[00:00:01]
IT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RIGHT HERE ON HTV AFTERNOON.
[Call to Order]
IS A LITTLE BIT AFTER.IT'S 2 32 ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22ND, 2024.
THIS MEETING OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION IS CALLED TO ORDER.
UM, I'M COMMISSION CHAIR MARTY STEIN.
AND TO VERIFY THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM, I'LL CALL THE ROLE.
VICE CHAIR GARZA WILL BE ABSENT.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN IS NOT PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER CLARK PRESENT IS PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER VAR, PRESENT COMMISSIONER.
UM, COMMISSIONER HINES IS NOT PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER POROUS PERLE WILL BE ABSENT.
UM, COMMISSIONER SIGLER PRESENT.
UH, VERA BLAND WILL BE ABSENT.
COMMISSIONER KANE IS NOT PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER DALTON IS NOT PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER MONKA IS NOT PRESENT.
AND DIRECTOR JENNIFER OSLAND PRESENT IS PRESENT.
SO 14 MEMBERS HAVE RESPONDED TO ROLL CALL.
UM, IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, I'M GOING TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER CLARK TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR FOR THE MEETING SINCE, UM, SINCE COMMISSIONER, UH, GARZA'S OUT OF TOWN.
WITH THAT, UM, TO EVERYONE JOINING US TODAY, WELCOME.
UM, PLEASE IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A SPECIFIC ITEM, YOU CAN FIND THE STAFF'S FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THEIR WEBSITE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WEBSITE.
ALL ADVANCED COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY NOON, NOON YESTERDAY ARE IN THE COMMISSION'S PACKETS.
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM TODAY AND YOU ARE HERE, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU FILL OUT ONE OF THESE LITTLE FORMS, WHICH YOU CAN GET AT THE TABLE RIGHT IN THE FRONT.
UM, AND IF YOU ARE CONNECTING BY PHONE OR COMPUTER, PLEASE KEEP YOUR DEVICE MUTED UNTIL YOU'RE CALLED ON TO SPEAK AND ALSO KEEP YOUR CAMERA OFF, UM, UNTIL YOU'RE CALLED ON.
THAT HELPS US AVOID OUR, UH, VIDEO LAG.
UM, AND WITH THAT, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING IN SECTION CDEF AND K THAT HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN.
UM, SO WE WILL GO 30 EIGHT'S BEEN WITHDRAWN.
I DON'T USUALLY MENTION THE A AND B'S 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE SPEAKERS ON THOSE MOSTLY.
[Director’s Report]
FOR US IS THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
I'M JENNIFER OSLAND, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION AND INTERIM DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND FREEWAY PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE IS UNDERWAY AND OUR WEBSITE UNDER TRANSPORTATION PLANNING HAS ALL THE DETAILS.
MANDATORY PRE-SUBMIT CONFERENCE WITH STAFF IS STILL AVAILABLE TILL TOMORROW, SO IF YOU NEED ONE, UM, PLEASE GET WITH US ASAP.
UH, THE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PERIOD, WHICH OPENED JANUARY 8TH.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, UH, FOR THESE ITEMS WILL BE MAY 13TH THROUGH JULY 5TH, AND WE WILL REMIND EVERYBODY OF THAT AS WE GET CLOSER.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CAN BE REACHED AT (832) 393-6600 OR YOU CAN CALL THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNER OF THE DAY DIRECTLY AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 6 2 4.
AS ALWAYS, YOU CAN VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM AND LET'S TALK HOUSTON FOR MORE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT INFORMATION.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UM, WE'LL GO TO
[Consideration of the February 8, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes]
THE APPROVAL OF THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR JANUARY 25TH, WHICH I'M SORRY, FOR FEBRUARY 8TH, WHICH WERE IN YOUR PACKET.UM, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THEM? KLI, IS THERE A SECOND ISH? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[ Platting Activities a & b]
TO ROMAN ONE PLATTING ACTIVITY[00:05:04]
AND, OH, LET'S NOTE THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER MONKA HAS JOINED US.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SECTIONS A AND B ARE PRESENTED AS ONE GROUP, WHICH INCLUDES CONSENT AND REPLAY ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION.
SECTIONS A AND B ARE ITEMS ONE THROUGH 1 0 6 SECTION A.
CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 60 AND SECTION B RELA ITEMS ARE NUMBER 61 THROUGH 1 0 6.
MADAM CHAIR, WE HAVE A CHANGE IN STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM NUMBER 85 MILANO AT MILBY HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM DEFER TO APPROVE PER THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM.
CONDITIONS, 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 UP TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSENT AND RE REPLY ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION.
UM, I DID GET A, JUST GOT A SIGN UP ON FOR ITEM 30, UM, SO WE WILL TAKE THAT SEPARATELY.
COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY ITEMS WE NEED TO TAKE SEPARATELY? COMMISSIONER HY? YES, MADAM CHAIR.
I NEED TO ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS 2 7 8 13 15 17 THROUGH 2026 AND 84.
OKAY, WE WILL TAKE THOSE SEPARATELY.
UM, SO DO IS STAFF GONNA MAKE A PRESENTATION ON ITEM 30 BEFORE WE HEAR THE SPEAKER? MY, MY SHEET SAYS THE SPEAKER IS VIRTUAL AND THAT THEY ARE SUPPORTIVE.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S THE ISSUE.
IF YOU'LL GIVE ME A FEW SECONDS, WE'LL PULL UP THE MARKUP AND WE CAN GIVE YOU A PRESENTATION.
CAN WE GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM THE SPEAKER? YES, YES PLEASE.
ARE YOU WITH US? YES MA'AM, I AM.
HI, YOU WANNA GO RIGHT AHEAD? ABSOLUTELY.
I JUST WANTED TO, UH, TO MAKE THE COMMENT, I KNOW NORMALLY YOU DON'T HEAR FROM PEOPLE IN SUPPORT, UM, BUT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH UM, DR HORTON.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE COUNTY.
UM, AND SO THE REVISED PLAT THAT YOU GUYS SEE BEFORE YOU TODAY, WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF.
WE APPRECIATE YOU MAKING THE POINT TO TELL US THAT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SHARE? NOTHING.
UH, WE MET WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S OFFICE AND I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS THIS FLAT, SO WE ARE COMPLETELY AWARE OF IT AND EVERYTHING IS GOOD ABOUT IT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH ALL I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND LUMP THAT IN WITH THE REMAINDER THEN, UM, INSTEAD OF DOING IT SEPARATELY, UM, OKAY, SO WE CAN PROCEED ON VOTING ON SECTIONS A AND B, UM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS 2 7 8 13 15 17 THROUGH 2026 AND 84.
AND THAT DOES ALSO INCLUDE ITEM 30.
UH, ANY DISCUSSION ON THOSE? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION CLARK CLARK, SECOND JONES.
AND THEN ON THE REMAINDER, WHICH IS 2 7 8 13 15 17 THROUGH 2026 AND 84, ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION? VICTOR, VICTOR, SECOND MAD.
OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES WITH COMMISSIONER.
[c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Dorianne Powe-Phlegm, John Cedillo, and Devin Crittle)]
TO SECTION C PUBLIC HEARINGS.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS DO ITEM 1 0 7 IS COSTI FREEDOM AND TOWN REPL NUMBER ONE.
THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH ALONG SAUR STREET, EAST OF GENESEE STREET, SOUTH OF DALLAS STREET AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS IN THE HISTORIC FORT WARD.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RELIGHT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND REMOVE THE OFF STREET PARKING NOTES.
THE SITE IS A RELIGHT OF TWO LOTS THAT WAS CREATED WITH THE ANII FREEMAN TOWN SUBDIVISION IN IN 2023.
THE PLAT WAS APPROVED AND RECORDED PRIOR TO THE LIVABLE PLACES AMENDMENT WITH AN OFF STREET PARKING NOTE, WHICH INDICATED TWO OFF STREET PARKING SPACES IS REQUIRED PER LOT.
THE OWNER INTENDS TO KEEP THE LOTS AND MAINTAIN A DWELLING UNIT ON LOT TWO AND RELOCATE AN HISTORIC HOME ON LOT ONE.
EACH LOT WOULD HAVE, EACH LOT WOULD HAVE DWELLING UNITS.
UH, THAT'S 1000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS.
WE HAVE LESS THAN 33 FEET OF PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE
[00:10:01]
QUALIFIED FOR THE ZERO PARKING WHEN 100% OF THE UNIT HAS OCCUP OCCUPY OCCUP SPACE.FRONTING THE STREET AND DRIVEWAY ACCESS IS DENIED FROM THE PUBLIC STREET.
THE PROJECT IS BEING BILLED TO LIVABLE PLACES STANDARDS.
THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT OF 8.7 FEET INTO THE 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WAS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED IN JULY, 2023, THEREFORE, THE VARIANCE IS NOT REQUIRED.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUEST.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO PROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS PLAT.
MADAM CHAIR PLEASES THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 0 1, UM, CASTI FRIEDMANS TOWN RELA NUMBER ONE IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY IN THE CHAT? THE APPLICANT, MARY VIAL IS IN THE, UM, IS VIRTUAL IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I'M SORRY.
SO, SO THE VARIANCE WAS ALREADY APPROVED AND THIS IS, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
SO JULY OF LAST, LAST YEAR, UH, THE VARIANCE WAS APPROVED.
SO THEY CAME BACK BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO JUST REMOVE THE PARKING, UH, NOTES OFF THE PLAT.
AND SO THEREFORE, UM, THE VARIANCE WAS ALREADY APPROVED LAST YEAR.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE LISTENING OR HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 0 7? KANI FRIEDMANS TOWN.
UM, AND ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO.
OKAY, THEN WITH NO RESPONSE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
STAFF'S, UH, RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION CLARK, CLARK ALL ALLMAN.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES ITEM 1 0 8.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM ONE OH EIGHT IS CLAYBORN ESTATES.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS IN OVER 14,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS NORTH ALONG CLAYBURN STREET, NORTH OF, NORTH OF TIDWELL ROAD AND EAST OF WAYSIDE DRIVE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE SIX SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE PARKING RESERVE ALONG A SHARED DRIVEWAY.
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.
AND WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE PLAT STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCP C 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASE THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 0 8 CLAYBURN ESTATES IS OPEN.
IS THAT GATLIN? HI, GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M A HOMEOWNER ON, UH, CLAYBORNE STREET AND, UM, TOWNSLEY COMMUNITY, TOWNSLEY PLACE COMMUNITY.
I'M ASKING THE PLANNING COMMUNITY TO, I MEAN COMM COMMISSION AND DEVELOPING PLANNING TO DENY THIS REPLANTING OF TWO LOTS AND EXPAND THEM INTO SIX LOTS AND RE UH, AND I'M ASKING TO DENY THE RENAMING OF TOWNSLEY PLACE TO CLAYBORNE ESTATES.
I'M ASKING, I HAVE CALLED, UM, TO TALK TO A ONE COLORADO AND ASKED HIM MORE ABOUT WHY THEY'RE TRYING TO RE PRACTICE TWO, UH, LOT AND MAKE IT INTO A SIX.
AND THE ONLY THING HE COULD TELL ME IS THAT HE FILLED OUT, HE WAS FILLED OUT THE APPLICATION TO, TO REPLY.
WE ARE A COMMUNITY, UH, TOWNSLEY PLACE.
WE ARE, UH, WHAT I DISCOVERED ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IN A SINGLE FAMILY, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD OR STREET, IS TO TAKE A PARKING LOT AND MAKE IT INTO A MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX.
ON THIS LOT WE AT, ON, AT A IN TOWNSLEY PLACE, WE ARE A SINGLE FAMILY, UH, RETIREES TRYING TO RAISE OUR FAMILIES AND IN A PIECE OF COMMUNITY.
AND THIS WILL BRING DOWN THE VALUE OF OUR, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD AND OUR STREETS AND OUR HOUSES.
THE FLOODING WE ALREADY HAVE, BECAUSE WE HAVE
[00:15:01]
DITCHES, WE HAVE DITCHES THAT'S NOT BEING TREATED.WE HAVE A SMALL AND NARROW STREET.
IT'S PAVEMENT AND IT'S SMALL AND NARROW.
IT IS NOWHERE FOR EXTRA CAR TO PARK.
WE BARELY GET TWO CARS DOWN TO GO BOTH WAYS.
THE EASEMENTS ON, UH, GO AHEAD.
BUT GO AHEAD AND WRAP UP REAL QUICK IF YOU COULD.
THE EASEMENTS ONE IS BEHIND MY HOUSE.
WHEN IT RAINS, IT FLOODS MY WHOLE BACKYARD.
I'M ASKING THAT Y'ALL DENY THIS.
WE DON'T WANT A APARTMENT COMPLEX OR A PARKING LOT WITH A MULTIFAMILIES ON IT.
IT'S A TWO A LOT AND IT SHOULD BE TWO HOUSES.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY BEFORE YOU, YOU LEAVE, UM, THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT APARTMENTS.
THESE WILL BE INDIVIDUAL HOUSES.
SO I KNOW THERE ARE SIX OF 'EM.
THEY'RE GETTING READY TO PUT A YEAH, SINGLE SIX HOUSES ON IT'S SIX HOUSES.
IT'S ONLY TWO LOTS, BUT I, I BELIEVE THEY WILL HAVE GARAGES SO THE PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO PARK THERE.
UM, THE, THE DRAINAGE ISSUES WILL BE EVALUATED BY PUBLIC WORKS GOING FORWARD SO THAT THIS SHOULD BE BUILT.
IT'S ALREADY APPROVED, IMPACTING, UM, SOME OF THOSE THINGS ARE NOT WHAT WE, WE JUST TRYING TO LIVE.
WE ARE JUST TRYING TO LIVE IN A, IT'S EVERYTHING IS DUMPED ON US.
WE DON'T EVEN HAVE GOOD, UH, SHOPPING CENTERS OR GROCERY UNDERSTAND STORES IN THAT UNDERSTAND THIS.
I, THIS DEVELOPMENT HOWEVER MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN.
WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TURN IT DOWN.
WE, WE, IT'S A THEN WHY DID Y I'M SORRY TO SPEAK ABOUT IT.
WE HAVE HAVE NO RIGHTS THEN IN FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
WELL, I'M GLAD YOU GOT YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE RECORD.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 0 8? NO ONE IN THIS, IN THE CHAT.
UH, IF THERE'S NO ONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES, MORRIS.
UM, JUST THAT PERHAPS STAFF CAN, UH, MEET WITH THE SPEAKER AND MAYBE DISCUSS OTHER OPTIONS THAT COULD BE PUT IN PLACE TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD GOING FORWARD.
UM, SHOULD THEY WISH TO CONSIDER SOME OF THEM.
THERE ARE A FEW OPTIONS OUT THERE BESIDES DUE RESTRICTIONS, BUT, BUT STAFF CAN, UH, EXPLAIN THOSE OFFLINE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER CLARK? UH, THAT'S, I'M GLAD, UH, COMMISSIONER MAREZ MENTIONED THAT.
SO WOULD YOU PLEASE WELL, I SEE DIPTY GETTING WITH HER, EXPLAIN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE MINIMUM SETBACK AND HOW ALL OF THAT WORKS AND, UH, WAYS THAT THEY CAN TRY TO PROTECT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK THAT WOULD HELP THEM A LOT.
BUT I ALSO THINK WE NEED TO GET THEM IN TOUCH WITH PUBLIC WORKS BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY HAVE SOME DRAINAGE ISSUES WITH THEIR DITCHES NOT GETTING CLEANED AND, AND ALL OF THAT.
SO PLEASE IF YOU'D CONNECT THOSE PARTIES.
AND I, AND I SEE MR. BROWN BACK THERE.
IF MR. BROWN, WOULD YOU MIND FOLLOWING UP WITH THE SPEAKER AND MAYBE TELLING HER A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE? THANK YOU.
UH, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION SIGLER SECOND ROBINS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM 1 0 9, ITEM 1 0 9 IS FOLKS STONE COURT.
THE SUBJECT'S ITEMS IS OVER 29,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMIT NORTH ALONG FOLKSTONE LANE, WEST OF MONROE ROAD AND NORTH OF QUA STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ON NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
REVIEW BY LEGAL HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, HAS, OH, SORRY.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCP C 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS MADAM CHAIR WOULD PLEASE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1 0 9 FOLK STONE COURT IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED IN ADVANCE.
IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 0 9? HEARING NO RESPONSE? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MA MA ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ITEM ONE 10 IS MARTINEZ ESTATES AT WELDON.
[00:20:01]
ALONG WELDON DRIVE, WEST OF ALDE WESTFIELD ROAD IN HOUSTON, EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.THE PURPOSE OF THE RE REPLY IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS PLAT.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS FILED SEPARATELY.
THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE DEFERRED TO CONFER WITH LEGAL CONCERNING THE SEPARATELY FILED.
THE RESTRICTIONS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE TO COMMISSION YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN FOR ITEM ONE 10 MARTINEZ ESTATES AT WELDON.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 10? UM, IF NOT THEN, UH, SINCE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER, IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, WE'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DEFER THE ITEM AND, UM, CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION CLARK.
AKA ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THE ITEM IS DEFERRED ITEM ONE 11.
ITEM ONE 11 IS PROVIDENCE NORTHEAST THE SIZE LOCATED AT THE NORTH EAST INTERSECTION OF JENSEN DRIVE AND PROVIDENCE STREET AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS.
THE REASON FOR THE REPL IS TO CREATE FIVE LOTS.
THE PROJECT IS BEING BILLED, UM, TO LIVABLE PLACES STANDARDS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM THAT APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS PLAT.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ONE 11 PROVIDENCE NORTHEAST IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED IN ADVANCE.
IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 11? HEARING NO RESPONSE, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? JONES JONES.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM ONE 12 IS ROSEWOOD ESTATES SECTION TWO PARTIAL REPL NUMBER SIX.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS NORTH OF LAY ROAD, EAST OF HOMESTEAD ROAD AND SOUTH ALONG WAYBURN STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE A FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT WITH TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
AND REVIEWED BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FOREIGN CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM ONE 12 ROSEWOOD ESTATES IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED IN ADVANCE.
ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 12? THEN I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION CLARK SECOND COLLE.
ITEM ONE 13 IS STAR PLUS CENTER.
THIS ITEM IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS NORTH OF INTERSTATE 45 AND SOUTH OF TELEPHONE ROAD.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE ONE COMMERCIAL RESERVE.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO NOT EXTEND NOR TERMINATE A PUBLIC STUB STREET WITH A CUL-DE-SAC.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE PROPERTY IS 3.3 ACRES AND THE MOST RECENT USE OF THE SITE WAS FOR A LUBY'S RESTAURANT.
THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO CONSTRUCT A GAS STATION WITH SOME COMMERCIAL USES ON THE SITE.
HACKBERRY ROAD ADJACENT TO THIS SITE IS 60 FEET WIDE AND ABOUT 150 FEET DEEP.
THE DEAD, THE DEAD, EXCUSE ME, THE DEAD END STREET IS EASILY VISIBLE FROM THE INTERSECTION AND DOES NOT WARRANT MANY VEHICULAR TRIPS.
THE STREET IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE EXTENDED BECAUSE THE INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENT IS MET ALONG THE MAJOR FAIR, FAIR TELEPHONE ROAD.
THE SITE ITSELF PROVIDES ACCESS TO MAJOR FAIR FARE
[00:25:01]
DEFEATED ROAD OF I 45 AND THE ADJACENT LOCAL STREET.THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO THE CONDITION TO EXTEND A LANDSCAPING BUFFER ALONG THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THIS VARIANCE AND APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CCP C 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
UM, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN FOR ITEM ONE 13 STAR PLUS CENTER.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED IN ADVANCE.
DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 13 HEARING NO RESPONSE? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
ANY DISCUSSION? UH, THEN IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION A? IS THERE A SECOND? ROBIN ROBINS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC HEARINGS.
[d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests (Aracely Rodriguez, Tammi Williamson, Devin Crittle and Geoff Butler)]
WE GO TO SECTION D VARIANCES, ITEM ONE 14.UM, ITEM ONE, FORTUNATE BOWER BUSINESS PARK.
THE STUDY IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY ALONG BOWER ROAD AND SOUTH OF BOTKINS ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANT TO EXIT INTERSECTION FACING REQUIREMENT BY NOT PROVIDING NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST WEST PUBLIC STREET.
STEP IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE ALONG BAR ROAD IN KEPE COMMERCIAL OFFICE PARK USE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN A LOWDEN AREA, BOUNDED BY UNRECORDED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION SERVED BY PRIVATE ROADWAY EASEMENT TO THE WEST AND SOUTH.
FIRST CHAPTER CHU THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE NORTH DOUBT AND EAST WEST STREET, BUT STREET APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE WILL CREATE AN IMPRACTICAL DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THIS REQUIRED PUBLISHED STREET WILL STOP INTO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.
MOREOVER, PLANNING COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY GRANTED THIS VARIANT TO NOT PROVIDE ANY PUBLISHED READ IN 2022, BUT THE PLOT WAS NEVER RECORDED.
HARRIS COUNTY HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE VARIANT REQUEST.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. RODRIGUEZ? UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP ON ITEM ONE 14.
UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THERE BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION MANKA.
ITEM ONE 15, ITEM ONE 15, CALI TRUCK EXPRESS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON CITY LIMIT WEST UP WITH MORE ROAD AND NORTH OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 10.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AND COVER HALFWAY TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 10 FEET BUILDER LINE.
W THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A TWO WEEK DEFERRAL TO MODIFY THE PLAT BOUNDARY AND TO REV PROVIDE THE VARIANCE REQUEST FORM.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT PER THE APPLICANT REQUEST.
THE ONLY, UH, SPEAKER I HAVE ON THIS IS THE APPLICANT, UM, JOYCE OWENS WHO'S HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UM, THEN ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF NOT, THEN, UM, I'M SORRY.
MODEST, JUST SO THIS IS ACTUALLY A STREET THAT I DRIVE ON NEARLY EVERY DAY THROUGH THIS AREA.
AND, UM, THE REALITY IS THE TRAFFIC USES IT MORE AGGRESSIVELY THAN IT'S INTENDED FOR.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT LIKE ALL LINE OF SIGHT ARE PROPERLY LOOKED AT AND ALL THAT IF WE CONSIDER THIS BECAUSE TRAFFIC FLIES THROUGH THERE AND THERE'S NOT A LOT OF, UM, SIGNALIZATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO WE JUST NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL ON THE CONSIDERATION OF THAT.
GOOD TO KNOW IN THE DEFERRAL PERIOD.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FOR THE DEFERRAL? UM, DID, DID WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER? NO.
[00:30:01]
FOR THE WRONG NUMBER.UH, ITEM ONE 16 IS MESA VISTA GP.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS NORTH OF MAJOR, THE AIRFARE PARKER ROAD AND WEST OF MAJOR AIRFARE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES, THE FIRST TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY.
AND THE SECOND IS TO NOT EXTEND TWO PUBLIC STUB STREETS WITH A CUL-DE-SAC.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS A HUNDRED, 187 ACRE GENERAL PLAN INTENDED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE WITH A LARGE DETENTION AREA TO THE NORTH.
THE SITE IS BOUND TO BY A RAILROAD TO THE WEST, A FLOODWAY TO THE NORTH AND A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING INTERSECTIONS FACING DISTANCE OF ABOUT 1800 FEET.
ALLOWING THIS DISTANCE WILL PROVIDE A STREET CONNECTION THROUGH AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION.
IF THE STREET WERE TO BE PROVIDED AT 1400 FEET, IT WOULD ONLY STUB INTO ACREAGE PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD NOT IMMEDIATELY IMPROVE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON THE GROUND.
THE SECOND REQUEST IS TO NOT EXTEND TWO PUBLIC STUB STREETS.
THE SUBDIVISION CONTAINING THE TWO STUB STREETS CONSIST OF ABOUT 40 HOMES CONSTRUCTED IN THE MID 1940S.
SINCE THEN, THE ONLY ACCESS TO THIS, TO THESE LOTS WAS FROM MAJOR FAFA MESSA DRIVE.
INTERSECTION SPACING IS BEING MET ALONG THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE THESE TWO STUB STREETS TO BE EXTENDED FOR INTERSECTION SPACING.
THIS GENERAL PLAN WILL PROVIDE A THIRD ACCESS POINT TO THESE HOMES, WHICH WILL ALLOW VEHICULAR TRAFFIC TO TRAVEL WEST.
ALSO, THE ACREAGE, THE ACREAGE SITE DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THESE LOTS WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO EXTEND THE STUB STREET TO MAKE A CONNECTION TO PARKER ROAD IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST AND STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
UM, THE APPLICANT, ROSALYN TAYLOR IS HERE VIRTUALLY IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
IT'S DON'T SEE ANY DO WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE SIGNED UP.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, CONSIDER ITEMS ONE 18 AND ONE 19 TOGETHER.
UM, ITEMS ONE 18 AND ONE 19 ARE NORTH PARK, SOUTH GP AND NORTH PARK SOUTH SECTION ONE.
THESE ITEMS WERE DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION PER TEXT DOTS REQUEST, THE SITE IS OF A 50 ACRE GENERAL PLAN THAT INCLUDES A 34 ACRE SECTION ONE LOCATED WITHIN THE HOUSTON ETJ MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SORTERS ROAD AND NORTH PARK DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENTS IN THREE VARIANCES.
ONE IS TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING AN EAST WEST STREET THROUGH THE SUBJECT SITE.
TWO IS TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING A STEP STREET TO THE SOUTH.
AND THREE, WHICH ONLY APPLIES TO SECTION ONE IS TO ALLOW LOTS TO BE LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET IN THE ETJ BY ALLOWING THE COMPENSATING OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR SECTION ONE TO BE FULFILLED BY A COS RESERVE.
IN SECTION TWO, STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED EAST OF THE SAN JACINTO RIVER, WHICH HINDERS THE EXTENSION OF A STREET TO TOWARDS THE WEST.
IN ADDITION, IN 2002 THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND FREEWAY PLAN WAS AMEN TO REMOVE NORTH PARK DRIVE WEST DISORDERS ROAD ALTOGETHER.
FURTHERMORE, THE PROPERTY'S ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT'S SH SITE SHOWN IN YELLOW ARE ALL OWNED BY HANOVER ESTATES AND MARYFIELD WITH A 90 FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT GIVING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTIES.
FURTHER SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS A RECORDED SUBDIVISION RIVER CLUB ESTATES, WHICH PREVENTS A SOUTHERN SUBST STREET FROM CONNECTING FURTHER SOUTH.
SECTION ONE OF THE GP INCLUDES LOTS LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET REQUIRING COS SPACE TO BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE SECTION.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE PROVIDING THE REQUIRED COS SPACE WITHIN THE FUTURE SECTION TWO OF THE GP.
THE COS RESERVE AND AN ACCESS EASEMENT ARE TO BE RECORDED PRIOR TO SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH SECTION ONE TO CONNECT IT TO THE COS SPACE RESERVE.
DUE TO THE SMALL SIZE OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT, ALL LOTS WITHIN THE GP WILL BE, UH, WITHIN A QUARTER MILE FROM THE COMPENSATING OPEN SPACE RESERVE.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUESTED VARIANCE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. SHAW? UM, I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS.
UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT AND APPROVE BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN ANY DISCUSSION DID YOU NEED TO SAY? OKAY.
UH, IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEMS ONE 18 AND ONE 19? MOTION TAHIR.
[00:35:01]
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.[Platting Activities g - i]
TO SECTIONS GH AND I MADAM CHAIR, I'D JUST LIKE TO NOTE IN ADVANCE THAT I'M GONNA ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS 1 22, 1 24 AND 1 32.DID, UH, DID YOU HEAR THAT? OKAY? GOOD.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF IT PLEASES COMMISSION, UH, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS GH AND I AS ONE GROUP.
SECTION G EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEMS ONE 20 THROUGH 1 37 SECTION H NAME CHANGES CONSISTS OF NO ITEMS AND SECTION I CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 38 AND 1 39.
THE PLAINTIFF AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUEST APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTIONS GH AND I.
UM, IS THERE, WE DON'T HAVE, UH, ANY SPEAKERS ON ANY OF THESE.
IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS APPROVAL ON ALL THE ITEMS IN SECTIONS G AND I? MOTION SIGLER SECOND MAD.
[k. Development Plats with Variance Requests (Geoff Butler and Ramon Jaime-Leon)]
ANYTHING UNDER SECTION J AND WE MOVE TO K DEVELOPMENT PLATS WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS.ITEM ONE 40 IS, UH, 1701 HABER STREET.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG HABER AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF WINDSOR.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES ENCLOSING AN EXISTING CARPORT ALONG WINDSOR AND LOCATING VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE REAR ALLEYWAY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A ZERO FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG WINDSOR TO ENCLOSE THE CARPORT AT ITS CURRENT LOCATION.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS WILL VIOLATE SEPARATELY FILED RESTRICTIONS, RESTRICTING SIDE SETBACKS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO ALLOW TIME FOR THEM TO CONSIDER THEIR OPTIONS.
WE'VE RECEIVED MULTIPLE WRITTEN COMMENTS OBJECTING TO THE USE AND FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
UH, WE HAVE A LOT OF SPEAKER, NOT A LOT, BUT A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS ON THIS.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS FROM MR. BUTLER BEFORE WE CALL THEM? FIRST IS THE APPLICANT DIEGO ANO.
SO, UM, THE MAIN REASON FOR THIS, UH, REQUEST IS JUST, UM, ENCLOSED, UM, WINDOR, UM, STREET AND GET, UH, AN ACCESS TO THE CARPORT ON THE PUBLIC ALLEY.
UM, THE REASON FOR THAT IS, UH, IS BASICALLY FOR SAFETY REASON, THIS HAS BEEN OPEN FOR SINCE 1950 AND WE FOUND SOME PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, SLEEPING THERE AND THEY TOOK THE TRASH CAN.
UH, SO JUST TO MAKE SAFE, SO THE OWNER, SHE'S A 22 YEARS OLD, SHE'S GONNA LIVE BY THEIR CELL THEMSELF ON THE PROPERTY AND WE WANT TO MAKE THAT CARPORT, UM, SAFE.
AND THE OTHER REASON FOR THIS APPLICATION IS THE, UH, THE DECK IS ALL RATHER AND NEEDS TO BE REPLACED ENTIRELY.
IT'S A, IT'S A HAZARD RIGHT NOW.
UM, OTHER THAN THAT, FOR WHOEVER IS IN INTERESTED IN THIS, UH, APPLICATION, WE ARE NOT GOING TO ADD ANY SQUARE FEET OR ANY MAJOR EXTERIOR MODIFICATION ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, ANY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FOR MR. TAO? APPARENTLY NOT.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL THE REST OF THE SPEAKERS.
THERE MAY BE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU AT THE END.
UM, I THINK ALSO REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT IS AMINA, UH, PERVEZ.
UM, I'LL BE LIVING THERE BY MYSELF.
MY, UH, FAMILY'S JUST TRYING TO RENOVATE IT.
THE, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTO, THE WHOLE CARPORT UH, ROOF IS ROTTEN AND IT WILL COLLAPSE.
UM, SO WE NEED TO RENOVATE IT SO THAT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE.
UM, AND THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN THE 1950S BEFORE THE PROPERTY LINES WERE SET.
SO IF YOU CAN SEE THOSE PILLARS AND EVEN THAT FENCE TO THE RIGHT OF IT, THOSE ARE ALL RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY, PROPERTY LINE, OR ONE FOOT AWAY PARTS OF THE HOUSE OR EVEN LIKE, UH, ENCROACHING THE PROPERTY LINE.
UM, SO WE NEED TO GET THIS VARIANCE BECAUSE INSTEAD OF TEARING DOWN THE WHOLE PROPERTY, WE JUST NEED TO FIX THIS ONE SECTION TO THE LEFT OF THIS FENCE.
[00:40:01]
WE HAD SQUATTERS THERE.I DON'T WANT SQUATTERS TO LIVE IN MY GARAGE, SO WE NEED TO ADD A GARAGE DOOR.
UM, AS PER THE CITY PLANNER'S OFFICE, THEY ASKED US TO CHANGE THE ENTRANCE TO THE ALLEYWAY THAT'S ON THE LEFT OVER THERE.
UM, WE WOULD'VE PREFERRED TO JUST KEEP THE ENTRANCE, THE GARAGE DOOR AS IT IS.
UM, BUT AGAIN, WE STILL NEED TO REDO THAT WHOLE OUTDOOR SECTION, THE GARAGE, THE DECK THAT'S RIGHT BEHIND IT.
UM, 'CAUSE ALL ROTTEN, UH, AND IT'S A RISK TO ME, IT'S A RISK TO THE NEIGHBORS HAVING, UH, POTENTIALLY SQUATTERS LIVING THERE AGAIN.
UM, WE'VE HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH NEIGHBORS THINKING THAT WE'RE GONNA BUILD 25 FEET UP ABOVE THE GARAGE.
WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN DOING THAT.
UM, IT'S ALREADY AN EXPENSIVE RENOVATION AS IT IS, AND WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN ADDING ANY MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
WE JUST WANNA CREATE A PROPER GARAGE.
WE HAVE TO ADD, UM, STRONGER BEAMS SO THAT THIS ROOF COLLAPSE DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
UM, WHICH IS WHY WE NEED THE VARIANCE BECAUSE AGAIN, THE WHOLE PROPERTY IS ENCROACHING.
AND JUST FOR CLARITY, WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT A VARIANCE THAT VIOLATES DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THAT'S, THAT'S A HIGHER AUTHORITY THAN THIS BODY.
SO HOPEFULLY IN THE, IN THE DEFERRAL WEEK, TWO WEEKS, YOU CAN FIND SOMETHING TO GET YOUR PROJECT DONE, BUT IN A WAY THAT WILL, WILL BE, YOU KNOW, ALLOWABLE.
BUT WE, THERE'S, WE CAN'T GRANT THE VARIANCE IF IT DOESN'T MEET DE RESTRICTIONS.
SO ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? THANK YOU.
UM, SAGE, DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? CLOSE? YEAH, IT'S ALWAYS CLOSE.
I'M CURRENTLY THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CHARIOT CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
AND I BELIEVE THE CONCERN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS GRANTING A ZERO VARIANCE.
UM, ALL THE UNRESTRICTED LOTS, I MEAN ALL THE RESTRICTED LOTS IN CHERRY HEARST DO NOT HAVE A ZERO ZERO VARIANCE.
SO THAT COULD SET A PRECEDENT THAT, UM, AND I THINK THE CONCERN IS IF A ZERO VARIANCE WAS GRANTED, IF THE HOMEOWNERS NOW SOLD THE PROPERTY IN TWO YEARS, COULD SOMEBODY ELSE COME IN AND THEN BUILD ZERO A FOOT AND THEN BUILD THAT 25 FOOT UP OVER THE GARAGE? SO THAT'S REALLY THE CONCERN.
NOW, IF THEY WERE GRANTED A PARTIAL, UM, VARIANCE SPECIFIC TO THIS PROJECT AND THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, REDO THE GARAGE AND HAVE THEIR, UM, PROPERTY, UM, UH, FIXED UP, THEN THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER STORY.
BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A STIPULATION IN THAT.
BUT TO GRANT THE VARIANCE ACROSS ALL OF WINDSOR OF THE, I BELIEVE THE RESIDENTS, UM, ARE AGAINST THAT.
UM, BUT THE QUESTION IS HOW CAN THEY RENOVATE THAT GARAGE AND DO WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.
UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE STAND.
AND HAS, HAS THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION EVER TAKEN ANY ACTION, UH, TO, TO UNDO THE, THE DEED? I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S BEEN VIOLATING DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR A LONG TIME, THE EXISTING CARPORT, HAS THAT BEEN AN ISSUE FOR YOU BEFORE OR, UM, I'M NOT, UM, COMPLETELY UP TO DATE ON THAT.
BUT TREVOR JEFFRIES, HE'S PART OF OUR DEED RESTRICTION COMMITTEE, IS GONNA SPEAK TOO.
MIGHT, AND HE COULD ADD TO THAT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? OKAY.
UH, JUNIOR DAVIS, MR. DAVIS? YES.
UM, BUILDING, TURNING A CARPORT INTO GARAGE IS NOT A BIG ISSUE, BUT, BUT THE REQUEST HERE IS TO GO FROM A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE TO A ZERO BUILDING LINE ON A BUSY STREET AT CUT THROUGH STREET.
SO I HAVE FIVE REASONS WHY I THINK YOU, UH, UH, THE COMMISSION SHOULD ACTUALLY DISAPPROVE THIS.
ONE IS, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S NECESSARY TO HAVE A ZERO BUILDING LINE OR VARIANCE.
UM, SECTION ONE A SAYS NOTHING, UH, THE REQUEST, EXCUSE ME, SHOULD MEET THE CRITERIA OF AN UNDUE HARDSHIP OR B UH, SOME KIND OF A TOPOGRAPHY ISSUE.
WHAT BE SOME TYPE OF TOPOGRAPHY ISSUE.
IT DOESN'T MEET EITHER OF THOSE CRITERIA.
SECONDLY, UM, CURRENTLY THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPACE BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND
[00:45:01]
THE HOU AND THE STREET NOW FOR THE PATH.THE, UH, THE BUILDING LINES HAVE BEEN EXCEEDED ON THE FRONT AND ON THE SIDE CURRENTLY WITHOUT ANY KIND OF VARIANCE, UH, REQUEST.
AND THE CURRENT HOMEOWNERS ARE STORING THE TRASH CANS ON THE SIDEWALK, AND IT'S VERY MUCH A WALKING NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I I, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT.
THE THIRD THING IS, UM, THEY'RE LOOKING AT, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL FROM THE, FROM THE SUBMISSION, THEY'RE LOOKING AT ADDING 330 SQUARE FEET OF, OF, UH, COVERED SPACE, WHICH BRINGS THE, THE PERMEABILITY OF THAT LOT UP TO ABOUT 83% IF YOU COUNT ALL THE COVERED SPACE AND THE NON, UH, PERMEABLE AREA.
UH, THE FOURTH THING I BELIEVE IS THAT, UM, AS I SAID, THE STRUCTURE ALREADY EXCEEDS THE BUILDING LINES ON BOTH THE FRONT AND THE BACK.
AND THE FIFTH THING, WHICH I BOTHERS ME AS A, AS A NEIGHBORHOOD WHO LIVES ACROSS AS A NEIGHBOR, LIVES ACROSS THE STREET, THE HOME IS CURRENTLY BEING USED AS A B AND B OR AIRBNB OR SHORT TERM RENTAL PROJECT, WHICH IS AGAINST OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS.
AND MY CONCERN IS ANY TYPE OF VARIANCE WILL ENABLE THE HOMEOWNER OR A FUTURE HOMEOWNER TO BUILD MORE SPACE ABOVE, WHICH WILL ENABLE MORE CARS AND MORE VISITORS AND MORE, UH, RESIDENTS IN THE V AND B.
I WOULD REQUEST YOU VOTE AGAINST THIS VARIANCE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. DAVIS? UH, NEXT SPEAKER IS TREVOR JEFFRIES.
I LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY.
I LOOK AT IT OUT MY FRONT WINDOW EVERY DAY.
I DON'T OPPOSE SOMEONE ENCLOSING THEIR GARAGE OR TO KEEP VAGRANT OUT OR FIXING A SAGGING ROOF LINE.
BUT I BELIEVE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF INACCURACIES AND MISSTATEMENTS MADE IN THIS VARIANCE APPLICATION THAT THE STAFF SHOULD TAKE A HARD LOOK AT.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE A THE APPLICATION SPECIFICALLY SHOWS A PROPOSED INCREASE TO THE GROUND FLOOR LIVING SPACE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 135 SQUARE FEET.
YET THE APPLICANT ALSO STATES THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS ALREADY AT OR OVER THE PROPERTY LINE IN PLACES.
SO IF THEY'RE ADDING MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE GROUND FLOOR, I QUESTION WHETHER THEY INTEND TO BUILD OUT MORE THAN JUST THE CARPORT AND JUST HAVE THAT HAVE NOT DISCLOSED IT IN THE APPLICATION.
BUT MY REAL CONCERN WITH THE APPLICATION IS THAT IF THE STATED REASON IS TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE STRUCTURE AT THE BOTTOM AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, WHY DO THEY NEED A ZERO FOOT, UH, VARIANCE ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF WINDSOR PROPERTY LINE? I ASK THE COMMISSION TO DENY THE VARIANCES WRITTEN.
AND INSTEAD IF THE COMMISSION IS INCLINED TO GRANT A VARIANCE, GRANT, A ZERO FOOT VARIANCE ON THE WINDSOR PROPERTY LINE ONLY FOR THAT LAST 20 FEET, WHERE THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE GARAGE, BUT DO NOT ALLOW IT FOR THE REST OF THE 100 FOOT, UH, LENGTH OF THAT PROPERTY LINE PRESERVE THE CITY'S 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR THEIR REMAINING 80 FEET AND LEAVE JUST THE 20 FEET FOR THE GARAGE WORK.
OTHERWISE, EVEN IF THE APPLICANT DID LIMIT THEIR CONSTRUCTION TO JUST THAT REAR CARPORT AREA, IF YOU GIVE A FULL VARIANCE ALONG THE ENTIRE WINDSOR STREET, A NEW BUYER, A BUYER COULD BUY THAT PROPERTY AND BENEFIT FROM THAT, THAT VARIANCE GRANTED AND BUILD UP ALONG THAT ZERO FOOT LINE ALL THE WAY ALONG THE STREET.
IN SOME, YES, SOME OF THIS HOUSE IS ALREADY AT OR BEYOND THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, BUT THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT ALLOW THAT SITUATION TO GET ANY WORSE THAN IT IS.
YOU, YOU SHOULD I ASK YOU TO DENY THE VARIANCE BEYOND THE 20 FEET THAT THE APPLICANT CLAIMS IS NEEDED FOR THE REAR CARPORT CONVERSION TO A GARAGE? THANK YOU.
AND, AND YOU'RE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS PERSON FOR THE CHERRY HURST YES.
CIVIC ASSOCIATION? YES, MA'AM.
SO DO YOU AGREE OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT IS ADVISING US THAT THIS WOULD VIOLATE YOUR DEED RESTRICTIONS? IT, IT WOULD VIOLATE THE SIDE, UH, SETBACK RESTRICTIONS OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
SO THAT FOR US IS KIND OF THE HIGHER CALLING THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
UH, WE'VE, UH, OWNED OUR HOUSE INCHER HER SINCE, UH, THE MID 1980S.
AND WE'VE SEEN A SIGNIFICANT, UH, DEVELOPMENT THAT'S REALLY AFFECTING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH WE TRY TO MAINTAIN.
IT'S A VERY MUCH A FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S A WALKING NEIGHBORHOOD WITH LOTS OF PEOPLE WITH DOGS AND SMALL CHILDREN AND, UH, GO WITH ZERO LOT LINE.
AND I THINK THAT WOULD IMPEDE THAT.
UH, RIGHT NOW THE TRASH CANS ARE ACTUALLY IN THE STREET MOST OF THE TIME.
UM, WE'VE, UH, DO HAVE, UH, AND UH, THE REQUEST TO GRANT THE ZERO LOT LINE IS AGAINST OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS, WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED BEFORE.
AND IT UNDERMINES THAT WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UH, WE REALLY REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THIS.
AND, UH, THOUGH THE, UH, APPLICANT STATED THAT THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY, UH, VARIANCE
[00:50:01]
THAT WOULD BE REQUESTED AND THEY WOULD, UH, ADHERE TO ALL OTHER, UH, REQUIREMENTS.UH, THE FACT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED THAT THE HOME HAS BEEN USED AS AN AIRBNB, UH, FOR OVER ABOUT THE LAST YEAR IS, UM, ANOTHER RESTRICTION OF OUR DEEP RESTRICTION.
SO I JUST, ANOTHER, UH, KICKING THE TUSH WITH THE, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND, UH, WE, I REQUEST THAT WE DENY THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. AVER? I'M SORRY FOR MS. DAVIS LOOKING AT THE ADDRESS.
AND THE FINAL SPEAKER I HAVE IS SHIRLEY JEFFRIES.
UM, WE ARE ACTUALLY HERE ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS AGO REQUESTING A VARIANCE 'CAUSE WE BUILT THE HOUSE DIRECTLY ACROSS STREET.
WE SPENT NINE MONTHS WITH YOU WITH THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD FIGHTING FOR A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE ON THE FRONT CORNER OF HAVER AND WINDSOR.
BUT WE ALSO GAVE UP 10 FEET OF THE REST OF THE PROPERTY FOR ONE THING THAT HASN'T BEEN TALKED ABOUT TODAY, WHICH WAS EFFECTFULLY TALKED ABOUT FOR NINE MONTHS, WHICH IS THE TREES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE CHERRY HARRIS NEIGHBORS LOVE THE TREES AND THEY LOVE THE WALKABILITY AND THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T LIKE THOSE.
AND SO WE SAID, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DAMAGE THE TREE.
IN FACT, WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE TREE.
AND SO WE PROTECTED THIS ENORMOUS OAK TREE ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, ARGUABLY, I'LL CALL IT THE BEST ONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
NOBODY ELSE CAN REPLY TO THAT, BUT IT WAS SPECIFICALLY TO PROTECT THE TREE AND JUST TO GIVE US A LITTLE BUMP OUT.
BUT NOT ALL THE WAY THIS HOUSE HAS BEEN IN VIOLATION EVER SINCE WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE.
THE FUNNY THING WAS, IS WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD DID IS SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? THEY AGREED WITH WHAT WE DID AT THE END.
SO THEY SAID, HEY TREVOR, CAN YOU BE THE HEAD OF THE DEED RESTRICTION COMMITTEE? YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
AND HE HAS WORKED TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD EVEN THOUGH THE NEIGHBORHOODS HAD BEEN AGAINST US AND NOW THEY'RE VERY MUCH FOR WHAT WE DID AND HOW TO PROTECT IT.
AND SO THERE'S OTHER NEIGHBORS THAT COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY THAT SAID, PLEASE SPEAK ON BEHALF OF US.
WE PUT THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT IT.
AND SOME OF THESE PEOPLE, LIKE BARBARA SAID, THEY'VE OWNED THEIR HOUSE FOR LIKE 30 YEARS OR WHATEVER IT WAS.
AND SO IT WAS A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE.
WE'VE OWNED OUR PROPERTY SINCE 2010.
WE'RE STILL NEW IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE'RE HERE TO HELP AND PROTECT IT.
AND I KNOW THE PEOPLE THAT WANNA DO THIS PROBABLY WANNA DO THE SAME THING.
WE WOULD LOVE FOR THEM TO FIX IT.
IT'S A BIT OF A NICE WHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK MAYBE THEY COULD GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD WITH US AND TRY TO HELP COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY WORKS FOR EVERYONE.
BUT IT HAS BEEN IN VIOLATION FOR A WHOLE LOT OF REASONS, AS YOU'VE HEARD, INCLUDING THIS AIRBNB THAT THEY SAY THEY DIDN'T KNOW WAS THERE.
WE'VE WATCHED IT FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS ACTUALLY.
UM, AND TALKED TO THE PEOPLE THAT AIRBNB IN IT AND RUNNING PEOPLE THROUGH THERE.
BUT WHAT WE THINK THAT JETS NEED TO BE FIXED, BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE AT THE, THE PENALTY OF LITERALLY PUTTING A BLOCKADE.
IF I WORKED LIVED ON THAT ALLEY AND HAD TO PULL IN THERE EVERY DAY, I FIND IT A DANGER.
I WOULD HATE TO HAVE TO DROP DOWN THE ALLEY WITH A COMPLETELY BLOCKED LIKE THAT ALL THE WAY UP.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. JEFFRIES? UM, OKAY.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 40 17 0 1 HAVER STREET? IF NOT, WE'LL TURN TO, UM, OH, SORRY.
DID YOU FILL OUT A FORM? UM, I SPOKE.
THE APPLICANT CAN COME AND DO A REBUTTAL THAT'S IN OUR RULES.
YOU GET A BRIEF REBUTTAL IF YOU'D LIKE.
UM, I THINK ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE VALID POINTS.
WE ARE NOT TRYING TO GET ANY CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A ZERO PROPERTY LINE.
THIS IS JUST A, A TERM THAT THE CITY REQUIRES.
UM, IF WE COULD PUSH IT BACK 10 FEET, WE TOTALLY WOULD.
BUT THAT WOULD BE BASICALLY WHERE THE HOUSE STARTS.
UM, AND LIKE MR. JEFFREY SAID, I AGREE, WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF, UH, BUILDING ANYTHING TO THE RIGHT OF THE GARAGE.
SO IF THE CITY WOULD PREFER TO ONLY GIVE US A VARIANCE FOR THAT GARAGE, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.
BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THE CITY JUST GIVES IT TO YOU FOR THE WHOLE PROPERTY.
UM, AND WE DO WANNA PROTECT THE TREES TOO.
WE'RE, UH, PLANNING ON, YOU KNOW, BUILDING AROUND THE TREES.
WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF TEARING ANY TREES DOWN.
WE MADE THAT CLEAR WITH OUR CONTRACTOR WHO AGREES WITH US.
UM, WE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE AIRBNB.
WE HAVE TENANTS IN THE MAIN PART OF THIS HOUSE, THIS SMALL SECTION IS A BACK HOUSE.
IT'S STILL ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME THOUGH.
UM, WE HAVE TENANTS WHO HAVE LEASED THE MAIN HOUSE SINCE MAY OF 2022.
THEY'VE NEVER, WE'VE NEVER HAD COMPLAINTS, WE'VE NEVER HEARD ANYTHING.
UM, AND WE'VE ONLY RECENTLY FOUND OUT THAT THEY'RE, UH, THEY'VE BEEN USING IT AS AN AIRBNB FOR HOWEVER LONG.
UM, THEIR LEASE IS ENDING IN APRIL ON APRIL 30TH.
SO THAT WON'T BE AN ISSUE, UM, ANY LONGER.
UM, AND WE PUT OUR TRASH CANS BACK, WE PUT OUR TRASH CANS BACK.
SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS, UH, WE'VE LIVED IN HOUSTON.
[00:55:01]
THREE BLOCKS AWAY FROM THIS HOUSE RIGHT NOW.I'M TRYING TO MOVE OUTTA MY PARENTS' HOUSE AND LIVE HERE.
I KNOW THAT IT'S STILL AN ISSUE WITH THE DEED RESTRICTION OF EIGHT FEET, SO THAT'S GONNA GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR ALL OF THIS.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO STEP ON ANYONE'S TOES.
WE'RE TRYING TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS.
WE'RE TRYING TO FOLLOW ALL THE RULES.
THAT'S WHY WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF.
AND, AND WE DO UNDERSTAND YOUR DESIRE TO, TO IMPROVE YOUR, THE PROPERTY.
I MEAN, THAT'S A, A VERY VALID, UH, A VALID INTENT FOR YOU.
BUT AGAIN, AND I HOPE IN THE TWO WEEK DEFERRAL PERIOD, YOU ALL CAN FIGURE SOMETHING OUT.
BUT THE, OUR POINT IS WE CAN'T WAIVE OR EXCUSE A VIOLATION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS.
IT IS NOT LEGALLY POSSIBLE FOR US TO GRANT A VARIANCE THAT DOES VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
SO THIS IS A MATTER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND YOU, AND, AND THE DEED RESTRICTION ISSUE IS REALLY BETWEEN THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND YOU, WE DON'T HEAR DEED RESTRICTION COMPLAINTS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN DO.
SO THERE'S SOME WORK TO BE DONE HERE.
UM, I, I APPLAUD THE FACT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND I HOPE EVERYBODY CAN WORK TOGETHER.
AND WITH MR. BUTLER, IT'S VERY GREAT AT TRYING TO SOLVE PROBLEMS. SO, UM, HOPEFULLY WE CAN WORK THIS OUT IN THE TWO WEEK PERIOD.
ANY COMMENTS? YES, COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG AND THEN TAHIR.
UH, MR. BUTLER, THE, THE WAY I READ THE DRAWING, THE FENCE IS EXISTING AND OVER THE PROPERTY LINE BY SEVERAL FEET INTO THE WINDSOR RIGHT OF WAY.
IS THAT, WOULD I READ, IF YOU COULD PUT THE SURVEY? IT, IT WAS ACTUALLY GONNA MAKE A COMMENT CLARIFYING THE SCOPE OF THIS APPLICATION.
IT ACTUALLY APPLIES TO JUST THE PART THAT THEY'RE ALTERING.
UM, BUT UNDERSTAND THE SURVEY, YES, IT IS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
SO WE OFTEN HAVE PEOPLE COME TO US ASKING FOR FIXES LIKE, OOPS, WE DIDN'T KNOW.
UM, WHILE YOU DISCUSS THIS AND WORK THROUGH THE LEGAL ASPECTS, UM, THAT FENCE, IT'S NOT PART OF THE LIVING STRUCTURE.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT, UM, PART OF THE EFFORT, IF, IF THE VARIANCE IS AWARDED THAT THAT FENCE BE REMOVED AND, AND FIX THAT BASICALLY ENCROACHMENT THAT ILLEGAL USE OF LAND.
UM, BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD CORRECT AT THIS POINT.
SO WE DON'T GET INTO THIS LATER, BUT SOMEBODY ELSE TRIES TO REMODEL THIS PROPERTY.
COMMISSIONER TAHIR, MY QUESTION IS, UH, MAYBE FOR LEGAL, IF YOU HAVE A SITUATION LIKE THIS WHERE DEED RESTRICTION HAS BEEN VIOLATED FOR DECADES, DOESN'T THAT GET GRANDFATHERED? OR, I MEAN, HOW DO WE ADDRESS FROM A CITY'S POINT OF VIEW, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION NEVER QUESTIONED OR WERE THERE TO START WITH? I MEAN, IF THEY DO NOTHING, THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO MOVE THE HOUSE BACK.
IT'S, IT'S ONLY BECAUSE THEY'RE TOUCHING IT.
AND, AND THAT'S AGAIN, THE SCOPE OF THIS APPLICATION IS JUST THE, THE REAR STRUCTURE THAT THE REST OF THE BUILDING IS NON-CONFORMING TO THE BUILDING LINE THAT MOST OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD PREDATES THE BUILDING LINE.
BOTH THE CITY'S BUILDING LINE AND, WELL, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK ON THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, BUT THEY PREDATE THE CITY'S BUILDING LINE.
SO IF THEY'RE NOT ALTERING THAT PART OF THE HOUSE, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE MOVED OVER TO COMPLY FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE.
WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A DEED VIOLATION, I'M GONNA DEFER TO MS. WOODS TO ANSWER, YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT DOES AND WHAT OUR POSITION IS HERE IN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, SAYING, OH YEAH, IT'S BEEN DONE FOR YEARS.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GONNA MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
THEY HAVEN'T GIVEN US A BLACK ROBE YET TO BE THE JUDGE TO SAY THAT, SO, YEAH.
SO I MEAN, SO WHAT DO WE DO IF SOMEBODY'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH DEED RESTRICTION FOR DECADES? WHERE DO THEY STAND LEGALLY? WELL, AS FAR AS THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT IS CONCERNED WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS, ANY COMPLAINTS OR VIOLATIONS ARE COMPLAINT DRIVEN.
SOMEONE HAS TO COMPLAIN TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT THAT SOMEONE IS VIOLATING A DEED RESTRICTION.
SO AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE'S NEVER BEEN A COMPLAINT ABOUT THIS VIOLATION WITH SOMETHING THAT'S GONE ON FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, THEN THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT WOULD NORMALLY TAKE ON.
IF IT'S, IF THERE WERE NEW CONSTRUCTION OR SOMETHING THAT HAD JUST GONE UP, YES, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS.
BUT IF IT'S BEEN THERE FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS, THEN THAT GOES
[01:00:01]
A LITTLE BIT BEYOND.WHAT WE WOULD BE, UM, COMFORTABLE ADDRESSING.
COMMISSIONER MORRIS? UM, ONE THING I HAVEN'T HEARD ADDRESSED MR. BUTLER, IS WHETHER THIS IS A PERMITTED STRUCTURE OR NOT.
I MEAN, IF IT VIOLATES DEEDS AND IT'S IN THE CONDITION THAT IT IS, I WOULD SUSPECT IT'S NOT PERMITTED OR WAS INSPECTED.
SO KIND OF JUMPING ON MR. T, HERE'S QUESTION IS LIKE, IF IT'S AN UNPERMITTED STRUCTURE THERE, LIKE A RED TAG OR SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.
WE'RE NOT, WE CANNOT AND WILL NOT VOTE AGAINST DEEDS.
SO UNLESS THEY PLAN ON IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS COMPLETELY REDESIGNING IT, THEY'RE EITHER STUCK WITH THAT STRUCTURE AND IT'S DE DELIBERATED STATE OR THEY GOTTA REMOVE IT.
BUT I HAVE A HARD TIME BELIEVING IT WAS PERMITTED TO BEGIN WITH, SO I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT ANY INFORMATION ON THAT.
SO BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S ASSERTION OF THE DATE AND JUST MY OPINION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, IT'S PROBABLY PREDATES WHAT WE HAVE AS FAR AS PERMITTING RECORDS MAY LIKELY THE FIFTIES WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCTED.
SO THAT'S LONG BEFORE THE CITY'S BUILDING LINE.
OF COURSE, I, I CAN LOOK INTO THAT FURTHER TO SEE IF THERE'S MORE INFORMATION THAT SHOWS WHEN IT WAS ACTUALLY BUILT THAT THE CITY MIGHT HAVE.
UM, BUT THE, THE OTHER OPTION IS TO REPAIR THE STRUCTURE AS IT IS NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE, THE WALL.
AND, UM, BA BASED ON ITS CONDITION THOUGH, THAT'S EXTENSIVE REPAIR.
SO THERE NEEDS TO BE AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW MUCH REPAIR THEY CAN DO FOR IT TO BE GRANDFATHERED IN.
BECAUSE THEY CANNOT, IT ALMOST SOUNDED LIKE THE INTENTION IS TO KEEP THE FOOTPRINT BUT BUILD A NEW STRUCTURE AND THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN, WHICH WOULD BE RED TAG IF THEY DID IT.
SO, UM, THERE NEEDS TO BE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING, I GUESS WHEN YOU TALK TO THEM OVER THE NEXT TWO MAIN OF WHAT THAT IS IN TERMS OF REMAINING GRANDFATHERED IN.
BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT ROOF LINE, IT LOOKS LIKE A COMPLETE REPLACEMENT.
SO, UM, TO ME AT THAT POINT THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN VIOLATION.
BUT CAN I ADD SOMETHING? COMMISSIONER TAHIR, I HAVE SEEN IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD STRUCTURES THAT ARE, THAT WERE PERMITTED, BUT WERE IN VIOLATION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION DIDN'T DO A GOOD JOB OF, OF OUTLINING THE RESTRICTIONS OR ENFORCING THEM.
THAT'S WHY I THINK THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY IS WITH THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION TO REPORT THESE.
OTHERWISE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY BECOME GRANDFATHERED.
WELL, WHEN YOU SAY GRANDFATHERED, IT DOESN'T MAKE HIM LEGAL, BUT IT, BUT YOU ARE CORRECT THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION IS BETWEEN THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION CORRECT.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THE CITY TAKES ON.
IT ONLY COMES UP IF THEY'RE TOUCHING IT.
SO IF THEY'RE TOUCHING IT, THEN DO WE ALLOW A STRUCTURE THAT CAN FALL OR, I MEAN, WHAT DO WE DO? DO WE GRANT THEM PERMISSION, UH, BASED ON A CONDITION THAT IT ONLY APPLIES TO THAT STRUCTURE AND IT CANNOT BE BUILT UP? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I, I'D HAVE TO ASK MR. SMITH IF HE KNOWS WHAT PERMITTING WOULD DO IN THAT SITUATION.
OBVIOUSLY, IF IT'S DILAPIDATED ENOUGH TO BE A SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE, WE'VE GOT DIFFERENT STANDARDS AND IT MIGHT HAVE TO COME DOWN.
BUT I WOULD THINK WE WOULD ALLOW REPAIR OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO THE POINT THAT IT'S, IT'S NOT EXPANDED OR ENLARGED AND MAKE IT CONDITIONAL THAT THEY CANNOT BUILD UP AND NOT, NOT ENLARGE OR EXPAND THE USE.
SO YOU'RE RIGHT, IT IS BETWEEN THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND THIS APPLICANT, AND THE HOUSE IS VERY OLD, AND I BET THINGS HAVE CHANGED AT LEAST TWO OR THREE TIMES.
SO AS A CITY, NOT A PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT AS A CITY, WOULD WE JUST SAY KNOCK 'EM DOWN AND REPLACE 'EM? NO, WE DON'T.
THEY STAY UNTIL THEY'RE TOUCHED.
SO THE QUESTION IS, IS IT A LEGAL VARIANCE REQUEST FOR US TO EVEN LOOK AT? AND IN LEGAL'S OPINION, IT GOES AGAINST DEED RESTRICTIONS.
BUT WE ALSO CAN'T SAY, YOU CAN'T GO TRY TO PERMIT IT AT PUBLIC WORKS AND REPAIR IT.
AND WE CAN'T TELL THEM THAT THEY HAVE TO DESTROY ANYTHING IN THE HOUSE.
AND SO THE ANSWER OF IS IT GRANDFATHERED? IT'S ONLY GRANDFATHERED IN THE WORD GRANDFATHER UNTIL THEY TOUCH IT.
AND THAT'S THE WAY I INTERPRET ALL THAT.
AND THAT JUST KIND OF GOES BACK TO MY COMMENT OF DEFINING WHAT THAT REPAIR CAN BE, RIGHT? IF IT'S JUST THE ROOF, IT'S JUST THE ROOF.
BUT I DON'T WANNA GET ANYBODY CONFUSED THAT THEY CAN GO START IN CLOSING WALLS AND DOING CERTAIN THINGS AND, AND THAT NOT BE.
SO I JUST THINK WE NEED TO, IF IT IS GONNA BE A REPAIR, WHATEVER THEY DECIDE IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT CLEARLY DEFINED.
[01:05:01]
TO BE CLEARLY DEFINED? OKAY.COMMISSIONER CLARK, I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT THAT'S A PUBLIC WORKS ISSUE, SO IT'S A PERMITT CENTER.
WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T REALLY SET THAT PRECEDENCE.
WE CAN REQUEST IT FOR THEM TO LOOK AT IT, BUT WE CAN'T SAY, HEY, PERMIT CENTER WHEN THEY COME BACK, DON'T ALLOW THIS, THIS, OR THIS.
THEY NEED TO GO BY WHAT THE CODES ARE IN THE CITY.
I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING AND I APPRECIATE IT.
UM, I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND.
I DON'T WANT ANYBODY WALKING AWAY FROM HERE GOING, OH, THIS IS HOW WE, WE STOP IT.
UM, SO THANKS COMMISSIONER TAHI.
I THINK THE ONLY REASON WHY WE, WE, WE CONSIDERING THIS IS BECAUSE THEY WERE TOUCHING IT.
SO IF THE TOUCHING IS REPAIRED, IS IT SAME AS REPLACEMENT OR REFURBISHMENT? THAT'S WHEN IT GOES TO PERMIT.
COULD MR. SMITH, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? WE DON'T WANNA PUT YOU ON THE SPOT IF IT'S A, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I, IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO SOMETHING HERE, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY.
SO I THINK THAT IF, IF IT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, ONE OF THE THINGS FOR ANY WORK ON THIS WOULD BE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT THIS IS NOT IN VIOLATION.
SO IF THEY CAME IN FOR A PERMIT TO RE, IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GET A PERMIT TO REPAIR, THEN WE WOULDN'T SEE IT.
BUT IF THEY HAVE TO GET A PERMIT TO DO ANY OF THIS REPAIR WORK, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO, LIKE I SAID, THERE IS AN AFFIDAVIT THAT THEY HAVE TO SIGN STATING THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS IN ANY WORK WOULD NOT VIOLATE, OR THERE IS NO DE THAT THERE WOULD BE NO, THAT THERE ARE NO DEED RESTRICTIONS OR THAT THE WORK WOULD NOT VIOLATE ANY DEED RESTRICTIONS.
SO I MEAN, IF THEY'RE TOUCHING IT AND IT REQUIRES A PERMIT, THEN YES, WE WILL KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION AND WE PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PERMIT IT.
ANYBODY ELSE? UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THIS ITEM AND HOPEFULLY SOMETHING MAGICAL WILL HAPPEN IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.
WE WILL SEE, UH, IS THERE FURTHER? YES.
COMMISSIONER ROBBINS, I'M JUST CURIOUS, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YET IF, IF IT DOES NOT, IF IT'S DETERMINED THAT IT DOES NOT VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS, WHETHER YOU WOULD THEN RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE? SO FOR THE LIMITED PORTION, SEPARATING THE VARIANCE REQUESTS FROM DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR A MOMENT? CORRECT.
THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING THAT IS, IS ENCOURAGED, UH, AS FAR AS IMPROVING WALKABILITY, THEY'RE TAKING A CURB CUT AWAY AND THEN PUTTING IT ONTO AN ALLEYWAY.
THAT'S KIND OF A COMMON ACCESS.
SO YOU'D BE INCLINED TO SUPPORT IT IF IT DOESN'T VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS? CORRECT.
UH, THEN DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER KLIK KLIK? IS THERE A SECOND? TAHIR? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
UM, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME BACK AND SPEAK TO US AGAIN NEXT TIME IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
UH, ITEM 1 41, WHICH IS 1951 LEXINGTON.
I'M CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS ITEM 1 41 19 51 LEXINGTON STREET.
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DEFERRED ONCE.
UH, THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF US 59 AND SOUTH SIDE OF LEXINGTON STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG US 59.
IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 25 FOR A NEW TWO STORY GARAGE APARTMENT.
THE SUBJECT SITE WAS CREATED BY RICHMOND PLACE IN 1924.
AND, UH, RECORDED, UH, IN THE RECORDED PLA WAS CREATED BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION OF S 59.
THE MAJORITY OF THE HOMES ALONG NORTH SIDE OF US 59 ARE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE BUILDING LINE.
UM, SORRY, CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE BUILDING LINE.
UH, RE UH, WELL, MOST OF THE HOUSE ARE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE BUILDING LINE THAT IS, UH, RE UH, OVER THE BILLING OVER THE BILL LINE REQUIREMENT.
THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED 10 FOOT SETBACK IS IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF A TWO STORY CAR GARAGE WITH THAT WILL, UH, TAKE ACCESS FROM LEXINGTON STREET.
NO VEHICLE, NO VEHICLE OR ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY WILL BE FROM US 59 AND THE EXISTING FENCE WILL REMAIN AS IT IS.
THIS PROJECT IS BILLED TO LIVABLE PLACES STANDARDS.
THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UH, RECOMMENDS THE STU UH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR A NEW TWO STORY GARAGE APARTMENT.
THIS CONCLUDES REPRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. JAIME LEON? YES, I DO.
[01:10:01]
THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, THE OVERHEAD POWER LINE ALONG THE FREEWAY, AND IT APPEARS THAT THEY'VE RECOGNIZED THAT THERE'S AN AERIAL ENCROACHMENT POSSIBILITY.UH, HAS THAT BEEN QUESTIONED OR TESTED TO KNOW IF THEY'RE CREATING A CONFLICT OR, OR AN ENCROACHMENT OR ARE THEY OVERCOMING THAT? CAN YOU PULL UP THE STORY PLEASE? THE MOST RECENT SURVEY, UH, DOES NOT SHOW ANY ERROR EASEMENTS.
UM, I BELIEVE IS BECAUSE THE POWER LINES ARE COMPLETELY WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
JUST, JUST ANOTHER TWO, UH, COMMISSIONER JONES POINT, THERE'S GONNA BE A CODE CLEARANCE REQUIREMENT REGARDLESS OF EASEMENT.
UH, 12.5 FEET FROM THE LOWEST, YOU KNOW, STRUCTURE WITHIN THAT.
SO SHOULD THEY, UM, VIOLATE THAT, THEY WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH CENTER POINT TO GET THAT RECTIFIED CORRECT.
I DON'T RECALL THE, THE HEIGHT.
I KNOW THAT THE BUILDING AS IT GETS CLOSER TO US 59, IT, UH, IT GOES DOWN IN HEIGHT.
SO I THINK THEY TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
I KNOW IT'S HARD FOR US TO AND FORTH WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT RIGHT.
BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD, HAVE IT BE NOTED, THEY'LL HAVE TO YES.
UH, COORDINATE THAT WITH CENTER POINT.
WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER ON THIS ITEM.
ART GARZA, I THINK IS VIRTUAL.
CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES, WE CAN GO RIGHT AHEAD.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, UH, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
UM, YEAH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, UM, TOUCH ON THE LOW POINT OF THE ROOF IS, UH, MAXIMUM 12.5 FEET, WHICH IS, UM, THE CLOSEST POINT TO THE POWER LINES.
THE POWER LINES ARE, UH, OVER THE BUILDING LINE, JUST OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING LINE CLOSER TO THE FEEDER ROAD OF THE 59, UH, SOUTHBOUND.
SO WE'RE COMPLETELY CLEAR OF THE POWER LINES THERE.
UM, I DID WANT, I, I AM SPEAKING IN ON BEHALF THE REYES, UH, FAMILY, THE OWNERS OF THE HOUSE.
THEY WANTED ME TO ASK, UM, TO POSSIBLY RECONSIDER THE BUILDING LINE.
YOU KNOW, THE, THERE, THERE USED TO BE A, THERE WAS A PREVIOUSLY, UM, I, I BELIEVE A, A A, UH, A STRUCTURE THERE.
IT WAS A, UH, CAR, UH, GARAGE APARTMENT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE, THREE FEET WITHIN THE BUILDING LINE.
UM, AND THEY WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO RECONSIDER US BEING ABLE TO BUILD THE ORIGINAL, UH, ARCHITECTURAL, UM, DRAWINGS OF HAVING IT WITHIN THREE FEET.
IT WAS CAREFULLY PLANNED OUT, UH, BY ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTS TO, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS NOT GONNA IMPEDE ANY KIND OF POWER LINES OR, YOU KNOW, IT'S A, IT'S A COMPLETELY ENCLOSED, UM, BACKYARD AREA.
IT'S A SINGLE, UH, FEMALE MIDDLE AGED THAT'S GONNA BE LIVING THERE.
UM, SO IT, IT, IT WILL NOT, YOU KNOW, AFFECT ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS, THE STREET, THE, THE, UH, THE, UH, THE THOROUGHFARE IN ANY WAY.
UM, EVEN THOUGH NOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS BUILT IN THE, I BELIEVE IN THE FIFTIES OR SIXTIES, THAT GARAGE APARTMENT THAT WAS THERE PREVIOUSLY.
SO THAT, THAT IS A REQUEST FROM THE, FROM THE OWNERS TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT, UH, UH, POSSIBLY, UH, REINSTATED THE ORIGINAL ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.
ARE YOU ASKING FOR A CHANGE IN WHAT, IN YOUR APPLICATION AT THIS POINT? THIS, WELL, AT, AT THIS POINT RIGHT NOW, THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION HAD FOR, UH, AN 1,850 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY SINGLE CAR GARAGE.
UM, AND THE, THE BOTTOM FLOOR, THE FIRST FLOOR WAS GONNA HAVE, UM, A MASSIVE STORAGE AREA, WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON WHY THE, UH, THE OWNER WANTED TO DO THIS.
UH, SHE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A, A HEAVY STORAGE AREA NEXT TO THE CAR GARAGE.
UM, AND THIS ONE HERE, I KNOW THAT WE'RE, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO CHANGE THE DRAWINGS TO THIS, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW, TO A TWO CAR WITH THE THIRD AXIS IN FRONT, IN BETWEEN THE MAIN HOUSE AND THE, AND THE, AND THE, UH, THE GARAGE APARTMENT.
UH, BUT IT'S GONNA BE A SINGLE WOMAN LIVING THERE.
MR. GARZA, LET ME, LET ME INTERRUPT YOU.
I WE CAN, I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN RECONSIDER A, A DIFFERENT, UM, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT MS. MATER TO HELP ME OUT HERE.
IT WAS AN ORIGINAL PLAN THAT WE HAD SET IN THAT WAS BEING DENIED.
GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN, CLARIFY.
WE WERE CONSIDERING THE FIRST REQUEST, BUT DUE TO CHAPTER 42, THERE IS A SECTION CAN RECALL BY MEMORY, UH, THAT, UM, DOESN'T ALLOW A STRUCTURE TO BE WITHIN 10 FEET OF EXISTING POWER LINES.
SO EVEN IF THEY, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD BE, UH, CONSIDERED
[01:15:01]
FOR APPROVAL.SO I THINK THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, MR. GARZA, IS WHAT YOU HAD APPLIED FOR BEFORE VIOLATED CHAPTER 42 TERMS. AND THEREFORE WE, WE CAN'T, WE COULDN'T APPROVE THAT.
I WAS JUST, I, I WAS ASKED BY MY, UH, MY CUSTOMERS TO, UH, BAT FOR THEM.
UM, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE MOTION TO APPROVE.
MOTION TO APPROVE, UM, MA SECOND CLARK.
ITEM 1 42, ITEM 1 42, UH, 38 41 MEADOW, UH, LAKE LANE.
THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST, UH, INTERSECTION OF WILLOWBROOK ROAD AND MEADOW LAKE LANE, SOUTH OF SAN FELIPPE STREET AND NORTH OF WESTHEIMER ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE WITH A 30 FOOT, UH, SORRY, 30 INCHES OF ROOF OVERHANG.
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG WILLOWBROOK ROAD, WILLOW WICK ROAD, A MAJOR THOROUGH OFFER.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE REQUEST.
THE, UH, THE CORNER ALERT WAS PLOTTED, UH, WITH THE SUBDIVISION ROAD IN OAKS IN 1946 WITH A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE ON WILLOW WICK ROAD AND A 25 FOOT, UH, DEED BUILDING LINE, UH, UH, ON MEADOW LAKE LANE.
THE PROPOSED SITE HAS A 25 FOOT DEED, UH, RESTRICTION BUILDING LINE ALONG MEADOW LAKE, LA, UH, LANE, A 10 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE REAR AND THE PROPERTY, UH, UH, OF THE PROPERTY.
AND A FIVE FOOT DEED RESTRICTION, UH, RESTRICTED BILLING LINE, UH, FROM THE SITE'S EASTERN BOUNDARY.
THE SITE WILL TAKE VEHICULAR ACCESS VIA, UH, MEADOW LAKE LANE, UH, LOCAL STREET.
UH, A REDUCED BUILDING LINE, UH, ON WILLOW, UH, ON WILLOW WICK ROAD WILL SUIT THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS GRANTED SIMILAR VARIANCES ALONG WILLOW WICK ROAD.
WILLOW, UH, WILLOW WICK IS SUFFICIENT, SUFFICIENT IN WIDTH, UH, AS AN 80 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.
AND THE DISTANCE FROM BACK OF CURVE TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS 19 FEET.
IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE THE REQUIRED SIDEWALKS ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAYS.
THEREFORE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. JAIME LEON? UM, THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.
UM, MR. CORLL IF FOR QUESTIONS ONLY OR ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, IF NOT, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION SIGLER SECOND.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES IS APPROVED.
ITEM 1 43, MADAM CHAIR, WILL YOU SHOW ME, UM, RECUSING MYSELF FOR MS. OKAY.
UH, PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG HAS, IS ABSTAINING ON THIS ITEM.
ITEM 1 43 IS 58 0 3 NAVIGATION BOULEVARD.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG NAVIGATION EAST OF LOCKWOOD AND WEST OF WAYSIDE.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE AND REPURPOSE AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR AN OVERHEAD SHADE STRUCTURE WITH ENTRY STAIRS AND A DA RAMP TO BE BUILT ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, RATHER THAN BE SET BACK 25 FEET.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE CONSISTS OF A FORMER WAREHOUSE WITH TRUCK LOADING BERTHS ALONG NAVIGATION.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CLOSE THESE CURB CUTS AND INSTALL A PEDESTRIAN REALM FEATURING LANDSCAPING, AN UNOBSTRUCTED SIDEWALK AND PARALLEL PARKING.
THE PROPOSED FRONT ENTRANCE WILL FEATURE A SHADE CANOPY SUPPORTED BY OVERHEAD CABLES.
THIS WILL OFFER PROTECTION FROM THE ELEMENTS WHILE ELIMINATING ANY OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE PEDESTRIAN REALM.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE TO STRICT INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 42 AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT FOR QUESTIONS IF OR DO YOU WANNA SPEAK IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
UH, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BUTLER? STAFF'S? RECOMMENDATION THEN IS TO APPROVE THE TERMS ARE ON THE SCREEN.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION KALE KLI SECOND MAD.
[01:20:01]
UM, OKAY, THAT CONCLUDES PLATING ACTIVITY.[II. Establish a public hearing date of March 21, 2024]
A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF MARCH 7TH, 2024 FOR THE FOLLOWING, UH, APPLICATIONS THAT ARE LISTED ON THE SCREEN.I WILL NOT READ THEM, BUT, UM, THE, SHE SAID MARCH 21ST.
THERE'S ONE IS GLEN GLENHAVEN CENTER THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, BUT IT'S NOT ON THIS LIST.
IS THIS THE CORRECT LIST? SO TWO CORRECTIONS IN YOUR STATEMENT, MADAM CHAIR.
MARCH 21ST FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
NO WONDER I'M LOOKING AT THE LAST WEEK'S AGENDA AND THE CORRECT LIST SHOULD BE ON YOUR, UM, ON THE NEWEST PAPER THAT YOU HAVE.
IS THERE A MOTION TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 21ST, 2024 FOR THE, UH, APPLICATIONS LISTED ON YOUR SCREEN ISH.
UH, THE NEXT UH, ITEM OF BUSINESS IS PUBLIC COMMENT.
I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
I DO NOT PUBLIC, BUT, OH, GO AHEAD.
UM, AS WE SIT ON THIS SIDE OF THE HORSESHOE, UM, WE OFTEN DON'T SEE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE EFFORT THAT GOES INTO CREATING THESE APPLICATIONS AND ALL OF THAT.
UM, BALTIMORE GONZALEZ IS PART OF OUR BUFFALO BAYOU STAFF.
AND, UH, AS STAFF, AS THE OWNER, HE ACTUALLY COMPILED THE VARIANCE APPLICATION AND WORKED THROUGH WITH STAFF.
AND IT WAS AMAZING TO WATCH HOW, UM, THEY WORKED WITH US AND HELPED.
AND JUST THE HANDS-ON APPROACH THAT THEY HAD AND THE INTEREST FOR IT.
AND IT WAS REALLY NICE TO SEE THE OTHER SIDE.
'CAUSE NORMALLY IT'S CON CONSULTANTS COMING IN OR WHATEVER, BUT JUST HAVING THAT FIRSTHAND INTERACTION WITH THEM WAS, WAS FANTASTIC.
JUST WANTED TO COMPLIMENT DIPTY AND HER TEAM.
UM, THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS ROMAN NUMERAL.
UM, THIS QUESTION CAME UP TODAY FOR LEGAL, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS COMMERCIAL USE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WHERE THE LANDLORD SAYS, WELL, I LEASED IT.
I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TENANT WAS DOING.
HOW DO HE ADDRESS THAT NOTE? I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THAT, SO THE, THE QUESTION, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, IS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT THEN A TENANT USES AND EITHER LEASES OUT LIKE AIRBNB, WHICH IS LIKE AN AIRBNB? THAT'S WHERE I WAS THINKING YOU WERE GOING.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN THE LANDLORD SAY? I THINK THAT IT, THAT FIRST OF ALL, THAT'S A DEED RESTRICTION ENFORCEMENT ISSUE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS TO ENFORCE AGAINST THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER.
I, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT MATTERS IF THE LANDLORD SAYS HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE TENANT WAS DOING.
IT'S HIS JOB TO MAKE SURE THE TENANTS ARE, ARE FOLLOWING, FOLLOWING THEIR RULES AS WELL.
UM, THE CITY DOESN'T, ENFOR YOU KNOW, DOESN'T HAVE ANY KIND OF SHORT TERM RENTAL RESTRICTIONS OR REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS, UM, FRAUGHT WITH LEGAL ISSUES AND, YOU KNOW, BEING CHALLENGED AND STRUCK DOWN, FRANKLY, ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
SO IT'S, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A CITY ENFORCEMENT QUESTION.
PERHAPS IF A DEED RESTRICTION, UH, COMPLAINT IS BROUGHT IN THEN TO NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES SECTION ON THE DEED RESTRICTION COMPLAINT LINE, THEY MAY LOOK AT IT AS WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WOULD TREAT THAT OR IF THEY'VE HAD TO ADDRESS THAT BEFORE.
WELL, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT OH.
ABOUT SHORT TERM PROHIBIT THAT YEAH.
BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES WOULD LOOK AT IF A COMPLAINT IS FILED WITH THEM.
THERE WAS A 2021 TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT SPECIF SPECIFICALLY ON THAT QUESTION, UM, OF WHETHER OR NOT, UM, DEED RESTRICTIONS COULD BE ENFORCED FOR COMMERCIAL USE, UM, FOR A SHORT TERM RENTAL.
AND THE SUPREME COURT SAID, NO, IT HAS TO BE SPEC, IT HAS TO BE SPECIFIC.
SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT OLD DEED RESTRICTIONS IN PARTICULAR, HOW MANY OF THOSE THOUGHT AHEAD TO SAY, OH, WE'RE GONNA RESTRICT SHORT TERM RENTALS? UM, YOU KNOW, THEY MIGHT HAVE IN SAYING YOU MUST HAVE A LEASE OF 12 MONTHS, BUT NO, CERTAINLY NOTHING LIKE WE'RE SEEING TODAY.
BUT IT HAS TO BE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.
YEAH, IT IS THE, IT IS THE BURDEN OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OR CIVIC ASSOCIATION OR THE NEIGHBORS TO BE ON THE LOOKOUT AND TO COMPLAIN AND TO, UH, MAKE SURE
[01:25:01]
THAT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE FOLLOWED.OTHERWISE, THEY, THEY GO BY THE SIDELINE.
BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY FOR THE CITY TO KNOW.
DID YOU WANNA SPEAK COMMISSIONER VICTOR? I WAS JUST GONNA ASK, IS THERE, UM, ARE WE WORKING TOWARDS POTENTIALLY HAVING ANY, UH, LANGUAGE OR ORDINANCES POTENTIALLY TO, THAT ADDRESSES THESE SHORT TERM RENTALS? TEXAS COURT SAID NO, SHE DID THAT.
BUT ISN'T THERE, I THOUGHT THERE WAS A WAY TO AT LEAST GET, BESIDES THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, UM, I GUESS THERE IS NO WAY OTHER WAY OTHER THAN DEED RESTRICTION TO GET IT DONE THERE, THERE ARE VARIOUS WAYS TO, UM, REGULATE SHORT TERM RENTALS.
UM, THAT HAVE WITHSTOOD SOME LEGAL CHALLENGE.
I KNOW I'VE ATTENDED CONFERENCES AND LOOKED AT VARIOUS ORDINANCES THAT HAVE DONE THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SOMETHING THIS ADMINISTRATION'S GOING TO TAKE UP.
WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA HEAR A LOT MORE ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT, IT'S VERY PREVALENT.
SO SOMETHING THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT TAKEN UP.
[IV. Excuse the absences of Commissioner Alleman and Porras-Pirtle]
A ROMAN NUMERAL FOUR, WHICH IS TO EXCUSE THE ABSENCES OF COMMISSIONER ALLMAN AND POROUS PERLE.AND COMMISSIONER ALLMAN IS HERE, SO WE DON'T NEED TO DEAL WITH THAT.
BUT COMMISSIONER POROUS PERLE IS NOT, SHE HAS A FAMILY, UM, UH, HEALTH ISSUE WITH HER PARENTS AND, AND HAS MISSED, THIS'LL BE HER THIRD MEETING.
SO WE DO NEED TO, UH, EXCUSE HER ABSENCE.
IS THERE A MOTION TO EXCUSE HER? ABSENCE? MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND? COVAR? UM, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
ITS EXCUSED AND SHE HOPES TO BE BACK NEXT WEEK.
IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOTION? CLARK.