW FEET FROM ALABAMA COURT. SO IF RIGHT OF WAY WIDENING IS GIVEN, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WILL BE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND WE HAVE NO GUARANTEE THAT PUBLIC WORKS WOULD GRANT A RIGHT OF WAY ENCROACHMENT FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING. OKAY. OKAY. BUT THERE'S NO PLANS TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT. SO THERE'S NO PLAN DEMOLISH THE BUILDING. SO WE WOULD BE RECORDING A PLAT THAT WOULD DEFACTO REQUIRE A RIGHT OF WAY ENCROACHMENT. WE DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN GET A CONSENT TO ENCROACH. WE DON'T, PRELIMINARY CONVERSATION WITH PUBLIC WORKS WASN'T ABLE TO GIVE US A GUARANTEE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. BUT WAS I CORRECT IN THAT THE FIRST PART OF THAT STATEMENT ABOUT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE CHANGES THAT THEY ADDITIONAL PARKING IN THE REAR AND IT WOULD, IT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO CONSOLIDATE ALL THE SEPARATE TRACKS INTO ONE, UH, IN THE BACK HALF OF THAT WOULD BE TO ALSO REQUIRE THE DEDICATION TO, UH, ALABAMA COURT. RIGHT. BUT THEY COULD PUT PARKING ON THERE IF THEY WANTED TO WITHOUT MAKING THE DEDICATION? NO, I MEAN MAKING, THEY'D HAVE TO MAKE THE, IT WOULD BOTH WOULD HAVE TO EXIST US, OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO ALLOW THE CONSOLIDATION WITH THE DEDICATION WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. COMMISSIONER GARZA, UH, JUST TO GO BACK TO WHAT MS. CURTIS SAID ABOUT THE ENCROACHMENT THAT WILL HAPPEN IF WE DICTATE THAT THERE HAS TO BE THE DEDICATION, WOULD THAT NOT BE GRANDFATHERED AUTOMATICALLY OR NOT? I WOULD PROBABLY, UH, DEFER TO PUBLIC WORKS THAT I WOULD PROBABLY DEFER TO PUBLIC WORKS FOR THAT, FOR THAT ANSWER. OKAY. DO, DO WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE FROM PUBLIC WORKS? YEAH. MR. BROWN THERE? YEAH, THERE YOU ARE. I DIDN'T SEE YOU APOLOGIZE. HE HAS A HIDING SPACE BEHIND THE, UH, PILLAR THERE WITH GOOD REASON PROBABLY. YEAH. . UM, SO AGAIN, THE QUESTION WAS IF, UH, IF WE FORCE THE DEDICATION AND THE BUILDING IS NOW ENCROACHING INTO THAT DEDICATION TO THE RIGHT OF WAY, WILL THAT BUILDING, UH, SINCE THEY'RE NOT CHANGING, WILL IT BE GRANDFATHERED? I'M GONNA HAVE TO CHECK ON THAT. COMMISSIONER GARZA? I, I'M NOT SURE. ALRIGHT. NOT THE ANSWER WE WANTED, SORRY, MS. CURTIS. [02:35:01] BUT YEAH, WE, WE WOULD LIKE TO FIND THAT OUT BECAUSE THAT'S IMPORTANT. BUT REGARDLESS, THANK YOU. OKAY. BUT SHE SAID SHE'S TALKED TO PUBLIC WORKS AND NOT GOTTEN A D DEFINITIVE ANSWER, WHICH MEANS IT'S, I MEAN, I WAS THINKING GRANDFATHERED, I THINK'S GRANDFATHERED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING. IT'S A NEW CONDITION. YEAH. SO I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GRANDFATHERED INTO A NEW, I I'M NOT SURE. I DON'T KNOW. AND WE CANNOT DEFER THIS, CORRECT? NO, I DON'T. SO, UM, YES. QUESTION COMMISSIONER ROBBINS, MR. CRILE, IF, IF YOU GET THIS RIGHT OF WAY, ARE YOU, DO YOU THINK THERE IS ANY CHANCE OF GETTING IT ON THE REMAINDER OF THE STREET AT ANY POINT? IT WOULD REQUIRE RE PLATTING OF THOSE ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES ALONG WEST ALABAMA COURT. IT WOULD REQUIRE REPL AND THAT'S WHEN WE WOULD CONSIDER, UM, RIGHTWAY DEDICATION AT THAT TIME. RIGHT. BUT I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE AERIAL AND IT LOOKS LIKE IF YOU, DO YOU, I MEAN, IT TAKES THE BULK OF THAT PROPERTY AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AT THAT POINT, RIGHT? I MEAN, JUST HEADING SOUTH DOWN ALABAMA COURT, YOU, YOU COULD SAY SO FOR SOME OF THE USES, BUT THIS, THE, A LOT OF THE USES ARE ALSO RESIDENTIAL AS WELL. SO OUR, THE FUTURE USE IS SORT OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING OUT FOR. IF THIS, WHEN, AND IF THIS BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED AT THAT POINT, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION. WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET THAT DEDICATION. UM, NOT SURE WHAT THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD LOOK LIKE, BUT WE WOULD SURE. GET IT AT THAT TIME. YEAH. I, THAT'S TO ME IS THE MOST COMPELLING PART THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE IS GONNA BE. SO MS. MATER, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSION MEMBERS, UM, THERE IS, WE, THE COMMISSION HAS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED, UH, SOMETHING WHAT WE, SOMETHING THAT WE CALL CONDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY WHINING. AND THAT IS SO THAT THEY CAN PROCEED WITH THEIR, BECAUSE THE, THE GOAL OF THE GOAL OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS TO CONSOLIDATE PROPERTY AND STILL KEEP THE EXISTING BUILDING AND NOT ADD ANY MORE TRAFFIC TO THE EXISTING CONDITION. THEN THE PLA COULD BE APPROVED FOR THEM TO ALLOW THE CONSOLIDATION OF PROPERTIES, ALLOW THE RE REMODELING OF THE BUILDING. BUT THE WIDENING WILL ONLY BECOME EFFECTIVE IF THE BUILDING IS EVER DEMOLISHED. SO THE PLA GETS APPROVED WITH A STATEMENT THAT SAYS THE RIGHT OF PHASE. UH, SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST, UM, I'M, I'M STILL DEBATING. I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST GRANT THE VARIANCE TO SAY THAT THE WIDENING WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE AFTER THE BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED. AND WE'LL WORK A NOTE OUT WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND, UH, PUT IT ON THE PLA SO THEY'LL BE ABLE TO DO THE RENOVATION THEY WANT FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING, BUT IN FUTURE, THE WIDENING WILL BE REQUIRED. IT SOUNDS LIKE A, A REASONABLE CON COMPROMISE. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? COMMISSIONER ALLMAN? I WAS JUST WONDERING, UM, AND I THINK IT'S A QUESTION FOR PUBLIC WORKS. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S ENOUGH SPACE. LIKE I WAS THINKING THAT WIDENING AT THE INTERSECTION, NEAR THE INTERSECTION IN THE FRONT PARKING LOT WOULD BENEFIT TRAFFIC CIRCULATION. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ENOUGH, THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH ROOM TO DO THAT. IS THAT CORRECT? DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? THAT TO WIDEN ALONG ALABAMA COURT? UM, YEAH, BUT I CAN, I DON'T HAVE A DISTANCE AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ENOUGH SPACE FOR THAT. THESE, THESE ARE, UH, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING QUESTIONS THAT, THAT WOULD REQUIRE SOME OF THEIR EXPERTISE. I'M, I'M SORRY, I DON'T OKAY. DON'T HAVE A DEFINITE ANSWER FOR YOU. OKAY. YOU'RE SAYING IF I CAN, CAN I RESPOND TO THAT AS WELL? YEAH, GO AHEAD. SO, UM, IN 20 15, 20 16, THE CITY ACTUALLY TOOK SOME RIGHT OF WAY ALREADY ON WEST ALABAMA FROM THIS PROPERTY TO, TO IMPROVE WEST ALABAMA, WHICH THAT CONSTRUCTION IS HAPPENING NOW. AND THAT INCLUDED A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. SO I WOULD VENTURE TO ASSUME THAT IF THE CITY HAD DETERMINED IN, YOU KNOW, 20 15, 20 16, THAT THAT INTERSECTION NEEDED A LEFT TURN LANE OR SOMETHING, THAT THEY COULD HAVE ACQUIRED THAT RIGHT OF WAY AT THE SAME TIME BUT DIDN'T. SO, I MEAN, I WASN'T AROUND AT THAT TIME ON THIS PROPERTY, SO I'M JUST SPECULATING. BUT THAT IS INFORMATION. WELL I WOULD SAY THE CITY MIGHT NOT HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, BUT YEAH. ALRIGHT. THAT QUESTION? YES, YES. MADAM CHILD. I WAS JUST REMINDED, UH, ABOUT THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S SUPPORT FOR, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. I DIDN'T MENTION IT EARLIER, BUT I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, OKAY, GO AHEAD. SO CLARK, CLARK, I'M KIND OF CONFUSED HERE THAT THE RESIDENT [02:40:01] AND THE COUNCIL MEMBER DON'T WANT ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION. CORRECT? AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECT? THEY DON'T WANT THIS BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED. THEY DON'T WANT I'M ASKING STAFF, SIR. THANK YOU. UM, SO THEY DON'T WANT NO. YEAH, NO, THEY DON'T WANT ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION. DON'T WANNA DEMOLISH. BUT IF THEY'RE AGREEING THAT THEY JUST WANT TO JOIN THE PROPERTIES, THEY WANNA REMODEL THE EXISTING, WHAT'S THE ISSUE? COULD YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT? UM, REALLY THE ISSUE IS THE FUTURE USE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD WE HAVE NO CONTROL ON WHEN THIS BUILDING WILL BE DEMOLISHED, RIGHT? BUT IF WE ADD THAT CLAUSE THAT SAYS AT DEMOLITION THE DEDICATION IS REQUIRED, HAVEN'T WE RESOLVED ALL OF THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES? MAYBE MOST OF THEM ? I DUNNO WHAT IT YES, COME ON. MR. CREDLE. . YES, MA'AM. I MEAN, AM I MISSING, I GUESS I'M, AM I MISSING SOMETHING? NO, THAT'S, YEAH, BECAUSE I MEAN, JUST OF THE APPLICANT IS BEING ALLOWED TO DO WHAT THEY WANNA DO MM-HMM . WHICH IS REMODEL. MM-HMM . JOIN THE PROPERTIES, ADD BACK DOORS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. AND THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA DON'T WANT THE DEDICATION AND THE WIDENING MM-HMM . AND ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT ADDS TO TRAFFIC AND ALL OF THAT. MM-HMM . SO IF WE PUT THAT ON THERE, I FEEL LIKE WE'VE SATISFIED EVERYTHING. YEAH. YEP. YEAH. AND I MEAN, I, I WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE REMODELING TO TAKE PLACE AND PERHAPS ADDITIONAL PARKING, YOU KNOW, FOR TRAFFIC FLOW MM-HMM . SO PEOPLE AREN'T GOING DOWN THE STREET MM-HMM . AND MAKING IT IS A VERY NARROW STREET. MM-HMM . SO MM-HMM . UM, BUT YET IT PROTECTS THE CITY'S INTEREST IN THAT, IN THAT RIGHT OF WAY. SHOULD SOMETHING CHANGE MADAM CHAIR? I MEAN, IS STAFF OFFICIALLY CHANGING THEIR RECOMMENDATION OR WHAT ARE WE, I GUESS WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WAY. OKAY. OH, MADDEN CHAIR, COMMISSIONER VAR, UM, HAS HER HAND UP. OH, OKAY. OH, YOU'RE BACK. I'M BACK. COMMISSIONER VAR IS BACK. I'M BACK. OKAY, GO AHEAD. OH, YOU'RE JUST TELLING US YOU WERE BACK. OKAY. THANK YOU. I MEANT TO MENTION THAT. COMMISSIONER JONES. YEAH. UH, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. I THINK THE COMMENT ON THE PLAT IS VERY APPROPRIATE TO PROTECT BOTH PARTIES BECAUSE THERE ARE ALWAYS COMPLICATIONS AT THE PERMIT CENTER. JUST CONFUSION. AND IF IT'S ON THE PLAT LANGUAGE IS CLEAR, THEN THERE'S PROTECTION TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IN ADDITION TO, YOU KNOW, FUTURE THAT NONE OF US, YOU KNOW, RECOGNIZE. OKAY. YEAH. SHOULD IT GET SOLD? OKAY. SO COMMISSIONER GARZA, , THERE'S A LOT GOING ON HERE. SO I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING AND THAT IS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL HAVE TO DEDICATE CORRECT. BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE UNTIL THIS BUILDING COMES DOWN, WHICH THERE IS NO PLAN TO BRING IT DOWN AT THIS POINT IN TIME. AM I MISUNDERSTANDING? SO IN OTHER WORDS, SO THE MOTION WOULD BE TO, TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE? NO, IT WOULD STILL BE TO DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. 'CAUSE WE NEED THEM TO DEDICATE, BUT NOT UNTIL THAT PROPERTY COME, THE BUILDING COMES DOWN. AM I, AM I MISUNDERSTANDING? I THINK 50 SAID IT BEST. MS. MONTE SAID IT MAY BE A CONDITION. YEAH. OKAY. COULD WE GET A MOTION TO DEFER THIS AND NOT TO DEFER IT? YES. TO TABLE IT UNTIL YOU GUYS TALK AMONGST YOURSELVES. YEAH. AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO IT. IS THERE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS FOR A MINUTE? IS THERE A SECOND? YES. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? CLARK GARZA CLARK TO TAYLOR. CLARK. YEAH. CLARK GARZA. AND WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. YOU GUYS FIGURE IT OUT. OKAY, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON. THANK YOU TO, UH, 1 47. GOOD JOB. FIGURE IT OUT. I THINK SHE'S READY FOR YOU. YEAH. NO. OKAY. I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU NEEDED TO DO BUSINESS. NO, WE, OKAY. I 1 47 IS SAWDUST WOODLANDS. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON'S ETJ IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY WEST AND ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARE SAWDUST ROAD AND BETWEEN THE EAST WEST SEGMENTS OF SAWDUST ROAD, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 22 AND A HALF ACRE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A REDUCED BUILDING LINE OF 20 FEET ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARE SAWDUST ROAD. IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 25 FEET. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. ONE OF THE APPLICANT'S MAIN JUSTIFICATIONS IS AN EFFORT TO PRESERVE AS MANY LARGE MATURE TREES AS POSSIBLE. THE SITE IS [02:45:01] PROPOSED FOR MULTI-FAMILY USE WITH TWO ACCESS POINTS TO SAWDUST ROAD. ALL VEHICULAR CIRCULATION IS INTERIOR TO THE SITE. TWO TOWN HOME BUILDINGS OF 16 AND 12 UNITS ARE BEING PROPOSED ALONG THE EASTERN EDGE WITH THE FACADE ALONG SAWDUST, HAVING GLAZING AND FRONT DOORS GRANTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH SOUND PUBLIC POLICY. AFTER THE MORE THAN 10 FEET DEDICATION TO RIGHT OF WAY WIDENING THE PROPOSED DWELLINGS WILL BE SET BACK FROM THE PAVEMENT EDGE BY MORE THAN 40 FEET. MONTGOMERY COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS VOICED NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS STAFF'S NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. WILLIAMSON? UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN. IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION CLARK. CLARK. IS THERE A SECOND? JONES KAIN KAIN. LET'S, WE'LL DO KAIN THE MOTION IF HE WANTS SECOND. OKAY. UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THAT CONCLUDES VARIANCES. WE'RE NO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. [f. Reconsiderations of Requirement (John Cedillo and Petra Hsia) ] UH, AND WE ARE ON SECTION F1 48. ITEM 1 48 IS FELLOWS IN AND OUT INVESTMENTS AT SOUTH FREEWAY. THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A NEARLY NINE ACRE PROPERTY IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION NORTH ALONG BELTWAY EIGHT AND WEST OF STATE HIGHWAY 2 88. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO LARGE UNRESTRICTED RESERVES AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED 2,600 FOR INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOW PROVIDING NORTH SOUTH STREET THROUGH THE PROPERTY. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE. THE PLA WAS DEFERRED LAST CYCLE PER HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING. REQUEST FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW. THE SUBJECT SITE IS ALONG A TEXTILE HIGHWAY, CLOSE TO A HIGHWAY INTERSECTION AND IS WITHIN A RIGHT OF WAY GRID THAT PROVIDES SUFFICIENT TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION. THESE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE MOSTLY LARGE LANDFILL INDUSTRIAL SITES WITH A FEW LARGE COMMERCIAL INTERSTATE LOT PROPERTIES THAT DO NOT INCUR HEAVY TRAFFIC. AND GRANTED THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE INJURIOUS OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THE VARIANCE. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAN SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICATION PANEL CHAIR. THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MR. CILLO? WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? A SECOND BARK? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. UH, ITEM 1 49. ITEM 1 49, EXCUSE ME, IS KLEIN ISD DORA INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL COMPLEX. THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A NEARLY 40, UH, AN OVER 40 ACRE PROPERTY IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRA TERRITORY JURISDICTION NORTH ALONG THEAS MALE ROUTE ROAD EAST OF CHAMPION FOREST AND SOUTH OF SPRING CYPRESS. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO LARGE RESERVES RESTRICTED TO SCHOOL RELATED USES AND IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES. ONE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING NORTH SOUTH NOR EAST WEST STREET THROUGH THE PROPERTY. AND TWO, TO NEITHER EXTEND NOR TERMINATE CUL WITH A CUL-DE-SAC. STUB STREETS RED HOLLY LANE TO THE NORTHWEST OR ASH VALLEY DRIVE TO THE SOUTHEAST STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES. THE SUBJECT SIDE IS BEING RE PLATTED TO ALLOW ADDITIONS TO BE MADE TO THE ORIGINAL SCHOOL BUILDING THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1984. THE SCHOOL ALREADY HAS AN UNIMPEDED PAVED ROADWAY THAT CONNECTS RED HOLLY LANE TO THE MILL ROUTE ROAD, PROVIDING THE SCHOOL WITH TWO POINTS OF VEHICULAR ACCESS AND ALLOWING A CIRCUITOUS CONNECTION THROUGH THE SCHOOL PROPERTY. AS SHOWN IN YELLOW, THE SITE IS BOUNDED TO THE EAST AND WEST BY RECORDED SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS AND TO THE NORTH BY LARGE, LARGE, UH, LARGE RECORDED, UH, COMMERCIAL RESERVES, MAKING ANY ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY CONNECTIONS AND FEASIBLE SMALLER PROPOSED RESERVE CONTAINS STRUCTURES LANDMARKED BY THE HIS TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION AND EXTENDING ASH VALLEY WOULD DISPLACE SOME OF THOSE STRUCTURES. THE SCHOOL DOES PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FROM STUBB STREET FOR ASH VALLEY SHOWN IN PINK, AND THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO MAINTAIN THAT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUEST OF VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 INFORMED CONDITIONS. MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP ON THIS, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE YOU ON THIS SCREEN. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION? ROBIN ROBINS SECOND GARZA GARZA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM ONE 50. GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, MA'AM CHAIRMAN CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS PETRA SHAW. ITEM ONE 50 IS PORTER MUD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON ETJ IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY NORTH OF MILLS BRANCH DRIVE IN EAST OF LOOP 4 94. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING [02:50:01] A RESERVE RESTRICTED TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PURPOSES AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO NOT EXTEND THE SUBSTRATE OF CASCADE MOUNTAIN DRIVE, NOR OR TERMINATE IT WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE SITE ITSELF HOUSES EXISTING WA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES THAT SERVICE THE COMMUNITY AND ARE CURRENTLY BEING EXPANDED TO INCREASED CAPACITY BASED ON THE CURRENT USE ON THE SITE EXTENDING THE SUBSTRATE OF CASCADE MOUNTAIN DRIVE. A STREET NOT REQUIRED FOR INTERSECTION SPACING OR TERMINATING IT IN A CUL-DE-SAC WOULD IMPEDE ON THESE FACILITIES AND WOULD NOT PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT TO THE INTERNAL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN THE AREA. ACCESS TO THE CASCADE MOUNTAIN DRIVE STUB WILL BE RESTRICTED TO EMERGENCY SERVICES AND DISTRICT MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES ONLY. STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE VARIANCE IN APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM AND CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENTS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MS. SHAW? WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO IS ON THE SCREEN. ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION? JONES? JONES. IS THERE A SECOND? VICTOR? VICTOR. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. A AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. UH, THAT WILL TAKE US TO SECTIONS [Platting Activities g - i] GH AND I, MS. SHAW. UM, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS. GH AND I AS ONE GROUP? YES. YOU DON'T EVER HAVE TO ASK US. WE ALWAYS WILL DO THAT. COOL. THANK YOU. UM, SECTION G EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 51 THROUGH ONE 70 SECTION H. NAME CHANGES HAS NO ITEMS AND SECTION I CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 71 THROUGH 1 75. THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTIONS GH AND I. THERE ARE NO ITEMS TAKEN OUT OF ORDER PER STAFF AND NO CHANGES IN STAFF RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL ON ALL ITEMS IN SECTIONS G AND I? OH, DO YOU WANNA ABSTAIN ON SOMETHING ? YES, MADAM CHAIR. OKAY. GET YOUR ATTENTION. I WASN'T GONNA THROW ANYTHING. THANKS. I WAS TRYING TO COMMISSIONER CLARK. THANK YOU. ADDITIONAL SURGERY OR SOMETHING OVER HERE? , I NEED TO ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS 1 51 THROUGH 1 53 AND 1 58. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO DID YOU GET THAT 1 53? 1 1 51 53. OKAY. AND 1 58. OKAY. AND THAT'LL BE COMMISSIONER, HE ABSTAINING. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION FOR MOTION TO HEAR? IS THERE A SECOND? VICTOR? VICTOR. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. YE. THE MOTION CARRIES WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER, HE ABSTAINING ON THE ITEMS MENTIONED. AND BEFORE WE GO TO SECTION K, IS THERE ANY SIGN OF THE, UM, PEOPLE DISCUSSING THE RIVER OAKS? DID THEY JUST LEAVE? THEY'RE STILL CONFIRMING. [k. Development Plats with Variance Requests (Geoff Butler) ] OKAY. WE'LL GO TO SECTION K DEVELOPMENT PLOTS. MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS COMMISSIONER KANE. I'M GONNA BE LEAVING THE MEETING. OKAY. GOODBYE. THANK YOU, . WELL, THANKS. I APOLOGIZE. I DIDN'T, I OH MY, THAT WAS CORRECT. . OKAY. GOODBYE. SORRY. WE WILL. THANK YOU FOR TELLING US. WE'LL MISS YOU. DON'T LET THE SCREEN DOOR HIT YOU . BYE-BYE. BYE-BYE. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I KNOW. GOOD A ALL RIGHT, GO. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JEFF BUTLER. ITEM 1 67 IS 1802 CRYSTAL COURT. THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING AND MUST BE ACTED ON TODAY. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG CRYSTAL COURT AT 18TH STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG 18TH RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 TO ALLOW ONE STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF CRYSTAL COURT AND HAS SECONDARY FRONTAGE ALONG WEST 18TH STREET. THE PROPOSED HOME WILL BE SET BACK 30 FEET FROM THE PAY SECTION OF WEST 18TH AND WILL TAKE SOLE ACCESS FROM CRYSTAL COURT. THE ADDITIONS HEIGHT AND SETBACK ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE OF OTHER HOMES WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, WHICH ARE MOSTLY CONSTRUCTED TO THE 20 FOOT SETBACK SHOWN ON THE PLAT. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE BILLING LINE REQUIREMENT AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. UH, WE RECEIVE WRITTEN COMMENT REGARDING CONCERNS OVER THE SETBACKS, COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER. [02:55:01] THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT IF, UM, THERE ARE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. IF NOT, I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE SIGNED UP. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY? UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE. IS THERE DISCUSSION MOTION GARZA GARZA. IS THERE A SECOND? HINES HINES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 77, ITEM 1 77 IS 32 0 2 CUSHING STREET. THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG CUSHING WITH SECONDARY FRONTAGE ALONG LOCKWOOD DRIVE. IN AN UNIMPROVED SEGMENT OF JEWEL, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A ONE STORY DUPLEX AND IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO ALLOW FOR A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG LOCKWOOD AND A FIVE FOOT BUILDING LINE. ALONG JEWEL STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW. WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT IN THIS ITEM. THIS INCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER. COMMISSIONER GARZA, UH, MR. BUTLER, I, UH, MENTIONED IN OUR STAFF MEETING YESTERDAY THAT THERE WAS SOME CONSTRUCTION, POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION GOING ON, ON, UH, LOCKWOOD, UH, VIA METRO. IS THAT THE REASON FOR THIS DELAY? ONE OF THE REASONS, YES. WE'D LIKE TO GET MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT THEIR IMPROVEMENTS WOULD LOOK LIKE HERE. GREAT. THANK YOU SIR. OKAY. WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER, UH, THE APPLICANT OF AVARO MESA. DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? AVARO MESA DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. UH, I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK. UM, THAT BEING SAID, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER MOTIONS? SIGLER ALLMAN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 78, ITEM 1 78 IS 34 44 MEADOW LAKE LANE. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RIVER OAKS COMMUNITY ALONG MEADOW LAKE WITH REAR FRONTAGE ALONG SAN OPPE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG SAN OPPE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FOR THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST. THE SITE FEATURES OF DE RESTRICTED 40 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG MEADOW LAKE, RESTRICTING ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT TO THE ROUGHLY REAR TWO THIRDS OF THE LOT. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING TO CLOSE THE EXISTING CURB CUT ALONG SAN OPPE, LIMITING VEHICULAR ACCESS TO MEADOW LAKE. THESE CONDITIONS ARE SIMILAR OF THOSE RECENTLY, OF RECENTLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAT VARIANCES ALONG SAN OPPE, WHERE LOTS HAVE FRONTAGE ON PARALLEL LOCAL STREETS. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST JUSTIFIED CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE SITE CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT IN THIS ITEM OTHER THAN THE SUPPORT OF RIVER OAKS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPRESENTATION. OKAY, THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE ANY DISCUSSION. IS THERE A MOTION ROBINS? IS THERE A SECOND? HINES HINES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. UM, OKAY. COULD, COULD WE GET SOMEBODY TO STEP OUT AND SEE? OH, THANK YOU MR. CILLO. UM, WELL MEANWHILE, [II. Establish a public hearing date of August 10, 2023 ] WE'LL GO TO ROMAN TWO AND ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 10TH, 2023 FOR THE FOLLOWING. WHAT, FIVE MINUTES? TWO. GIVE THEM TWO. TELL 'EM YEAH, TELL 'EM WE'RE ON A ROLL. OKAY. UH, SO WE'RE ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 10TH, 2023. FOUR BONNER ENC, CLIVE PARTIAL, REPL NUMBER ONE AND EXTENSION BRICK AND STONE. OH, I DON'T HAVE TO READ THEM. NO, THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. EVERYBODY CONSULT THE SCREEN. WE'RE ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 10TH, 2023 FOR THE, UH, PLAT PLAT APPLICATIONS LISTED ON THE SCREEN AND ON THE AGENDA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF SETTING THAT DATE, SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. [III. Consideration of an Off-Street Parking Variance at 1619 N. Shepherd Drive (Geoff Butler)] WITH THAT, WE GO TO CONSIDERATION OF OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE AT 9 16 19 NORTH SHEPHERD. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT AT THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF WEST 17TH AND SHEPHERD. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A REFURBISH TWO ONE STORY STRUCTURES FOR CONVERSION TO A PET BOARDING FACILITY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO PROVIDE 12 PARKING SPACES AS OPPOSED TO THE REQUIRED 18. STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW. WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT. THIS ITEM AS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. OKAY. UM, LOOKING FOR, YEAH, THAT WAS GONNA BE MY QUESTION. WHAT IS IT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS? SO WE HAVE SUGGESTED TO THE APPLICANT THAT THEY CHANGE THE CURB CUT ALONG SHEPHERD TO ALLEY ACCESS WITH TAKING ACCESS FROM THE ALLEY. AND THEY'RE OPEN TO THAT, UH, SUGGESTION. SO THEY'RE, WE'RE GONNA WORK WITH, UM, THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER TO AND, [03:00:01] AND THE TOURISTS TO JUST DETERMINE HOW, HOW THAT CAN BE DONE. THANK YOU, MR. BUTLER. I FIGURED IT WAS, YEAH. . THANK YOU. OKAY. A PAVED ALLEY. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER? I MEAN, UH, MS. MICKELSON. I GOT A PROMOTION. YEAH. OH, I HAVE A DIFFERENT ITEM AFTER. OH, OKAY. SO ANYTHING ON ITEM, UH, ROMAN NUMERAL THREE? UH, THEN IF NOT, OH, SORRY. OKAY. COME FORWARD. OH, I'M SORRY. I DO HAVE, I HA ARE YOU GERALDINE GRAY? YES. I'M SO SORRY. THANK YOU FOR STEPPING UP. GO RIGHT AHEAD. HELLO. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. IT'S MY, UH, FIRST CHANCE I'VE EVER HAD TO BE IN A SITTING ENVIRONMENT OTHER THAN THE ORDER TRAFFIC TICKET. MY NAME IS GERALDINE GRAY, AM THE HOMEOWNER TO THE, UH, NEXT DOOR PROPERTY THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW. AND I TRULY WELCOME REGENERATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE AREA. THAT'S WHEN IT IS CREATED WITH MUTUAL RESPECT AND UNDERSTANDING AMONGST NEIGHBORS. RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE APPLYING FOR PARKING VARIATIONS. UM, HOWEVER, I OWN AND LIVE AND WORK FROM THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR. OUR GATE IS FREQUENTLY BLOCKED ON A DAILY BASIS. THERE ARE CARS ALREADY DOUBLED AND TRIPLED, PARKED ALONG 17TH. UM, THERE IS A NEW SET OF TOWN HOMES NEXT DOOR, BUT ONE WHICH FIVE TOWN HOMES, WHICH WILL ESSENTIALLY HAVE 10 PARKING, UM, 10 GARAGES PARKING TO THEM. AND, UH, THERE IS NO EXTRA STREET PARKING FOR THOSE BRAND NEW 10 HOUSES THAT ARE NEXT DOOR. UH, FIVE HOUSES THAT ARE NEXT DOOR. BUT ONE, LOOKING AT THE MATH OF, UM, HOW THIS IS GONNA WORK. OUT OF THE PROPOSED, UH, 12 SPOTS, SEVEN OF WHICH ARE GOING TO BE USED FOR EMPLOYEES AND FIVE ARE GOING TO BE USED FOR THE DOGS. LET'S ASSUME THAT BETWEEN SEVEN AND 8:00 AM YOU'RE GONNA HAVE ABOUT 33 PEOPLE DROPPING OFF THEIR DOGS. THEY SAY THERE'S GONNA BE 130 DOGS A DAY. SO THAT'S ABOUT MAYBE ONE PERSON IN THREE WILL HAVE AN EXTRA DOG. SO IF THERE'S GONNA BE A HUNDRED OWNERS DROPPING OFF THEIR DOGS, THAT'S A HUNDRED CARS. SO BETWEEN SEVEN AND 8:00 AM WE'RE GONNA HAVE ABOUT 33 CARS. THEY'RE SAYING IT'S GONNA TAKE ONE TO TWO MINUTES TO DROP OFF A DOG. UM, I DON'T KNOW ANY DOGS THAT ARE THAT, UH, WHAT SHOULD WE SAY? YEAH, EFFICIENT, KIND, GENEROUS, WHATEVER. ANYWAY, IT'S NOT GONNA TAKE ONE TO TWO MINUTES TO DROP OFF, UM, 33 DOGS AN HOUR. IT'S GONNA TAKE MORE LIKE FOUR MINUTES TO PULL IN, PARK, FIND A SPOT, MOVE YOUR SPOT, GET YOUR DOG OUT. AND THERE IS NO SUGGESTION EVEN THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH DROP OFF LIKE YOU CAN HAVE WITH SOME DAYCARE ENVIR, UM, ENVIRONMENTS WHERE YOU CAN DROP OFF YOUR KID AND AND RUN ON. SO THAT MEANS THAT THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY 2.2, UH, PARKING SPACES SHORT, PER HOUR. UM, CAN YOU TELL I'M AN ANALYST? 'CAUSE I LOVE TO DO MATH. UM, SO, AND, UH, THE IDEA OF HAVING BARK, UH, TWO PARKING, GIVING UP, UH, PARKING SPACES BECAUSE THEIR BIKE PARKING IS ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS. UNLESS YOUR DOG IS THE SIZE OF PARIS HILTON'S DOG, THERE'S NO WAY ANYONE ONE'S GONNA BE DROPPING OFF THEIR DOG BY BIKE. UM, I WOULD ASK YOU TO DEFER THE, UH, THE APPLICATION. AND I'M HAPPY, UM, TO INVITE THE NEW OWNER TO COME AND CHAT WITH US AS OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. NOT LEAST BECAUSE OF PARKING, BUT ALSO FOR ASSURANCES OF NA ABATE NOISE ABATEMENT. HANDS UP. WHO WANTS TO HAVE 130 DOGS LIVING NEXT DOOR TO THEM 24 HOURS A DAY? IT'S NOT COOL. UM, AND ALSO NOT TO MENTION THE SMELL OF THE DOG POO, WHICH IS GONNA BE PRETTY DIRE. UM, AND THE, UH, POTENTIAL DISEASES THAT GO WITH THAT. I HAVE TWO OF MY OWN LITTLE DOGS AND I HAVE MY CHILDREN. I REALLY DON'T WANT TO BE THERE. UM, I'M VERY HAPPY TO WELCOME THE NEIGHBORS. WE WELCOME THE REGENERATION, BUT THERE'S BEEN NO DISCUSSION WITH ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS ON THE ENTIRE STREET ABOUT WHAT THE BUSINESS IS GONNA BE. OKAY. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. AND I WILL ASK MR. BUTLER TO HELP YOU GET IN TOUCH WITH THE OWNER IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY TO SET UP SOME KIND OF A MEETING. AND WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO, TO DO THAT. THIS IS A CHANGE OF USE THAT REALLY, I LOVE DOGS. I LOVE CATS. I LOVE HUSBANDS. I LOVE CHILDREN. I DON'T WANT 130 OF ANYTHING NEXT DOOR TO MY HOUSE. UM, SO THANK YOU. OKAY. AND, AND OF COURSE OUR CONCERN IS, IS THE PARKING ONLY AT THIS POINT? IT IT IS ONLY THE PARKING. IT'S THE PARKING. SO IT'S ONLY THE PARKING. BUT EVEN WHEN YOU RUN THE NUMBERS, THE PARKING SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK. BUT WE WILL USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO, TO HOPEFULLY GET THE, THE APPLICANT TO HOOK UP WITH YOU AND DISCUSS THE OKAY. THANK YOU. THE THING. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMISSIONER ROBBINS. I'LL JUST SAY, UH, COMMISSIONER ALLMAN AND I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS SINCE THE SIX MONTHS AGO OR WHENEVER IT WAS AT THE LAST, UM, DOGGY CARE FACILITY CAME UP. I THINK THE BICYCLE PARKING IS FOR THE EMPLOYEES, NOT FOR THE DOGS. UH, AND I THINK THE, WHAT COMMISSIONER ALLMANS FOUND IN HER PRELIMINARY RESEARCH IS THAT NOBODY, AND YOU HAVE STAGGERED TIMES FOR DROP-OFFS FOR DOGS, PEAK TIME FOR A DOG DAYCARE FACILITY IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN PEAK TIME FOR A CHILDCARE FACILITY. AND SHE AND I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT METRICS TO USE. THERE'S OTHER CITIES HAVE TACKLED THIS AND THEY HAVE DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING IT, AND SHE AND I ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT IT. AND I KNOW SHE'S TALKED TO YOU ABOUT IT, BUT JUST WANTED IT NOTED FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING INTO AND TRYING TO GET A RESOLUTION. YEAH. AND REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR INITIATIVE IN DOING THIS. YOU BOTH HAVE EXPERTISE IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE EQUATION. I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE EQUAL CREDIT FOR IT. DESPITE THE DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WE'VE PUT IN. COMMISSIONER [03:05:01] ALLMAN HAS LED THE CHARGE AND I'M RIGHT BEHIND HER TELLING HER IT'S SAFE UP THAT HILL. SO THANK YOU. BUT I, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE, UM, THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THAT THE SPEAKER REMINDED ME OF SOMETHING. THEY ARE IN THEIR VARIANCE REQUEST, UM, SAYING THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A DROP OFF PICKUP AREA FOR THE DOGS. I DON'T SEE IT ON THE SITE PLAN, BUT ONE THING WHEN, AND THIS CAME UP WITH ANOTHER, ANOTHER THING ACTUALLY, I THINK IT WAS A REALLY A, A REAL CHILDCARE THING. IF THEY HAVE THAT DROP OFF PICKUP, I THINK THEY NEED TO SHOW, AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR A PARKING VARIANCE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO, UM, BLOCK PARKING SPACES AND 'CAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY ASKING FOR VARIANCE. AND, AND WHEN THEY DROP OFF AND PICK OFF, IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE, UM, PICK UP, IF THEY'RE BLOCKING THE PARKING SPACES, THEN THEY'RE NOT EVEN PROVIDING WHAT THEY SAY THEY'RE GONNA BE PROVIDE DURING PEAK HOURS, WHICH IS WHEN YOU NEED IT. YOU NEED UNOBSTRUCTED PARKING. YEAH, EXACTLY. RIGHT. SO, OKAY. ANYWAY, THAT'S, THAT'S ONE THING THAT, BUT AGAIN, LIKE, UM, COMMISSIONER ROBS SAID, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AND MAYBE, UM, I HOPE CAN YOU, CAN YOU GET SOMETHING BEFORE TWO WEEKS? YEAH, I'M, I'M, YES. I, I TALKED TO COMMISSIONER ROBBINS ABOUT THAT AND WE WILL COORDINATE WITH STAFF. WE WON'T COME TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND JUST SAY, I'M OFFICIALLY APPOINTING, LOOK AT WHAT THIS IS, WHAT WE CAME UP WITH AND YOU GUYS NEED TO AGREE WITH IT. SO I'M OFFICIALLY APPOINTING A, A PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE. YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. TWO PEOPLE. YOU'RE VICE CHAIR. YES. I, I INTEND IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS TO HAVE SOMETHING WRAPPED UP AT LEAST ABOUT DOGGIE, UH, DOG DAYCARES. AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN THEN MAKE A SEGUE INTO CANING AND HAVE SOME IDEAS ON THAT AS WELL, EVEN IF I CAN'T LOOK AT A KENNEL PLACE. BUT ANYWAY. ALRIGHT. YEAH. SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF STAFF, OF COURSE. SORRY. UH, TO CLARIFY THE DROP OFF AREA, UH, COMMENT. THE, UH, AS IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED TO US BY THE APPLICANT, IT'S NOT A KIOSK THAT'S GONNA BE IN, IN A TRAVEL LANE. IT'S A, THE AREA WHERE YOU PULL IN, DROP OFF AND THEN BACK OUT AND, AND DRIVE OUT. SO IS IT THOSE PARKING SPACES, THE DIAGONAL PARKING SPACE, LIKE IT'S GONNA BE ONE OF THE DIAGONAL SPACES? YES. SO EVERYONE THAT DROPS OFF WOULD HAVE TO USE THAT ONE SPACE IF YOU'RE DROPPING OFF AND GOING YES. UH, SO YOU LIKE, YOU DROP OFF AND THEN IT'S LIKE, SO THEN THERE'S TRAFFIC ON THE STORY. IT'S IF YOU'RE PICKING UP YOUR, YEAH. YOUR GROCERIES. YEAH. WELL, THANK QUESTION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. OF COURSE. OKAY. ILL COORDINATE WITH STAFF. I ASSUME MR. BUTLER WOULD BE THE, OH YES. YEAH. YEP. CERTAINLY. ALRIGHT. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER ROMAN NUMERAL THREE? MOTION CLERK CLARK? IS THERE A SECOND? AYE A. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. SO THAT IS DEFERRED. IS IT? CAN WE CALL IN OUR, UM, OUR TEAM BEFORE WE HAVE, YES. BEFORE WE LOSE? YEAH. AND, AND MADAM CHAIR, YES. UH, WE'RE NOT SURE THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT THERE WAS A VOTE, A MOTION, AND A VOTE ON THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS FOR I WHICH ONE? NUMERAL TWO. UH, FOR ROMAN NUMERAL TWO OH OH. THERE WASN'T MOTION SAID IN A SECOND FAVOR, BUT, OKAY. OKAY. SO IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION TO, UM, YEAH, CLARK, IS THERE ALLMAN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. I DID THE SAME THING. I COULD HAVE SWORN I DID THAT, BUT THAT'S OKAY. NO, SHE SAID IT. YOU'RE RIGHT. OKAY. VOTED. OKAY. UM, ARE THE RIVER OAKS HIGHLAND RESERVE PEOPLE BACK? YEAH, IT DOES LOOK THAT WAY. LIKE IF THEY'RE ALL WEARING THE SAME UNIFORM. OH, THEY ARE. OKAY. HOPEFULLY YOU'VE GOT THIS ALL FIGURED OUT. HI. HI. COMMISSION. UH, THE AND DEVIN CRILE. UM, WE HAD SOME GOOD DISCUSSION. UH, IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO PRESERVE THE BUILDING AND NOT ADD ONTO IT, UH, BUT RENOVATE THE BUILDING AND RENOVATE THE PARKING AREA. AND FOR THAT, IF THE COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT THE COMMISSION DENY THE VARIANCE AND ALLOW THE EXISTING BUILDING TO STAY, GET THE RENOVATION PERMITS AND SO LONG AS THE BUILDING IS NOT ADDED UPON. UM, YEAH. OR THE CHANGE OF USE DOESN'T OCCUR. THEY DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE THE WIDENING, BUT WIDENING BECOMES EFFECTIVE AS SOON AS THE BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED, OR IF A ADDITION IS BEING PROPOSED. [03:10:01] AND WE'LL WORK OUT THE DETAILS ABOUT THE CONDITIONS. BUT IF THAT WILL BE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, DENY THE VARIANCE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE BUILDING RENOVATIONS CAN, BUILDING, CAN, CAN BE RENOVATED AND THE PARKING LOT CAN BE RENOVATED, HOWEVER, NO ADDITIONS, UH, TO THE STRUCTURE OR CHANGE OF VIEWS HAPPEN. YEAH. OKAY. AND, AND I WILL ASK ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. DID WERE, WERE YOU IN THIS DISCUSSION AND YES MA'AM. I'M, I'M DANIEL PETERSON AGAIN. YES. UM, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO PROTECT ACCESS TO OUR HOUSES. WE HAVE NO OTHER WAY IN AND OUT OF THIS PLACE. IT'S A 20 FOOT STRIP PIECE OF CONCRETE THAT'S IN POOR CONDITION. UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY. WE DON'T HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, NO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF. I CAN'T, I THINK I SPEAK FOR MY NEIGHBORS, BUT, UM, IF IN FACT THIS DEVELOPER IS GONNA LEAVE THE BUILDING AS IS AND IF IN FACT THEY CAN AGREE THAT IF THEY DO ANYTHING TO IT AT ALL THAT'S STRUCTURAL OR ADD MORE SPACE, THEN UH, WE COULD LIVE WITH THAT. 'CAUSE IT'S, WE'RE LIVING WITH WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY. I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT DEVELOPERS ARE SNEAKY AND SOMEHOW FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, TWO YEARS FROM NOW, THIS WILL ALL, EVEN THOUGH THERE WILL BE A, A NOTE ON THE PLAT, I KNOW THERE WILL BE, SINCE IT'S BEING APPROVED, WE'RE ADDING NOTES. I JUST, THERE'S 22 HOUSES IN THERE AND THERE'S NO OTHER WAY IN AND OUT. OKAY. WE WE'RE STILL DENYING THE VARIANCE THOUGH, CORRECT? YES. YES. AND THAT'S GOOD. AND, AND WE'RE HAPPY WITH THAT. SO YOU, AND WE'RE, AND I GUESS WE'RE HAPPY ALLOWING, FOR THE EXCEPTION FOR THE BUILDING TO STAY THERE, BUT AS SOON AS THAT BUILDING IS REMOVED OR ADDED ONTO, THEN WE WOULD WANT TO DENY THE VARIANCE FOR THE ENTIRE AREA. THAT'S, WELL THEN THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING, RIGHT? SOME THEY'D HAVE TO REPL AND THERE WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY EXTEND. SO IT WOULD, YEAH. OKAY. SPEAKING FOR MYSELF ONLY, I'M FINE WITH THAT. OKAY. WE, WE, I DON'T, YES, COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG, UM, I'VE DONE THIS BEFORE ON ANOTHER PROPERTY. UM, UNDERSTAND THE ACCESS AND, AND CIRCULATION WE NEED TO PROTECT FOR THE FUTURE AND, AND SHOULDN'T GIVE UP RIGHT OF WAY THAT THAT'S DUE. HOWEVER, WE COULD ADD A RESTRICTION THAT, UM, ALLOWS THE NO MORE NEW OR FUTURE CURB CUTS ONTO THE ALLEY STREET. SO ALL ACCESS WOULD HAVE TO BE ON AND OFF. UM, THEY NEED IT WEST ALABAMA, THEY NEED IT FOR PARKING. OH, NO, NO. THEY JUST COULDN'T HAVE, SO IT WOULD PROTECT THE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND EVERYTHING ELSE ALONG, UM, ALABAMA COURT RESPOND TO THAT COMMISSIONER, WE, WE EXPLORED THAT OPTION. HOWEVER, NOT KNOWING WHAT THE FUTURE USES AND CONSIDERING DENYING ACCESS, UH, PROBABLY IS A DIFFICULT THING. SINCE WE ARE DENYING THE VARIANCE. WE ARE DENYING THE VARIANCE. WE WILL GET THE WIDENING AS SOON AS THE BUILDING GOES AWAY AFTER GETTING THE WIDENING. I, I I, WE, I I DON'T KNOW IF WE ARE, WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY AFTER TAKING THE WIDENING TO NOT ALLOW ACCESS OR RESTRICT ACCESS. YEAH. IF WE GET THE WIDENING, THEN WE CAN'T RESTRICT ACCESS, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WELL, IT NOT, BUT WE COULD, MS. CURTIS ADDITIONALLY, WHEN I SPOKE TO RICHARD SMITH A FEW WEEKS AGO ABOUT THIS, UM, HE OPINED THAT IF THERE WERE SOME HIGH DENSITY REDEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY, THEY WOULD NEED A FIRE ACCESS TO ALABAMA COURT. BUT THAT WOULD BE DONE DURING REPL. MY POINT IS THE CURRENT USE AS IT IS JUST GOING, GETTING A BUILDING PERMIT OR SOMETHING AND THEY ADDED A CURB CUT IN THERE FOR SOME REASON, UM, WOULD, WELL, I MEAN THEY ALREADY, THEY ALREADY HAVE TWO CURB CUTS AND I'M SAYING NO ADDITIONAL CURB CUT. WELL, THERE'S NOT ROOM FOR ADDITIONAL CURB CUTS. WELL, YEAH, THERE WOULDN'T BE, BUT, OKAY. AGAIN, AS, AS DIPTY SAID, IF THE VARIANCE IS BEING DENIED, THEN WE'RE BASICALLY COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE AT THAT POINT. SO WHY ARE WE ALSO BEING DENIED ACCESS? RIGHT. YEAH, I WON'T DEBATE IT. I MEAN THAT'S FINE. OKAY. OKAY. GOOD DISCUSSION. OKAY, CLARK, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION OKAY. THAT WE DENY THE VARIANCE AND WE, AND WE PUT THE, YEAH, APPROVE THE PLAT AND ON THE, ON THE NOTES AND WE ALLOW THEM TO RENOVATE THE BUILDING, RENOVATE THE PARKING. BUT IN THE FUTURE, IF THE BUILDING GETS TORN DOWN, ENLARGED OR THE USE CHANGES MM-HMM . THEN THEY'LL HAVE TO COME BACK AND, AND GIVE UP THE RIGHT OF WAY. CAN YEAH, THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL SAID IN, IN THE EXISTING BUILDING. NO, NO. [03:15:01] IN ANY, IF IT IS TORN DOWN THE BUILDING. OKAY. YOU CAN DELETE THAT. YEAH. YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? YES. UH, SO YEAH, WHAT DIPPED YOU SAID, THERE YOU GO. YES, YES. JENNIFER, I JUST, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT IF THE VARIANCE IS DENIED, THEN THE WIDENING IS REQUIRED ON THIS PLAT EXCEPT THAT IT DOESN'T TAKE EFFECT UNTIL THE BUILDING COMES DOWN. CORRECT? CORRECT. SO WE'RE NOT SAYING WE'RE GONNA REPL LATER, RIGHT? THE PLAT GOES CORRECT. CORRECT. BUT THE WIDENING DOESN'T TAKE EFFECT UNTIL THE, THE DOESN'T TAKE ARE CHANGED, CORRECT? YEP. OKAY. THANK YOU. THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU. WE'RE ALL TRYING TO SAY THE SAME THING. YES. IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY AND IT'S HOT. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND THE MOTION? DOES ANYBODY WANT THE MOTION REPEATED? SECOND. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION, WE HAVE A SECOND ROBINS. THAT WAS CLARK ROBINS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. THANKS FOR WORKING TOGETHER. YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR EVERYONE COMING TOGETHER AND WORKING THROUGH THAT. I APPRECIATE IT. WE ALL APPRECIATE IT. UM, OKAY, SO WHERE ARE WE? WE ARE ON ROMAN [IV. Consideration of an Off-Street Parking Variance at 3236 Summer Street (Geoff Butler) ] NUMERAL FOUR, WHICH IS A PARKING VARIANCE FOR 32 36 SUMMER STREET. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DEFERRED. AT THE PREVIOUS FOUR MEETINGS, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ATHLETIC TRAINING FACILITY ON COMMERCIAL RESERVES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE TO PROVIDE 26 SPACES AS OPPOSED TO THE REQUIRED 51 STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST. THE SITE IS LOCATED DIRECTLY SOUTH OF OLIVE WOOD CEMETERY, NORTH OF TWO MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS INTO THE EAST OF A COMMUNITY OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE SUBJECT SITE AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS ARE PART OF A GP APPROVED IN 2014 TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED, REDUCED BUILDING LINE ALONG MONT. THE CO-OP APARTMENTS WERE GRANTED AN OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE IN 2019 TO PROVIDE 210 SPACES RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 231. STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THERE IS A LIKELY PRESENCE OF IN TURN HUMAN REMAINS ON THE SUBJECT SITE DUE TO ITS PROXIMITY. TOLLWOOD CEMETERY. THIS ASSERTION IS SUPPORTED BY STAFF REVIEW OF HISTORIC MAP RECORDS. PREVIOUS PLANNING, COMMISSION MEETING DISCUSSIONS AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WITHIN THE CEMETERY STAFF HAS COORDINATED WITH THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION FOR GUIDANCE INVOLVING DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY UNMARKED INTERN REMAINS. THIS GUIDANCE INCLUDES A STRATEGY FOR VERIFYING THE PRESENCE OF THE REMAINS AND STANDARDS FOR RELOCATION. THC ALSO NOTED, NOTED THAT IS ILLEGAL TO DISTURB HUMAN REMAINS IN A MANNER THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THC STANDARDS. STAFF HAS RELAYED THIS GUIDANCE TO THE APPLICANT FOR CONSIDERATION PER DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING BETWEEN STAFF, THE APPLICANT NEARBY RESIDENTS AND CEMETERY VOLUNTEERS. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DETERMINED THE FEASIBILITY FOR FOLLOWING THESE GUIDELINES, LEAVING THE TIMETABLE FOR RESOLUTION. UNCERTAIN THE NOTICE SIGNS POSTED THE SITE HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN UPDATED. STAFF HAS EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR MANY ELEMENTS OF THIS REQUEST AND HAS SUGGESTED THAT THE APPLICANT WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION UNTIL CONCERNS RELATED TO THE CEMETERY CAN BE ADDRESSED. THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE THIS ITEM CONSIDERED TODAY. STAFF FINDS THE APPLICATION TO BE INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE AND DOES NOT MEET THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL. STAFF HAS RECEIVED MULTIPLE WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC OBJECTING TO TRAFFIC PARKING IN THE IMPACT ON THE ABUTTING CEMETERY. THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S OFFICE HAS ALSO EXPRESSED OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST AND SUPPORT FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION. OKAY, THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE SPEAKERS. WE'LL HAVE THE, IF YOU'VE SPOKEN BEFORE, YOU'LL GET TWO MINUTES. IF YOU HAVE NOT, I MEAN, IF YOU'VE SPOKEN FOR, IF THIS IS YOUR FIRST TIME, YOU GET TWO. IF YOU'VE SPOKEN BEFORE, JUST ONE. UM, FIRST SPEAKER IS FATIMA HASSAN. ALI DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PRESENT. STACEY FAIRCHILD NOT PRESENT. CORRE MADDOX NOT PRESENT ISH. I'M HERE. OH, GO AHEAD MS. MADDOX. I'M HERE. GO AHEAD. YOU GO AHEAD AND SPEAK. OKAY. YES. UH, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS CORRE MADDOX. I'VE SPOKEN BEFORE. I'VE GOT A COUPLE NEW BITS OF INFORMATION. UM, I WANTED TO POINT OUT, THERE IS A VACANT LOT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY WHERE THERE'S ROOM FOR AROUND 20 MORE SPOTS. UM, ALSO, UM, I HAD CHECKED WITH ONE OF THE APARTMENTS THAT I'M PRETTY SURE GOT IN A VARIANCE. IT'S CALLED BELL ROCK. IT'S THE OLDEST ONE'S BEEN THERE ABOUT TWO TO THREE YEARS. THEY HAVE, UM, 1.3 PARKING SPOTS PER UNIT AND IT'S A ONE AND TWO BEDROOM COMPLEX, SO THERE'S NOT ENOUGH. UM, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE UNITS HAVE TWO PEOPLE [03:20:01] PLUS GUESTS, SO THAT'S PRETTY FAR FROM BEING ENOUGH PLACES TO PARK. I DON'T KNOW. YOU MENTIONED CO-OP ALSO GOT A VARIANCE. IT'S A ONE OF THE LATEST OR IT'S, UH, THE SECOND TO THE EARLIEST ONE. OKAY. MS. MADDOX, YOUR TIME'S. ALL RIGHT. YOUR TIME'S EXPIRED. BUT THANK YOU FOR SHARING WITH YOUR COMMENTS. THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU. OKAY, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS VAY HOUSTON. WHO HAS TWO MINUTES? MS. HOUSTON IS NOT PRESENT. UH, KAITLYN CONNOR, I'M PRESENT ON PHONES. OH, GREAT. GO RIGHT AHEAD. YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE. THANK YOU. THIS IS JUST TO UPDATE THE COUNCIL ON OUR MEETING YESTERDAY, WHICH WE RECORDED VIA ZOOM. AND BASICALLY AFTER EVERYTHING WE SAID FROM THE COMMUNITY STANDPOINT AND THE OLIVE WOOD CEMETERY STANDPOINT, UM, WE WERE BASICALLY UPSET TO HEAR THAT THEIR RESPONSE WAS, WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS, BUT THEY WOULD ACTUALLY DO NOTHING MORE THAN GET THE PARKING VARIANCE FIRST. OUR CONCERN IS WHY WOULD YOU GET A PARKING VARIANCE FIRST WITH ACTUALLY WITHOUT ACTUALLY TAKING CARE OF THE HUMAN REMAINS BEFORE OUR PARKING VARIS. WE STILL ARE AGAINST THIS. THERE'S STILL NO PARKING, THERE ARE STILL BODIES THAT WE SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT AND CONCERN ABOUT CULTURAL IMPACT BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US TODAY. UM, YES, THANK YOU. JASMINE LEE. JASMINE LEE IS NOT PRESENT. UH, MARYANNE HALEY, H-A-L-E-Y. MARYANNE HALEY IS NOT PRESENT. MARGO WILLIAMS. MARGO WILLIAMS IS NOT PRESENT. AND PAUL JENNINGS, PAUL JENNINGS IS NOT PRESENT. THOSE ARE THE SPEAKERS WE HAD SIGNED IN ADVANCE. IS THERE ANYONE HERE OR LISTENING? MADAM CHAIR. YES. THIS IS STACY FAIRCHILD. I JUST COULDN'T UNMUTE MYSELF FAST ENOUGH. OKAY, GO RIGHT AHEAD. OKAY. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TODAY. SUPER NEIGHBORHOOD 20 TWO'S POSITION AND ASK REMAINS UNCHANGED, UH, IN REQUESTING THE COMMISSION TO DENY THIS PARKING VARIANCE. WE ARE ALIGNED WITH, UH, STAFF COUNCIL MEMBER CAYMAN, THE OLIVE WOOD COMMUNITY, AND THE DESCENDANTS OF OLIVE WOOD FOR ALL THE REASONS MENTIONED. UM, THANK YOU, YOU KNOW, FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL AND MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS ABOUT THIS SPECIAL PLACE. UH, IF YOU HAVEN'T VISITED THE CEMETERY, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT. RECOMMEND IT. IT'S A VAST PROPERTY THAT REQUIRES A LOT OF MAINTENANCE OF WHICH THE DESCENDANTS AND THE COMMUNITY MAINTAIN. IN OUR MEETING ON PROPERTY, I ASKED THE BUSINESS OWNER TO INCORPORATE THE COMMUNITY AND THE CEMETERY INTO HIS BUSINESS PLAN AS A GOOD START TO CONNECTING THE WORLD. UM, HE, YOU KNOW, DIDN'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT AT FIRST, UH, BASED ON HIS HELLO? HELLO? YEAH, I HEARD YOUR TIME'S EXPIRED. WRAP UP REAL QUICKLY PLEASE. OKAY. HE WAS RECEPTIVE, UH, TO SOME OF THE IDEAS WE HAVE, BUT MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS CONVERSATION COULD HAVE BEEN HAPPENING OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS AND ONLY WHEN THEY WERE ONLY INCENTIVIZED TO, TO, YOU KNOW, COME TOGETHER AND HAVE A CONVERSATION, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, UM, RECOMMENDED THAT, UH, AS PART OF, YOU KNOW, THIS PROCESS. SO, UM, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT Y'ALL DO. UM, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE. UM, MM-HMM . I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON, UH, 32 36 SUMMER STREET? UM, OKAY THEN. MADAM CHAIR. YES, IT'S ME. IT'S ME AGAIN. YES. COMMISSIONER FROM THIS CORNER. COMMISSIONER. UM, I, I WANTED TO NOTICE AND, AND ASK MR. BUTLER ABOUT THE NOTICE SIGN NOT BEING UPDATED BECAUSE GENERALLY WE'VE HELD THAT FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE NOTICES REQUIRED BY THE CODE IS GROUNDS IN AND OF ITSELF TO TURN THIS DOWN. SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS THROUGHOUT THE DEFERRAL PROCESS, IT HAD BEEN UPDATED. UM, WHEN IN OUR MEETING, UH, YESTERDAY WE HAD NOTICED THAT THE MOST RECENT, THE SIGN HASN'T BEEN UPDATED FOR THIS PARTICULAR MEETING. OKAY. OKAY. NOTED FOR THE RECORD. OKAY. COMMISSIONER CLARK? YEAH, THANK YOU. UM, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AND MR. BUTLER, I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS LOOKING AT THE HUMAN REMAINS, UH, FACTOR. AND BECAUSE WHEN YOU ARE THAT CLOSE TO UNMARKED GRAVES, INEVITABLY THERE WILL BE REMAINS IN PLACES THAT, THAT ARE SO CLOSE. [03:25:01] SO I'M GONNA MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THIS APPLICATION AND I HOPE THAT, I'M NOT SURE WHO WOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY, BUT I HOPE THAT SOMEONE LOOKS INTO THIS AND MAKES SURE THAT THAT PARCEL DOES NOT GET DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE UNTIL THOSE REMAINS ARE HANDLED, UH, APPROPRIATELY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I SECOND THIS. COMMISSIONER VAR. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AT CLARK AND COVAR. UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I JUST HAD A QUICK, UH, YES, COMMISSIONER VICTOR, I HAD QUESTION. SO IF THE APPLICANT COMES BACK WITH THOSE ADDITIONAL SPOTS, SOMEHOW, I'M ASSUMING WHAT IS THE PROCESS? IS SOMEBODY LIKE, UH, COMMISSIONER CLARK JUST MENTIONED, IS THERE SOME AUTHORITY THAT'S GONNA KEEP TRACK OF WHAT'S HAPPENING AND FIGHT IT SO IT'S NOT DEVELOPED? WHAT'S THE PROCESS LIKE? AS I UNDERSTAND FROM THC, IT'S ILLEGAL TO DISTURB ANY OF THE REMAINS. SO THAT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION THERE. THERE'D BE SOME PENALTIES IF THAT, IF THAT OCCURRED. SO, BUT WHO WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW? LIKE, UH, IF, IF AN APPLICANT COMES IN AND IS CITY KEEPING RECORDS OF THESE AT THIS SITE PARTICULARLY IS UM, HAS HUMAN REMAINS AND THEY IT SHOULDN'T BE DISTURBED, LIKE HOW WOULD, BECAUSE I, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ALL CHANGE, WE ALL MOVE AWAY FROM OUR SEATS AND TWO, THREE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, IF SOME APPLICANT COMES IN, A NEW APPLICANT COMES IN, UH, THERE IS, SOMEONE HAS A NOTE ON THIS ITEM ON THIS PROPERTY AND WHO IS THAT? IS IT CITY? IS IT THC? WHO DOES THAT? OR HOW DOES IT PROCESS WORK? JUST CURIOUS. WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE AN ANSWER TODAY, BUT PROBABLY SHOULD THINK THROUGH THAT. CERTAINLY. THANK YOU. THERE ARE SOME ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO THAT AND UM, I'LL GET BACK TO YOU ON, ON THAT. MR. BUTLER. I DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME ORGANIZATIONS, STATE AND FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT CAN MARK A PROPERTY AND MARK IS PROBABLY A BAD WORD, BUT CAN MAKE NOTE OF IT. UM, AND I, I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY RECORD ALL OF IT PRECISELY, BUT THERE IS A WAY TO GO ABOUT IT AND I DON'T MIND MAKING A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT AND HELPING YOU OUT. YEAH, THANK YOU. IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO SOME VOLUNTEERING TOO. MAYBE WE COULD DO A PLANNING COMMISSION OUTING TOGETHER AND DO THAT. AND I'VE A GREAT SUPERVISOR SINCE I CAN WALK RIGHT NOW. YEAH, RIGHT. YOU CAN, YOU CAN JUST BRING THE DRINKS AND WE'LL BE FINE AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO, UM, COLLECT SOME INFORMATION AS WELL. OKAY. UM, WE HAVE A PROJECT THAT, THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT UP THC. OKAY. UM, WHERE WE HAVE TO BE VERY, UM, AWARE RIGHT, RIGHT. OF WHAT'S GOING ON. I MIGHT KNOW MORE THAN , I NEED TO KNOW, BUT WE WE'LL BE SURE TO SHARE AND I KNOW. YEAH. WHY, WHY DON'T WE CONNECT? 'CAUSE I'VE GOT A COUPLE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS THAT I DEAL WITH THIS KIND OF STUFF ALL THE TIME. VERY WELL. SO LET'S CONNECT. YEP. AND, UH, WE'LL PULL SOMETHING TOGETHER. OKAY. UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DENY THE VARIANCE. UM, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES. IT IS DENIED. THANK YOU. UH, WE MOVE TO ROMAN NUMERAL SIX. PUBLIC COMMENT. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP. UH, WHICH MEANS WE COULD GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOTION. HEINZ. HEINZ. SECOND ROSENBERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? AYE. MOTION CARRIES. WERE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. WHAT AN INTERESTING MEETING THIS WAS TODAY. THANK YOU EVERYBODY. BYE. * 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.