[00:00:03]
IT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RIGHT HERE ON HTV, UH, VICE CHAIR GARZA.
[Call to Order]
I KNOW HE IS HERE.HE'S GONNA BE A FEW MINUTES LATE.
COMMISSIONER SIGLER'S GONNA BE ABSENT.
COMMISSIONER TAHIR? SUPPOSED TO BE VIRTUAL HERE.
YOU DIDN'T SEE HIM VIRTUALLY? MM-HMM.
COMMISSIONER DALTON, DID YOU SEE HER VIRTUALLY? MM-HMM.
UM, COMMISSIONER MONKA PRESENT AND JENNIFER OSLAN OUR COMMISSION.
UH, SECRETARY PRESENT AND VICE CHAIR GARZA PRESENT.
UM,
IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN A SPECIFIC ITEM, YOU CAN FIND THE FINAL AGENDA WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE.
ALL ADVANCED COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED BY NOON YESTERDAY OR INCLUDED WITH THE FINAL AGENDA.
IF YOU'RE HERE WITH US IN THE CITY HALL ANNEX AND WISH TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU FILL OUT A SPEAKER FORM AND RETURN IT TO STAFF SEATED BY THE DOOR.
WE ASK THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE CONNECTED BY PHONE OR COMPUTER TO PLEASE KEEP YOUR DEVICE MUTED UNTIL YOU'RE CALLED ON TO SPEAK.
ALSO, OUR VIDEO QUALITY WILL BE BETTER IF YOU KEEP YOUR CAMERA OFF UNTIL YOU'RE SPEAKING BEFORE WE, UM, GO FORWARD, I NEED TO KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY ITEMS THAT ANY COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO, UM, ABSTAIN.
I NEED TO ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS TWO THROUGH SIX AND 16.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
OH, YOU KNOW, I STEPPED THAT OUT.
YOU WEREN'T NOT PAYING ATTENTION.
UM, I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW FOR EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT TWO ITEMS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN, BEEN WITHDRAWN.
ITEM 87, BATON ESTATE AND NUMBER 90 FELLOWSHIP ESTATES.
AND SO THESE, THERE WILL NOT BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK OR, UH, THESE WILL NOT EVEN BE PRESENTED TODAY.
[Director’s Report]
GO TO THE, UH, DIRECTOR'S REPORT.INTERIM DIRECTOR JENNIFER OLIN.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.
I'M JENNIFER OSLAN, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION AND INTERIM DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
UH, THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND FREEWAY PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE IS UNDERWAY AND OUR WEBSITE HAS ALL THE DETAILS.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, UM, IS MAY 13TH TO JULY 5TH AND, UH, MAY 16TH.
WE'RE HAVING A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMISSION FROM ONE TO 2:00 PM RIGHT BEFORE YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING, UH, FOR THE, UM, WORKSHOP.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE WILL, YOU WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANTS THEMSELVES.
UM, THAT'S YOUR FIRST, UH, GLANCE AT WHAT, UH, AT THE AMENDMENTS.
SO, AND YOU'LL HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO ASK QUESTIONS, WHICH OF COURSE THEN WE WILL WORK ON ANSWERING, UM, AS WE GO FORWARD.
UM, AND JUST A REMINDER THAT ON THAT DAY, MAY 16TH IS, UH, UM, GONNA BE THE, THE BEGINNING OF OUR IN-PERSON ONLY MEETINGS.
SO WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING EVERYBODY, UM, COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC IN PERSON ON THAT DAY.
UM, AND SO, UM, IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS, CALL THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 6 0 0 OR THE PLANNER OF THE DAY AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 6 2 4.
OR VISIT US AT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM.
[Consideration of the April 18, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes]
WE HAVE A COPY OF LAST MEETING MINUTES IN YOUR PACKET ARE ANY, ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGES? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.OKAY, SO ALL IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.
[00:05:01]
CARRIES.[Platting Activities a & b]
WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO THE PART THAT I SKIPPED FORWARD ON I'LL PLATTING ACTIVITY.AND SO INSTEAD OF MAKING COMMISSIONER HEIS, HES REPEAT, I'LL READ THEM OFF.
COMMISSIONER, HE, HE IS GONNA, UH, ABSTAIN FROM NUMBER 2, 3 6 3.
SO WE GOING ON ONE THROUGH 86, 1 THROUGH, NO, WE CAN'T DO ONE THROUGH 86 'CAUSE IT'S ALSO 16.
PAT, YOU JUST GOTTA BEAR WITH ME.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS JAMES TIHI SECTIONS AND B ARE PRESENTED AS ONE GROUP, WHICH INCLUDES CONSENT AND REPLAY ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION.
SECTIONS A AND B ARE ITEMS ONE THROUGH 86 SECTION A.
CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 44 AND SECTION B, REPLAY ITEMS R NUMBERS 45 THROUGH 86.
NO ITEMS NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
MADAM CHAIR, IF THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSENT AND REPLAY ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION.
SO NOW THE PART I'VE REPEATED TWICE, THIS IS WHERE WE'LL INSERT THAT.
COMMISSIONER HEIS WILL ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS TWO THROUGH SIX AND 16.
AND SO NOW WE'LL TAKE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
TAKE A MOTION FOR ITEMS ONE 15 AND 17 THROUGH 86 MA SECOND CT.
AND NOW WE'LL TAKE A MOTION FOR ITEMS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 16.
MOTION POURS PER SECOND STEIN.
I DON'T, COMMISSIONER LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THAT COMMISSIONER HINES HAS JOINED US.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE, UH, SIGNED TO SPEAK IN ADVANCE ON THE CONSENT AND REPL ITEMS. IS THERE ANYONE LISTENING WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS IT? I SKIPPED THAT TOO, DIDN'T I? THAT'S ALRIGHT.
OKAY, WELL, SO NOW WE CAN PROCEED ON WITH THE VOTE, WHICH WE DID.
NOW BEFORE WE TAKE UP PLANNING HEARINGS AND A PUBLIC HEARINGS, I WAS JUST STATING THAT THIS IS THE LAST TIME I HAVE TO READ THIS PAGE TO YOU GUYS.
YOU'VE BEEN HEARING IT NOW FOR THREE YEARS.
[c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Dorianne Powe-Phlegm, Devin Crittle, John Cedillo and Wilson Calvert)]
WE TAKE UP PUBLIC HEARINGS, LET ME QUICKLY GO OVER THE RULES FOR PUBLIC SPEAKERS FOR EVERYONE'S REFERENCE.THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S, MEETING POLICIES AND REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OR POSTED WITH EVERY AGENDA, OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS.
OUR RULES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED WITH THE GOAL OF AFFORDING EVERYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO IN A FAIR AND EFFICIENT MANNER.
FOR THIS REASON, WE DO ENFORCE TIME LIMITS AND OTHER RULES.
PLEASE WAIT TO SPEAK UNTIL YOU'RE CALLED ON AND THEN STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
WHEN THE BELL RINGS, YOUR TIME IS UP AND YOU SHOULD WRAP UP QUICKLY AT THAT POINT, UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS, YOUR TIME TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION IS CONCLUDED.
WE DO NOT ALLOW BACK AND FORTH DISCUSSIONS UNLESS IT IS RESPONSIVE TO A SPECIFIC QUESTION FROM A COMMISSIONER TO A PARTICULAR SPEAKER.
FOR EACH ITEM, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK FIRST AND THEN FOR REBUTTAL AT THE CONCLUSION OF ALL OTHER SPEAKERS.
PLEASE NOTE DURING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, THE RAISED HAND TOOL IS TO BE USED ONLY BY STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SHOULD USE THE CHAT TO SEEK RECOGNITION.
PLEASE KEEP YOUR PHONE OR COMPUTER ON MUTE UNLESS THE CHAIR IS CALLED ON MUTE TO SPEAK OR UNLESS THE CHAIR HAS BEEN MADE A HAS MADE A GENERAL CALL FOR ANY ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS.
IF YOU'RE ON A PHONE, USE STAR SIX TO UNMUTE AND AGAIN TO RE-MUTE WHEN YOU ARE DONE.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE PROCEDURES, I INVITE YOU TO CONSULT THE RULES POSTED WITH THE AGENDA OR CALL THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 8 3 2 3 9 360 600.
AND NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.
MS. FLM, GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM NUMBER 88 IS BY WOOD OASIS, THE SIZE LOCATED NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF DARIEN AND BYWOOD STREET, EAST OF HOMESTEAD ROAD AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS.
THE REASON FOR 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.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE
[00:10:01]
PLAT PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN MOTION.
UM, OH, I DIDN'T OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
OH, HE MIGHT HAVE HAD SOME DIFFICULTY.
OH, THAT'S WHAT WE, OH, THAT'S WHY I DON'T HAVE IT.
WELL THEY SAID NO ONE WAS ONLINE, BUT, UM, WHAT IS HIS NAME? UM, HIS NAME IS, UM, CHRIS GARCIA.
86 WAS 86 WAS, YEAH, 87 WAS WITHDRAWN.
CHRIS GARCIA IS, HIS NAME IS MR. GARCIA WITH US.
I'M THE APPLICANT FOR THE BYWOOD OASIS PLAT.
YESTERDAY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT LEGAL WILL DETERMINE THE EXISTING BUILDING SETBACK.
LINES PER RESTRICTIONS SHOULD NOW BE ALIGNED WITH THE NEWLY CREATED LOT LINES OF OUR SUBDIVISION, SPECIFICALLY THE SIX FOOT SIDE SETBACK LINES.
I'M HERE TODAY TO REQUEST THAT THE INITIAL DETERMINATION BE RECONSIDERED AND POTENTIALLY OVERTURNED.
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING PRECEDENT, I'M ABLE TO PROVIDE PREVIOUS SUBDIVISION PLAS COMPLETED BY OUR OFFICE WITHIN THIS EXACT SAME SUBDIVISION.
BASED ON PDF MARKUPS PROVIDED BY PLANNERS IN THE PAST THAT EXISTING RESTRICTION BUILDING SETBACK LINES SHALL ONLY BE SHOWN IN EFFECT HOW THE ORIGINAL LOT WAS CONFIGURED AND THAT THE NEWLY CREATED INTERIOR LOT LINES AREN'T REQUIRED TO ABIDE BY THE SAME SIX FOOT SIDE SETBACK LINES.
IF THIS STANDARD WAS REQUIRED FOR EVERY PLAQUE CONTAINING BUILDING LINES BY RESTRICTIONS, IT WOULD ELIMINATE MOST DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICULARLY ON LOTS THAT ARE TURNED 90 DEGREES AND CONTAIN A FRONT 25 FOOT SETBACK BY RESTRICTION.
FOR EXAMPLE, ON THIS EXACT SAME STREET, WE PLOTTED TWO, A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION THAT CONTAIN THE SAME RESTRICTIONS IN QUESTION TODAY.
AND I WAS SPECIFICALLY TOLD BY THE PLANNER THAT LEGAL DETERMINED WE COULD NOT REMOVE THE SETBACK THAT WE, THAT WE COULD REMOVE THE SETBACK LINES OFF THE NEWLY CREATED INTERIOR LOT LINES AND THAT THEY WILL ONLY BE SHOWN TO AFFECT THE ORIGINAL LOT AS IT EXISTED.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS BASED ON INTERPRETATION, BUT THAT RULING TOOK PLACE JUST TWO MONTHS AGO ON OUR OTHER REPL.
AND I'M KINDLY REQUESTING THAT WE FOLLOW THAT PRECEDENT IN THIS IDENTICAL CASE.
LEGAL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT PLEASE? YES, I SPOKE TO MR WELL I DIDN'T SPEAK TO HIM, BUT WE EMAILED, UM, YESTERDAY AND TODAY AND HE POINTED OUT THAT ONE FROM TWO MONTHS AGO AND I TOLD HIM, FRANKLY THAT WAS MY MISTAKE AND IT'S NOT A MISTAKE THAT I THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO MAKE.
UM, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE.
IT WAS, I SHOULD HAVE HAD THE NEWLY CREATED LOTS HAVE THE SIX FOOT SIDE BUILDING LINES AND THAT'S WHAT'S BEING REQUIRED NOW AND GOING FORWARD.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? YES, MS. MS. WOODS IF, WILL THE TWO WEEKS BE HELPFUL TO YOU TO SPEND MORE TIME LOOKING INTO IT AND WHICH IS THE DEFERRAL THAT WAS RECOMMENDED OR ARE YOU RECOMMENDING? WE DENY.
IF YOU'RE GOING WITH MY RECOMMENDATION THEN IT WOULD BE A DENIAL, BUT I THINK THEY'RE RECOMMENDING A DEFERRAL FOR THE APPLICANT TO BE ABLE TO RECONFIGURE HIS PLAT BECAUSE I LET HIM KNOW THAT MY OPINION STOOD AND THAT THOSE SIX, SIX FOOT SIDE BUILDING LINES ARE REQUIRED ON THIS RE PLAT.
DO I HAVE ANY SPEAKERS, OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS? OKAY, SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
OH YEAH, I CAN'T CLOSE IT 'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA DEFER IT.
I'M GOING TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF IN FACT WE HAVE A DEFERRAL.
SORRY, I HAVE MY, MY PUBLIC AUDIENCE HERE HELPING ME.
UM, AND DOES YOUR MOTION STILL STAND? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER PLEASE.
UM, CHAIR, UH, UH, THIS IS BASED OFF THE DEED REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT? AND WE OFTEN SAY THAT REGARDLESS OF OUR MOTION OR MISTAKES DEED ARE SACROSANCT.
SO NOT TO OPEN UP THAT KIND OF WARRANT, BUT IS THAT OTHER ONE BEING REVISITED? FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S ALREADY BEEN PLATTED AND FILED,
[00:15:01]
BUT I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER MORRIS IS ASKING IS, IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE PLAT COMPLETED AND FILED, BUT WHAT SHE'S ASKING IS DURING PERMIT TIME, WOULD THE DEED RESTRICTION THE CCNRS THAT ARE ON THAT LOT, WOULD THEY SUPERSEDE WHAT WE APPROVE CAN'T CHANGE.WE CAN'T CHANGE DEED RESTRICTIONS AS MS. KELSON JUST POINTED OUT.
I JUST WANT THE APPLICANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN THOUGH THAT PLAT GOT APPROVED, IT MAY NOT GO COMPLETELY THROUGH THE PROCESS.
AND THAT'S KIND OF WHY I WAS ASKING IT.
THANKS FOR BRINGING THAT UP, COMMISSIONER MORRIS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALRIGHT.
DID I DO A MOTION? YES, I DID.
89 89 THE STATES AT BIG WOOD STREET.
ITEM 89 IS THE STATES AT BIG WOOD, UH, STREET.
THE SITE IS LO LOCATED SOUTH ALONG BIG WOOD STREET, EAST OF NORTH WAYSIDE DRIVE AND GREENWOOD STREET AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS.
THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS PLAT REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WOULD NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR PLEASES COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
UM, FIRST I WANNA RECOGNIZE THAT COMMISSIONER BALDWIN HAS JOINED US AND THEN I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 88.
NUMBER 89 ESTATES AT BIG WOOD STREET.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP.
SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
NUMBER 90 FELLOWSHIP ESTATES HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
91 ITEM 91 IS GAO CORDIO ESTATES AT SAM BROOKINS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH ALONG, UH, SAM BROOKINS STREET, NORTH OF WEST BELFORT STREET IN HOUSTON.
EXTRA TERRITORY JURISDICTION IN FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS.
THE REASON FOR REPLY IS TO CREATE TWO 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 NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF PLAT OF THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO PROVE THE PLA 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.
I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM NUMBER 91.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? OKAY, I'LL, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
SEE IF WE CAN DO THE NEXT ONE.
MADAM CHAIR, I'M GONNA RECUSE FROM THIS ITEM.
PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER HEIS, HE IS ABSTAINING FROM THIS ITEM.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM NUMBER 92 IS MARTA, SECTION 18 PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG SOUTH SALT ROCK DRIVE SOUTH OF LOGAN BALL ROAD AND EAST OF MARTA TERRACE DRIVE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REPL IS TO SLIGHTLY ADJUST THE PROPERTY LINES BETWEEN FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
AND REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL 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 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
I'LL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER 92.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? NO, WE DON'T.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES NUMBER 93.
ITEM NUMBER 93 IS OCEAN ESTATES PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH ALONG DESOTO STREET AND WEST OF WHEATLEY STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REPL IS TO ADJUST THE PROPERTY LINES BETWEEN 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE RESERVE.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND REVIEWED BY LEGAL INDICATES THIS PLAT WILL 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 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING
[00:20:01]
FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
MOTION VE SECOND MOTION VEER BLAND.
UM, ITEM NUMBER 94 IS OCEAN GROVE, SECTION TWO PARTIAL RELA NUMBER ONE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF GLOGER STREET AND SOUTH OF ALDI, MALE ROUTE AND EAST ALONG PROPOSED MAJOR AIRFARE, JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REPLAY IS TO CREATE 15 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH FIVE RESERVES.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES.
THE FIRST IS TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING A EAST WEST STREET THROUGH THE TRACK.
AND THE SECOND REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A REDUCED BUILDING LINE OF 15, 15 FEET ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BUT IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE REDUCED BUILDING LINE REQUEST.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRING THE A APPLICATION TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE SITE DESIGNS.
ALSO STAFF IS COORDINATING WITH HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING FOR THE DEDICATION OF A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE ADJACENT TO A DRAINAGE CHANNEL REVIEW.
BY LEGAL INDICATES THIS REPL WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OF THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR NUMBER 94 ORANGE GROVE SECTION TWO, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE IS OPEN.
I HAVE JOYCE OWENS SIGNED TO SPEAK, BUT I DON'T THINK ONLY FOR QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HER BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? NO.
YES, THAT MOTION WAS TO DEFER.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS A ONE POINT 27 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION NORTH ALONG HAWK STREET, UH, SORRY, HAWKS VIEW STREET SOUTH OF WILL, CLAYTON, AND SOUTHEAST OF LAKE HOUSTON PARKWAY.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE ONE COMMERCIAL RESERVE.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THE PURPOSE OF THE, I'M SORRY, THE REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT WILL, UH, WAS IT WILL POTENTIALLY VIOLATE, UH, FILE DATE RESTRICTIONS AS THE RESTRICTIONS REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL REVIEW PARTY PRIOR TO PURSUING ANY PLATTING OR RE SUBDIVISION.
WE HAVE NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT VERIFICATION THAT THE A CRP HAS PROVIDED APPROVAL.
MADAM CHAIR, IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION.
HE MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NUMBER 95 STNL.
DO I HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS? WE HAVE ONE ON VIRTUALLY ON CHAT.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT, STEVE VIN HENDERSON IS ONLINE.
MR. HENDERSON, ARE YOU WITH US? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? HI, YES.
UM, REGARDING THE ARC APPROVAL, UM, WE DID, UH, RECEIVE IT ON OFFICIAL LETTERHEAD AS REQUESTED AND I FORWARD IT TO THE PLANNER, UH, THIS AFTERNOON.
THAT COULD BE PART OF THE CONSIDERATION TODAY.
WHEN WAS IT SENT? SORRY? WHEN, WHEN DID YOU SEND IT? UH, THAT'D BE 2:01 PM TO, UH, JOHNS VIEW.
UNFORTUNATELY DID NOT HAVE TIME TO THAT.
HE WAS PROBABLY ON HIS WAY OVER HERE FOR THE MEETING.
UM, AND PLUS, UH, TO VERIFICATION, WE KNOW WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE LEGAL REVIEW TO VERIFY THAT THAT SAID APPROVAL IS VIABLE.
THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE WHAT WAS AN APPROVED PLAN, BUT BY A, BY SOME DISTINCTIVE, UH, PARTY, BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT THEY ARE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE A RC FOR SURE.
SO THAT'S WHAT THE LETTER WOULD BE PROPOSING, BUT, UH, I'M NOT SURE IF WE, COULD WE CONTINUE DEFERRAL OR I BELIEVE WE WOULD HAVE TO AT THIS POINT.
WELL, WE HAVEN'T HAD LEGAL REVIEW IT, SO, UM, YEAH, WE'D HAVE TO DEFER IT AT THIS POINT.
THERE'S NO WAY TO, UH, TAKE A LOOK REAL QUICK.
HAVE EVER SEEN THAT? I WOULD SAY NO, BECAUSE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT BEFORE ANYTHING IS PLA OKAY.
THAT THAT APPROVAL HAS TO BE MET AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THAT APPROVAL.
[00:25:01]
I HAVE NOT SEEN IT.I THOUGHT THAT, I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID.
ANYONE ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU.
UM, SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS LONG AS THIS IS DEFERRED.
UM, AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL.
ALL SECOND ALLMAN TO DEFER ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES NUMBER 96.
ITEM 96 IS VASQUEZ ESTATES ON ALASKA.
THIS WAS ON IN YOUR, UH, PACKET TO SHOW FOR DISAPPROVAL.
HOWEVER, WE ARE CHANGING OUR RECOMMENDATION TO DEFERRAL.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS AN OVER 8,700 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF BAKER DRIVE IN ALASKA STREET, WEST OF GALVESTON ROAD AND NORTH OF HOWARD DRIVE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS PLAT.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE SUBDIVISION BY ITSELF WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE RESTRICTIONS.
THE NEWLY INCURRED DEED RESTRICTED BUILDING LINES WOULD ALLOW THE SITE TO VIOLATE FILE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY.
WHILE THE MAIN STRUCTURE WAS BUILT IN 1946.
THE CARPORT AND SMALL FRAME STRUCTURE IN BLUE WERE ADDED IN 1985 WITH A SMALL, UH, SMALL FRAME STRUCTURE BELIEVED TO BE AN ADDITIONAL DRILLING UNIT.
THE REAR DRILLING UNIT IN GREEN WAS ADDED IN 2009.
THE APPLICANT WAS, UH, HAS STATED THE OWNERS HAVE NO DESIRE TO DEMOLISH AND DEVELOP THE PROPERTY ONLY TO SUBDIVIDE TO TWO SEPARATE OWNERS.
THE RAY PLAT WOULD PLACE A 30 FOOT DE RESTRICTED BUILDING LINE FOR LOT TWO TO THE NORTH ALONG ALASKA AND WOULD NOT ONLY ENCROACH THE EXISTING BUILDING LINE STRUCTURES, BUT WOULD EFFECTIVELY MAKE THE SITE UN BUILDABLE.
THE FOUR FOOT DERESTRICT INTERIOR LOT LINES WOULD BE ENCROACHED BY THE CARPORT AND THE SHED OR, UH, SORRY, JOINT UNIT WITH A CARPORT ALSO ENCROACHING THE PROPOSED 90 FOOT GARAGE, BUT LINE FOR LOT ONE.
THE PAT WAS PREVIOUSLY, SORRY, THE PLAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED IN DECEMBER OF 2023 AND HAD THE SAME MARKUP WITH THE STAFF NOTIFYING THE APPLICANT OF THE IMPENDING VIOLATIONS, BUT THE APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN DUE TO NOTIFICATION ISSUES.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED NO VIABLE REPL LAYOUTS THAT ALLOWS THE COMPLIANCE AND HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY NEW LEGAL DOCUMENTATION ADDRESSING THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER PER APPLICANT REQUEST.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED.
SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONERS DEFER, DEFER, EXCUSE ME.
UM, DO I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
I ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL.
ITEM 97 IS VIEWS AT BIG WOOD STREET.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS AN OVER 7,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS SOUTH ALONG BIG WOOD STREET SOUTH OF PARKER AND EAST OF WAYSIDE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REPL IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND THERE ARE NO RANGES OF REQUEST OF THIS ITEM REQUESTED.
WITH THIS ITEM, 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 STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS PLAT.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR FOR THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM.
AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NUMBER 97.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? NO ONE ONLINE.
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM NUMBER 98 IS VILLAS AT BIG WOOD STREET.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON.
CITY LIMITS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PREVIOUS ONE EAST OF WAYSIDE, NORTH OF TIDWELL.
THE APPLICANT IS PLATTING ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT INTO TWO LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
REVIEW BY LEGAL HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS PLAT AND STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM.
AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONERS.
YES, CAN, CAN THEY PUT UP THE WE DON'T HAVE THIS IN OUR, IN THE PACKET.
CAN THEY PUT UP THE MAP OR THE SITE PLAN SO WE CAN JUST, IT'S NOT ON THE, IN THEIR PACKETS
[00:30:01]
ONLINE.SO IS IT WHERE, HOW DOES IT DIFFER FROM 97? SO IT'S IMMEDIATELY NEXT DOOR.
IT'S THE RECORDED LOT NEXT DOOR, SO IT'S RIGHT.
THEY, THEY ARE IDENTICAL BUT IMMEDIATELY TOUCHING.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? OKAY, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES NUMBER 99.
ITEM NUMBER 99 IS WHITECLIFF TOWN HOMES.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS NORTH OF INTERSTATE 10 AND WEST OF BRIMORE.
ALONG WYCLIFFE, THE APPLICANT IS RE PLATTING ONE LOT INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
REVIEW BY LEGAL HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS PLAT AND STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS MADAM CHAIR FOR PLEASES THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO HAVE ANY SPEAKERS.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF NUMBER 99 WYCLIFFE TOWN HOMES MOTION.
[d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests (Aracely Rodriguez, Tammi Williamson, and Geoff Butler)]
VARIANCES NUMBER 100.GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON CITY LIMIT EAST OF MONTGOMERY ROAD AND NORTH OF VICTORY DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SHARED DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT WITH FOUR LOTS AND REQUESTING FOUR VARIANCES.
ONE IS TO NOT TO PROVIDE A 5.75 FEET RIGHT AWAY.
DEDICATION INSTEAD OF 10.75 ALONG MARJORY STREET THERE.
NUMBER TWO, TO ALLOW A REDUCED TWO FEET BUILDING LINE ALONG MARJORY STREET THERE.
NUMBER THREE, TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED BUILDING ON LOT FOUR TO EN CLOSE INTO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT AND NUMBER FOUR, TO ALLOW THE LOT SIZES TO BE LESS THAN 3,500 SQUARE FOOTAGE.
STATUS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST, THE PROPERTIES THAT WE PLOT ALLOWED 25 AND 26 IN BLOCK EIGHT OF HIGHLAND EDITION RECORDED IN 1910, WHICH ESTABLISHED MAJE STREET AS A 38.5 FEET RIGHT AWAY DUE TO COMMERCIAL USES ALONG THE BLOCK.
THE ORDINANCE REQUIRE MAJO STREET TO BE 60 FEET WIDE.
HOWEVER, PROVIDING A 60 FEET RIGHT AWAY ALONG MAJO STREET WILL BE IMPRACTICAL AS ITS ONLY SPAN FEW BLOCKS LONG.
THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5.75 FEET WIDE RIGHTWAY DEDICATION WITH THE INTENT TO CREATE A 50 RIGHT OF WAY ALONG MAJO STREET WHICH WILL STILL ADDRESS TRAFFIC CIRCULATION NEEDS.
AS A RESULT OF THIS RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, THE LOSS SIZES FALLS SHORT OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 1400 SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH THE APPLICANT IS ACTING FOR THE AREA FOR SMALLER LOT AND TO ALLOW A REDUCED TWO FEET BORDERLINE ALONG MAJO STREET WHILE MAINTAINING AN ADEQUATE PEDESTRIAN WITH MINIMUM FIVE FEET SIDEWALK AND WIDER LANDSCAPE BUFFERS.
THE APPLICANTS ALSO REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE ON LOCK FOUR TO ENCROACH ABOUT THREE FEET EIGHT INCHES INTO THE 15 BY 15 VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT.
THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY PUBLIC WORK WHO EXPRESSED NO CONCERN DUE TO THE ADEQUATE DISTANCE FROM THE TRAVEL LANE.
OVERALL THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT WITH A SHARED DRIVEWAY.
SO THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 POINT CONDITION AND NO COM NO PUBLIC COMMENTS HAS BEEN RECEIVED.
I DO HAVE, UM, THE APPLICANT SIGNED UP AND WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT.
AH, GOOD AFTERNOON AND CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR NEW JOB OVER HERE.
[00:35:01]
YOU KNOW, GIVE US SOME DESIGN OPTIONS AND BE ABLE TO WALK US THROUGH A NEW VARIANCES AND ADDING MORE VARIANCES.IT WAS A GOOD WAY TO, TO WORK WITH THE CITY AND ALSO WITH THE ARCHITECT TO SAY CONGRATULATIONS.
I DUNNO, HE'S WATCHING FROM FACEBOOK LIFE RIGHT NOW.
SO THANK YOU FOR WILLING TO BE ABLE TO CREATE THIS GREAT DESIGN FOR ACRES HOMES.
AND THANK YOU FOR MAKING THAT STATEMENT.
STAFF DOESN'T GET TOO MANY COMPLIMENTS, SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
THEY WORK HARD ALL THE TIME, SO THANK YOU.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
OKAY, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND MOTION STEIN.
MOTION STEIN ALLMAN SECOND ALLMAN.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES NUMBER 101.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY ETHER FARM MARKET 2100 AND SOUTH OF STROKER ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSED IN ONE RESERVE RESTRICTED TO MULTI-FAMILY USE AND REQUESTING A VARIANT TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED RESERVE TO HAVE FURNISH AND ACCESS VIA ASSET EASEMENT INSTEAD OF THE PUBLISHED STREET THAT IS IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST.
THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY USES AN EXISTING 17.7 FEET WIDE ASSET EASEMENT TO ACCESS SUNDOWN MEADOW STREET TO THE SOUTH.
THIS EXISTING ASSET EASEMENT IS CONSIDERED INADEQUATE, ESPECIALLY FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES ACCESS.
THEREFORE, FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN, THE APPLICANT IS NOW PLANNING TO WIDEN THE EASEMENT TO CREATE A 30 FEET WIDE PUR PERPETUAL AND NON-EXCLUSIVE ASSET EASEMENT TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL SIDE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
THIS ASSET EASEMENT WILL ALSO BE AN ALL WEATHER ROAD AS REQUIRED PER THE TCEQ.
HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEER DEPARTMENT HAS EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION TO THE RE.
THE VARI REQUESTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NOT, NO, WE HAVE NO SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
ITEM 1 0 2, ITEM 1 0 2 IS E AND E AVIATION.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY SOUTHWEST OF NER AIRLINE ROAD AND SOUTH OF FARM MARKET 21 29 20 AND EAST OF GRAND PARKWAY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING ADVANCE TO ALLOW A, A RESERVE TO HAVE BONUS AND ASSETS VIA ASSET EASEMENT INSTEAD OF THE PUBLIC STREET.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO THE DW MEMORIAL AIRPORT AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE RESERVE WAS RESTRICTED TO AIRPORT USES THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY FUND ON A 80 FEET WIDE TAXIWAY TO THE WEST AND A 40 FEET WIDE ASSET EASEMENT ON THE EAST.
THE 40 P WIDE ASSET EASEMENT IS CONNECTED TO UB AIRLINE ROAD VIA A NETWORK, A PRIVATE ROAD.
THIS CONFIGURATION HAS BEEN IN THE SAME, HAS BEEN THE SAME AT LEAST IN 1980 AND THE APPLICANT CANNOT CREATE ANY ADDITIONAL RIGHT AWAY TO MEET THE ORDINANCE.
ALSO, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS GRANTED SIMILAR VARIANCES IN THIS AREA.
HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEER DEPARTMENT IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBSTITUTE THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
SECOND POES PER ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
NUMBER 1 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 3 IS GOLER.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY EAST OF TOGE ROAD AND MORE OF GRANT ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSED IN ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOT THE LOT TO HAVE ASSETS AND FURNISH ON AN ASSET EASEMENT THAT IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE PROPERTY IS PART OF TTO DOWN AND UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION AND CURRENTLY HAS ASSETS TO A PRIVATE ASSET EASEMENT.
THIS ASSET EASEMENT WAS WE REALLY ESTABLISHED WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION TO FACILITATE ASSETS TO TGI ROAD AND HAS REMAINED IN PLACE AT LEAST IN 1991.
[00:40:01]
AN ASSISTANT CONDITION AND THE APPLICANT CANNOT ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL LAND TO MEET THE FUND AND ASSETS REQUIREMENT.HARRIS COUNTY HAS REVIEWED THIS PROPOSAL AND HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE VA REQUEST.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLANS SUBJECT TO THE CCP C 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, NO OTHER SPEAKERS.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY ETJ ALONG LACEY ROAD, SOUTH OF NORTH POINT BOULEVARD AND EAST OF HUFF SMITH CORALVILLE.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SUBDIVISION OF 22 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ALONG PUBLIC STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENTS BY NOT EXTENDING MEMORIAL SPRINGS PASS THROUGH THE SITE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS STAFF CONCERNS OVER TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION AND ACCESS, AS WELL AS TO SUPPLEMENT THE WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION.
WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT.
THIS ITEM, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES NUMBER 1 0 5.
MADAM CHAIR 1 0 5 WAS GRANTED A 30 DAY EXTENSION AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO DEFER.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO EXTEND MOTION TO THEY MOTION STEIN SECOND VERA BLAND.
ITEM 1 0 6, ITEM 1 0 6 IS PARK THREE A DEVELOPMENT THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HARRIS COUNTY ETJ ALONG ATAS CACI ROAD WEST OF WOODLAND HILLS.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESERVE FOR PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENTS BY NOT EXTENDING DORA KNOWLES DRIVE TO THE SITE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT REVISED MATERIALS AND ADDRESS STAFF CONCERNS OVER INSUFFICIENT ACCESS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH.
STAFF RECOMMENDS, EXCUSE ME, WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MOTION MAD PA SECOND EST PER ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.
ITEM 1 0 7, ITEM 1 0 7 IS SAN JACINTO RIVER AND RAIL POWER FACILITY.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ETJ WITHIN HARRIS COUNTY NORTH OF THE BEAUMONT HIGHWAY IN WEST OF THE SAN JAINA RIVER.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESERVE FOR AN EXISTING ELECTRIC SUBSTATION.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THIS RESERVE TO BE ACCESSIBLE BY AN EASEMENT RATHER THAN A REQUIRED PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SHAMAN POWER GP ALONG A PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD.
THE GENERAL PLAN ENCOMPASSING THE GREATER POWER PLANT FACILITY WAS GRANTED VARIANCES BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PROVIDE NO PUBLIC STREETS CITING EXTERNAL BARRIERS AND THE USE THE SITE RELIES ON A SYSTEM OF INTERNAL ACCESS EASEMENTS FOR ACCESS.
THE PROPOSED RESERVE IS SITUATED ON A CONCRETE ROAD THAT SERVES A SIMILAR FUNCTION AS A PUBLIC STREET WHILE ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO SECURE THE PROPERTY.
STAFF FINDS THIS TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE ACCESS REQUIREMENT AS IT WILL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PLA THEIR PROPERTY USING THE EXISTING E ACCESS ROAD.
HARRIS COUNTY HAS EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST AND STAFF RECOMMENDS GRAND THAT VARIANCE IN THE PROVING THE PLAT FOR THE CPC ONE ONE FORM CONDITIONS WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT.
THIS ITEM AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
NO ONE IN THE CHAT COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
WE HAVE NOTHING UNDER E SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO
[f. Reconsiderations of Requirement (John Cedillo, Tammi Williamson, and Geoff Butler)]
F RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENTS.MADAM CHAIRMAN, I'M GONNA RECUSE FROM THE NEXT TWO ITEMS. 1 0 8 AND 1 0 9 COMMISSIONER, HE WILL, UH, UH, RECUSE HIMSELF FROM ITEMS 1 0 8 AND 1 0 9.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
[00:45:01]
IS TAMMY WILLIAMSON.ITEM 1 0 8 OH, WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THESE TOGETHER.
ITEM 1 0 8 IS EEG GP AND ITEM 1 0 9 IS EEG SECTION 59.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY, WEST OF THE GRAND PARKWAY AND BISECTED BY MULTIPLE MAJOR THOROUGHFARES INCLUDING LONGEN BO FM 5 29 BECKENDORF PEAK PORTER AND KATY HAWKLEY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT, UM, WITH A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE 2,600 INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF FM 5 29 BETWEEN KATIE HAWKLEY AND A PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET FOR A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 4,355 FEET.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
ELIJAH GP IS A 3,560 ACRE MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY AT THE NORTHWESTERN GP AREA.
THE APPLICANT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSING A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SURROUNDED BY DRAINAGE RESERVES WITH TWO STREET CONNECTIONS TO FM 5 29 AND RECEIVED VARIANCE APPROVAL IN 2014 TO NOT PROVIDE ANY PUBLIC STREETS TO KATIE HAWLEY.
THEN IN 2022, A VARIANCE WAS GRANTED FOR THE ONE STREET CONNECTION 4,040 FEET FROM KATY HAWLEY ROAD AND PROPOSED ONE CONNECTION TO KATY HAWLEY ROAD TO THE WEST.
NOW AS THE APPLICANT HAS MOVED FURTHER INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THE LAND PLAN, THEY'RE REQUESTING TO READDRESS THE VARIANCE ALONG FM 5 29 TO SHIFT THE ONE PROPOSED STU STREET ELY VIEW DRIVE 315 FEET FURTHER EAST FOR AN INTERSECTION SPACING OF 4,355 FEET.
THIS PROPOSED LOCATION WOULD MODIFY THE PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET FURTHER AWAY FROM THE MATTY CREEK FLOODWAY.
THIS CURRENT PROPOSAL WILL PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE STREET NETWORK WITH SUFFICIENT STREET CONNECTIONS MEETING THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE, SO GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.
THE PPLICANT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, UM, FOR QUITE SOME TIME TO DESIGN AN ACCEPTABLE STORMWATER OVERFLOW PLAN INTO BEAR CREEK AND SOUTH MATEY CREEK.
HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS VOICED NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST.
THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE GP AND THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM.
THE STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT AND THIS CONCLUDES PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
NO ONE IN THE CHAT COMMISSIONERS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM 1 0 9 8 AND 1 0 9.
ITEM ONE 10 IS GATED CROSS OR GRATED GATED RENTALS.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A 26 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY, EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WEST ALONG FM 2100.
ALSO, UH, HUFFMAN CLEVELAND ROAD AND NORTH OF CLINIC.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE INTENDED TO BE AN RV RENTAL PARK AND IS REQUESTING A RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENTS WITH A VARIANCE TO NOT PROVIDE ANY NORTH SOUTH STREETS THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
THE PLAT WAS GRANTED A VARIANCE IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR TO PROVIDE ONE OF THE TWO REQUIRED NORTH SOUTH STREETS REQUIRED THROUGH THE PROPERTY SHOWN IN YELLOW.
HOWEVER, AFTER FURTHER CONSIDERATION WITH HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING, THERE ARE ROSE DRAINAGE AND TRAFFIC SAFETY CONCERNS WITH THE POTENTIAL CONNECTION.
THE OVER 300 FOOT WIDE TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR TO THE SOUTH AND THE 100 FOOT WIDE RAILROAD TO THE NORTHWEST GREATLY HINDERED TRAFFIC CONNECTION OPTIONS FOR THE SITE.
ANY CONNECTION NORTH WILL STILL BE PUSHED BACK TO FM 2100.
THE SITE WILL TAKE INGRESS AND EGRESS OFF OF ULRICH LANE TO THE SOUTH AND HAVE A GATED EMERGENCY ACCESS DIRECTLY TO FM 2100 WITHIN THE EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE EAST, SHOWN WITH THE ARROW, A CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS SAID ACCESS TO FM 2100 BE PROPERLY PAID TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY ACCESS.
HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMIT NORTH ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST 20TH STREET AND EAST OF NORTH SHEPHERD DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT WITH THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW REDUCED BUILDING LINE OF FIVE FEET ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARE WEST 20TH STREET IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 25 FEET BUILDING LINE.
[00:50:01]
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST BUT IS REQUESTING A SECOND DEFERRAL TO RESEARCH A FEW ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY RESIDENTS ALONG THE PUBLIC ALLEY AS THIS IS THE SECOND DEFERRAL STAFF WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A BRIEF PRESENTATION.THIS PROPERTY IS PART OF AN OVERALL MASTER PLAN OF FIVE EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS UP TO WEST 22ND STREET PROPOSING TO UTILIZE A SHARED PARKING ARRANGEMENT.
THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT IS THE REMODEL OF AN EXISTING 1930 STRUCTURE, WHICH CURRENTLY ENCROACHES INTO THE NOW 25 FOOT ORDINANCE REQUIRED BUILDING LINE ALONG WEST 20TH STREET BECAUSE OF ITS DESIGNATION AS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND THE ADDITION TO THE STRUCTURE TOWARDS THE ALLEY, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE AN ORDINANCE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK AND A NEW OUTDOOR DINING PATIO TO BE CONSTRUCTED UP TO THE FIVE FOOT BUILDING LINE.
THE EXISTING BUILDING FACADE IS 11.8 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WITH THE FIVE FOOT BUILDING LINE.
THE BACK OF CURB DISTANCE TO THE EDGE OF THE ELEVATED PATIO IS 18 AND A HALF FEET.
WITH THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND BOTH THE ELEVATED PATIO STRUCTURE AND THE TRAVEL LINES FOR SAFE AND COMFORTABLE WALKING MEMORIAL HEIGHTS.
TOUR NUMBER FIVE IS WORKING TO COMPLETE PHASE ONE, THE REDEVELOPMENT OF SHEPHERD IN DURHAM, WHICH INCLUDES THE INTERSECTION OF WEST 20TH STREET.
THIS SITE IS ONE TRACKED FURTHER EAST.
THERE IS ANOTHER RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT ALONG WEST 20TH STREET IN THE WORKS.
THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED THAT THE PROGRAM ENGINEER REVIEWED THE PLAT AND THEY DO NOT HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE REDUCED BUILDING LINE.
AND THE PROPOSED PATIO WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH ANY SIDEWALKS THEY WOULD PROPOSE ALONG WEST 20TH STREET.
THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO PROVIDING AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH SOLID FENCE AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THEIR EASTERN PARKING LOT.
THE ADJACENT RESIDENCE RESIDENTS ALONG THE SEGMENT OF THE ALLEY HAVE RAISED CONCERNS PRIMARILY ABOUT THE ALLEY AND ITS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY STAFF IS REQUESTING THE SECOND OF ROLE TO ALLOW PUBLIC WORKS TO COMPLETE A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FIELD INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER, SPEAKER IS MICHAEL HERRERA.
AND UH, MR. HERRERA, I BELIEVE YOU SPOKE LAST TIME, SO YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE TO SPEAK.
ARE YOU WITH US MR. HERRERA? I'M NOT MR. HERRA, BUT I HERA.
YOU'RE NOT MR. HERRA, DID YOU SIGN UP TO SPEAK? I'VE GOT YOU IN ORDER.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RYAN BUSKEN.
VIRTUALLY MR. BUSKEN, ARE YOU WITH US? OKAY.
COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME FOR THE RECORD? THANK YOU.
ONE OF THE RESIDENTS AFFECTED BY THE, UH, THE THIRD RESTAURANT IN THE GROUP AT THE END OF THE ALLEYWAY.
CURRENTLY THE, THE TRAFFIC, THE TWO OF THEM GOES BOTH WAYS DOWN.
A 10 FOOT ALLEYWAY, THERE'S A GRAVEL PARKING LOT WHERE THEY'RE GONNA CONSTRUCT.
THERE'S RUBBISH AND TRASH FROM THE RESTAURANT THERE BLOWS DOWN THE ALLEYWAY.
PUT THE THIRD RESTAURANT IN AND THE TRAFFIC, THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED, I DON'T KNOW WHICH SLIDE YOU GOT UP.
THERE'S A PARKING LOT EITHER SIDE OF THE RESTAURANT.
THEY DRIVE IN ONE, THEN THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO TURN THROUGH THE ALLEYWAY TO COME BACK OUT DOWN HERE.
THE PARKING LOT'S ALSO GONNA BE USED FOR THE OTHER TWO RESTAURANTS, WHICH ENTER ON THE ALLEYWAY OFF SHEPHERD AND COME IN BETWEEN THE TWO RESTAURANTS AND OFF MY STREET, THE 21ST STREET.
AND THEN THEY COME UP THE ALLEYWAY THE OTHER DIRECTION.
SO WE'VE GOT FIVE FLOWS OF TRAFFIC COMING IN TO THAT ONE RESTAURANT.
KIDS WANNA PLAY IN THE ALLEYWAY AT THE BACK.
THERE'S NO DUTY OF CARE HERE AT ALL.
UH, SO THE FIX IS TO PUT A FENCE, NOT A, UH, ALSO ALONG THE ADJACENT RESIDENCE, BUT ALONG THE BACK OF THE ALLEYWAY.
UH, SO WE ARE JUST SEGREGATED FROM IT.
HEAR THE NOISE, SEE THE LIGHTS.
UH, JUST LET US HAVE A QUIET LITTLE ALLEYWAY DOWN THE BACK THERE.
I DON'T BELIEVE, I DON'T BELIEVE THE OWNERS THINK TOO MUCH EITHER.
UH, COMMISSIONER GARZA, YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. WALKER? MR. WALKER, WOULD YOU, UM, WHERE, WHERE WOULD YOU WANT THAT FENCE? FACING THE ALLEY ALONG ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT.
CAN YOU SEE HOW IT'S MARKED IN PINK? THAT'S THE, THE PROPERTY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO ON THE NORTH SIDE, BUT THERE WOULD BE A DRIVE EXIT TO THE YES.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE PARKING LOT ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE BUILDING, UH, IF YOU COME TO THE TOP THERE, IT'S, IT'S THE A HUNDRED FOOT YES THERE.
AND THE RESIDENCE OPPOSITE IS THE STREET I LIVE IN.
[00:55:01]
THE ALLEYWAY GOES DOWN TO LAWRENCE.SO WE WOULD WANT THE FENCE WHERE THE A HUNDRED FOOT DIGIT IS JUST ALONG THERE FOR WHATEVER THAT IS, 3 25 FOOT.
AND IT WOULD JOIN ALONG WITH THE HOUSE AT 6 2 7, WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE A FENCE AND THEY'RE GONNA BUILD A FENCE.
AND IT WOULD JUST BE QUITE CLEAR THAT THIS IS RESIDENTIAL.
THE TRAFFIC JUST ZOOMS DOWN THERE.
UH, WE JUST WANT TO PLANT SOME TREES AND SLOW IT ALL DOWN.
THANK YOU MS. SORRY, I'M SORRY.
UH, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN HAD A QUESTION FIRST.
YOU DONE? OKAY, COMMISSIONER ROBBINS, I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THE FENCE WOULD BLOCK INGRESS AND EGRESS OUT OF THE PARKING LOT? THE RESTAURANT PARKING LOT? YEAH, THEY CAN.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD STOP FIVE TRAFFIC WAVES ALL COMING TOGETHER OUTSIDE THE BACK OF MY HOUSE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN? WELL, THESE ALLEYS ARE QUITE CONTENTIOUS, BUT I'M WELL AWARE OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THAT SAY THESE ARE PUBLIC ALLEYS FOR PRIVATE USE.
THAT ANY ABETTING PROPERTY OWNER OR ANY MEMBER OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON HAS THE RIGHT TO USE.
SO YOU CAN'T DENY THEM THE ABILITY TO USE THE ALLEY THAT THERE ARE SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS IN THE HEIGHTS ON THE USE OF THESE ALLEYS.
SO I I YOU YOU CAN'T, WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO BLOCK THEM.
THAT WOULD, I MEAN I'M NOT A LAWYER BUT I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THESE LEGAL CASES THAT SAY PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE ALLEY.
I'M NOT SAYING WE DON'T, THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE ALLEY BUT NOT THIS, IT'S JUST THE TRAFFIC FLOW.
JUST MANAGE IT AND OFFENSE WOULD MANAGE IT.
YEAH, BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA COME DOWN ONE SIDE OF THE RESTAURANT AND HAVE TO TURN INTO THE ALLEY WHILE TRAFFIC'S COMING DOWN.
THE OTHER TWO WAYS OF THE ALLEYWAY TO ACCESS THE SAME PARKING LOT AND IT'S ONLY 10 FOOT WIDE.
WE'RE JUST SIT THERE BREATHING THE FUMES ALL EVENING.
SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THEY MAKE THE ALLEY ONE WAY? THAT WOULD BE A START TO START CONTROLLING THE TRAFFIC? THERE'S GONNA BE AN ACCIDENT THERE.
SOMEONE'S GONNA GET HURT VERY SHORTLY.
COMMISSIONER
WELL THE GENERAL RULE IS, IS THAT IF YOUR PROPERTY ABUTS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO USE THAT.
HOWEVER, THE CITY ALSO HAS THE RIGHT TO MANAGE ACCESS AND INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THOSE RIGHTS OF WAY AND THE USE SO LONG AS IT'S REASONABLE AND WE'RE NOT PRO PROHIBITING ALL OF THE ACCESS.
I MEAN OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVE ACCESS TO OTHER PUBLIC STREETS.
I WOULD SAY THAT DURING THE DEFERRAL PERIOD WE'LL LOOK INTO THAT MORE AND WORK WITH STAFF, UH, BOTH IN PLANNING AND IN PUBLIC WORKS TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO BACK THERE IN THE ALLEY TO PRO TO SUGGEST SOME TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT THINGS THAT WON'T INFRINGE ON PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.
I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS.
IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR FOR DEFERRAL? AYE.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY AND WALLER COUNTY BOUNDED BY FM 5 29 TO THE SOUTH, FUTURE WEST ROAD TO THE NORTH AND FUTURE SLIP ROAD TO THE WEST.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 611 ACRE GENERAL PLAN PLAN FOR A PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED MAXIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG ITS EASTERN BOUNDARY BY PROVIDING ONLY ONE SUBST STREET.
THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO DEFER THE APPLICATION FOR A SECOND TIME AS THEY CONTINUE TO DISCUSS WITH THEIR CLIENTS.
HOWEVER, AS THIS WILL BE THE LAST DEFERRAL AVAILABLE, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A BRIEF PRESENTATION PLEASE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE SUBST STREET CONDUCTION CONNECTION SOUTH OF LONGEN BULK ROAD AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN INTERSECTION SPACING OF 4,093 FEET BETWEEN THIS PROPOSED SUBST STREET AND FM 5 29 FUTURE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE BARTLETT ROAD, WHICH IS LOCATED ENTIRELY WEST OF THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY TRACKED SINGLE OWNER TRACKED TO THE EAST IS LESS THAN 1000 FEET FROM THE SUBJECT'S SITE'S.
BOUNDARY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING ONE ADDITIONAL STUB STREET SOMEWHERE ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY WITHIN THE PROPOSED 4,000 INTERSECTION SPACING TO ALLOW FOR MORE CONNECTIVITY OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS OF THE LAND BETWEEN THIS GP AND FUTURE BARTLETT ROAD.
THE AREA ALONG THIS EASTERN BOUNDARY IS CURRENTLY SHOWN AS THE GPS PROPOSED DETENTION AREAS.
THE UM, THEREFORE THE APPLICANTS IS REQUESTING THE SECOND DEFERRAL AS THEY CONTINUE TO CONSIDER STAFF'S REQUEST WITH OUR CLIENT.
THANK YOU MS. WILLIAMSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY
[01:00:01]
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL.WE HAVE NO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS UNDER ITEM E.
[Platting Activities g - i]
APPROVAL ITEM G NUMBER ONE 13.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS G, H AND I AS ONE GROUP.
SECTIONS G EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEMS ONE 13 THROUGH 1 29 SECTIONS H UM, NAME CHANGES CONSISTS OF ITEMS ONE 30 AND SECTION I CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 31.
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTIONS GH AND I.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION? KALI ALLMAN ALLMAN.
WE HAVE NOTHING UNDER J ADMINISTRATIVE SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO K
[k. Development Plats with Variance Requests (Ed Buckley, Geoff Butler, and Ramon Jaime-Leon)]
DEVELOPMENT PLAT WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, ITEM 1 32 IS 1818 HOLLY STREET.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ON HOLLY STREET TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE I 10 I 45 INTERCHANGE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG THE I 10 I 45 INTERCHANGE IN LIEU OF THE CITY ORDINANCE.
25 FOOT BUILDING LINE STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE HAS NO PLAID BUILDING LINES, AND THE EXISTING HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FREEWAY.
THE THERE IS ROUGHLY 60 FEET OF SPACE BETWEEN THE FREEWAY TRAVEL LANE AND THE PROPERTY LINE.
THERE IS ALSO AN EXISTING CONCRETE BARRIER AND A FENCE SEPARATING THE TRAVEL LANES FROM THE PROPOSED CARPORT LOCATION.
UH, BY ORDINANCE, A CARPORT OR UNINHABITED GARAGE CAN BE BUILT TO A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE AT THE REAR OF PROPERTY ON A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT THAT BACKS ONTO A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING CHANGES TO THE DRIVEWAY, FENCE OR SIDEWALK, SO THE ADDITION OF THE CARPORT AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
STAFF DID NOT SEE RECEIVE COMMENTS ON THIS REQUEST.
THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT, UH, THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR A NEW CARPORT.
IT'S THE APPLICANT, RAMIRO GARZA.
HI, MADAM CHAIR COMMISSIONERS.
I ACTUALLY JUST SIGNED UP A CASE THERE WERE ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, I STARTED THIS PROCESS ABOUT A YEAR AGO, SO I WANTED TO THANK THE STAFF AND, AND THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR TIME PENDING ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES A AYE UHUH ITEM NUMBER 1 33.
ITEM 1 33, EXCUSE ME, IS UH, 35 0 5 NORTH MAIN STREET.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT, UH, BETWEEN NORTH MAIN AND INTERSTATE 45.
WITHIN THE NEAR NORTH SIDE COMPLETE COMMUNITY.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REDUCED BUILDING LINE VARIANCE ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF THE PROPERTY WHERE ITBUT T UH, EXCUSE ME, A T OFF RAMP.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL PER TDOT'S REQUEST AS WELL AS TIME TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT REVISED MATERIALS.
WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT IN THIS ITEM, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF REPRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 1 34, 2 22 10 SABINE STREET.
THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION TO MEET WITH APPLICANT TO DISCUSS OPTIONS AND COME, UH, TO AN AGREEMENT.
THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 10, WEST OF HOUSTON AVENUE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEBER STREET AND SINE STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DEVELOPMENT PLAT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A REDUCED FIVE FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR A PROPOSED COVERED, UH, AREA.
ADDITION IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 10 FEET BUILDING LINE ALONG SABINE STREET.
A LOCAL STREET STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
[01:05:01]
THE APPLICANT, SORRY.THE APPLICANT CONSTRUCTED A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT WITH A DETACHED COVER AREA ALONG SABINE STREET AT AROUND FIVE FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE TO THE COVERED AREA.
THE SITE WAS RED TAG, UH, COMPLETING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT IN SEPTEMBER OR SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2023.
THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO FOSTER A DESIGN FRAMEWORK, FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE FOR THE CITY AND TO ENHANCE SAFETY.
ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO, UH, REMOVE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT ENCROACHES INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT, UH, ARTICULATED ANY HARDSHIP AND IT IS NOT PROVIDING ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PEDESTRIAN REALM.
THUS, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY.
UM, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO REMOVE THE UNPERMITTED DRIVEWAY THAT ENCROACHES INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
IT'S THE APPLICANT ENRIQUE LOPEZ.
TWO WEEKS AGO, THE COMMISSION ACKNOWLEDGED THE MERIT IN MY APPLICATION AND ASKED FOR MY CASE TO BE DEFERRED SO THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND I COULD MEET AND WE COULD COME UP WITH A SOLUTION SO THAT THE STRUCTURE COULD REMAIN ON A CONFERENCE CALL WITH THE DEPARTMENT.
I ASKED TO HEAR THEIR CONCERNS SO WE COULD RESOLVE THE MATTER.
MS. DIPTY HERE STATED SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING TO ME AND SHE DOES NOT CARE WHAT THE COMMISSION SAID.
SHE WENT ON TO STATE THAT SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE TO FINDING SOLUTIONS AND THAT IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS FOR HER TO CONSIDER, BUT REFUSED TO DISCUSS SOLUTIONS ON THE CALL WITH ME.
SURPRISINGLY, SHE AGREED HER ORIGINAL REQUEST FOR ME TO BUILD 100 FEET OF SIDEWALK WAS FAR IN EXCESS AND OUT OF PROPORTION TO THIS MINOR VARIANCE REQUEST.
HOWEVER, SHE REFUSED TO GIVE ANOTHER MORE REASONABLE CONDITION AND DECIDED TO SIMPLY REJECT MY APPLICATION.
I WAS TOLD THE REASON FOR THE RESISTANCE IS BECAUSE I RECEIVED THE RED TAG.
THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A RED TAG MEANS.
IT ONLY MEANS I NEED TO STOP CONSTRUCTION AND GET A BUILDING PERMIT.
IT DOES NOT MEAN I SHOULD BE GIVEN EXCESSIVE BASIS AND UNNECESSARY RESISTANCE.
WE SHOULD BE EVALUATING THIS APPLICATION PURELY ON ITS PRACTICAL MERIT.
I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE COMMISSION WE ARE DISCUSSING A SIDE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK OF A CORNER LOT.
THE EXISTING HOUSE, WHICH WAS BUILT IN 1910 IS FIVE FEET FROM THIS RIGHT OF WAY.
THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT CREATE AN ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENT, IT WILL MATCH THE EXISTING BUILDING LINE.
I SHOULD EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS A 62 AND A HALF FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS UNUSUALLY WIDE FOR A LOCAL STREET.
THIS STREET ABRUPTLY TERMINATES JUST TWO BLOCKS OVER WHERE THE EDGE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BORDERS I 10.
THERE WON'T BE ANY MAJOR PARADES OR ACTIVITIES COMING DOWN THIS STREET.
IT IS MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION AS A LICENSED ENGINEER.
THIS VARIANCE SATISFIES THE ORIGINAL INTENTION OF THE CODE.
THIS VARIANCE DOES NOT CREATE A HAZARD.
IT DOES NOT IMPEDE THE RIGHT OF WAY AND IT DOES NOT DIMINISH THE AESTHETICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION.
I HOPE YOU CAN SEE THAT I HAVE BEEN MET WITH EXCESSIVE RESISTANCE FOR SOMETHING SO MINOR.
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS NO TECHNICAL BASIS OR, OR THEIR CONCERNS ARE NOT GROUNDED IN SAFETY.
I BELIEVE I'M ENCOUNTERING A CULTURAL STRICT CODE INTERPRETATION.
WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE PURPOSE OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST PROCESS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THIS COMMISSION TO APPROVE MY PROJECT.
WE HAVE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION.
I WAS, UH, ABSENT AT THE LAST MEETING, SO I APOLOGIZE IF YOU DISCUSSED THIS LAST WEEK, BUT AS A LICENSED ENGINEER, WHY DID YOU NOT GET PERMITS TO BUILD THIS? IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
AS AN ENGINEER, I FOCUS MAINLY ON THE DESIGN OF PROJECTS AND I DON'T GET INVOLVED WITH THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
SO, SO YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT YOU REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT? UH, I I I WAS AWARE OF IT.
UH, I JUST WASN'T FAMILIAR WITH THE EXACT PROCESS.
BUT YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE IT BASICALLY.
I MEAN, IS THERE ANY MITIGATING REASON? I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN IF THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING OR SOMETHING.
IT WAS JUST A, A RUSH TO GET A PROTECTED AREA FOR MY SON TO PLAY IN, SO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER GARZA, MR. LOPEZ? YES.
SO, UM, YOU, I, I UNDERSTAND FROM STAFF THAT YOU'VE AGREED TO GET RID OF THE DRIVEWAY YES.
UH, WELL, THEY'RE MAKING AN ARGUMENT THAT I NEED TO ENHANCE THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE I'M DIMINISHING IT IN ANY WAY.
SO, I MEAN, IF THEY WANT ME TO REMOVE THAT PREVIOUS DRIVEWAY, I CAN DO THAT FOR THEM.
SO, YOU KNOW, OUR OUR GOAL IS REALLY IS NOT PUNISHMENT OR TO BE A, A HASSLE FOR YOU.
IT'S SIMPLY TO BRING YOU INTO COMPLIANCE.
SO, UM, I THINK THAT STAFF HAS MADE A RECOMMENDATION AND I WAS TALKING TO THEM IN, IN OUR PREVIEW MEETING ABOUT THIS, AND SO YOU, SINCE YOU'VE AGREED TO GET RID OF THE DRIVEWAY, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
I ALSO THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO, AS, UH, DIPTY HAD SAID FOR YOU NOT TO DO A SIDEWALK ON THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT, THE DRIVEWAY BORDER, I GUESS THAT'S A, UH, EASTERN BOARD
[01:10:01]
AND I CAN'T TELL FROM THE, THE DRAWINGS.SO NO SIDEWALK ON THE LONG SIDE OF YOUR PROPERTY.
I THINK A SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF YOUR PROPERTY IS CALLED FOR, THERE'S ALREADY A SIDEWALK.
AND THAT WOULD HELP PEOPLE GET TO THE INTERSECTION.
IT'S A SMALLER PORTION AND IT WOULD NOT GO TO THE, THE EXPENSE OF PORTING A DRIVEWAY ALL AROUND TWO SIDES OF YOUR PROPERTY.
IS THAT A AMENABLE TO YOU TO DO A SIDEWALK IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY? SURE.
I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW, HOW IT'S PROPORTIONAL TO WHAT I'M REQUESTING.
WELL, HERE'S WHAT'S HAPPENING.
YOU'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, SO YOU'RE ASKING TO KIND OF PAINT OUTSIDE THE LINES, RIGHT? FAIR.
WHICH MEANS WE GET TO ASK YOU TO CONTRIBUTE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN WE MIGHT ORDINARILY IF YOU HAD STAYED INSIDE THE LINES.
SO I THINK WHAT THIS COMMISSION WILL APPROVE IS A SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY FACING, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
YOU TAKE OUT THE DRIVEWAY, YOU POUR A SIDEWALK ON WEBER.
AND WE'RE DONE HERE AND YOU GET APPROVED.
I'LL HAVE TO EVALUATE THE COST OF IT.
CAN WE DEFER TWO WEEKS? I MEAN, I, I DON'T THINK WE'LL COME WITH A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.
I GUESS I'LL HAVE TO AGREE TO THAT.
SO LET ME ASK, ALRIGHT, SO QUESTIONS, UM, OF MR. LOPEZ, AND WE CAN ASK STAFF IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
SO THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.
TEAR OUT THE SI UH, TEAR OUT THE DRIVEWAY.
SO I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT'S A MOTION.
UH, WELL, I, I, I THOUGHT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND I WANNA TALK TO STAFF AND MAKE SURE THAT STAFF IS COOL WITH THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, STAFF, CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? NOPE.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN QUESTION.
I MEAN, WHEN WE BUILD GARAGE APARTMENTS IN THESE STRUCTURES AND HEIGHTS WE'RE REQUIRED TO PUT IN THE SIDEWALK, IS THE SIDEWALK NOT A CONDITION OF HIS PERMIT TO BEGIN WITH? THAT IS WHY STAFF NEEDS TO RESPOND TO THIS QUESTION.
IF CONSTRUCTION WOULD'VE GONE THROUGH PERMITTING, UM, PER, UH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WE CONSIDER THIS A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A SIDEWALK.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER GARZA'S, UH, MOTION? OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE VOTE? MAR COMMISSIONER MAREZ? NOT A QUESTION.
I MEAN, UM, QUITE FRANKLY, IT FEELS LIKE WE ARE REALLY CATERING TO THIS APPLICANT, UM, WHEN THEY HAVE MOVED VERY LITTLE, UM, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS WAS A PROBLEM OF THEIR OWN CREATION.
AND, UH, YOU ARE TALKING TO A REGISTERED PE FOR THE RECORD.
UH, I KNOW ALL THE PERMITS THAT I NEED TO DO WHEN I DO MY WORK.
UM, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD EXCUSE AT ALL IN ANY WAY.
UM, SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING YOUR MOTION, WHICH I RESPECT WITH ALL DUE, UH, RE YOU KNOW, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, BUT I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THAT MOTION.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MORRIS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE FROM COMMISSIONER GARZA TO REMOVE THE DRIVEWAY AND AT A SIDEWALK ON WEBER STREET.
AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY ROSENBERG.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE DO HANDS UP FOR THE OPPOSED? YES.
COMMISSIONER VICTOR AND COMMISSIONER MAREZ.
SO, UH, ALRIGHT, WE NEED TO, YEAH, WE NEED NOW HAVE TO PUT OUR HANDS HANDS UP.
I THINK IT'S 6 7, 6 2 ACTUALLY, YES, THAT ARE IN FAVOR.
SO DO WE WIN? IS IT SEVEN, SIX? I DON'T RE I DON'T KNOW WHAT COUNT.
I WAS GONNA SAY YES, COMMISSIONER.
AND TO HERE WERE YESES AND TO HERE.
SO WHAT'S THE COUNT ACTUALLY? EIGHT, SEVEN.
NO, LET'S, WE, WE SHOULD DO IT AGAIN.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.
YES, PLEASE REQUEST A ROLL CALL.
ALRIGHT, I'M GONNA KEEP TABS OF YESES IN.
[01:15:01]
NO.SHE'S NOT SAYING THEIR NAMES AND WHAT THEIR VOTES ARE AND I CAN'T SEE THEIR HANDS RAISING, SO I HOPE YOU GUYS GOT IT.
WHO WAS THE LAST TAHIR, UH, COMMISSIONER HERE.
SO THE CHAIR, YOU'RE THE TIE BREAKER.
I HAVE, OR I HAVE NINE TO EIGHT.
MS. MS. MICKELSON, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, I HAVE NINE.
WE TO DO, I HAVE NOT VOTED YET.
AND THE CHAIR CASTS THE TIE BREAKING VOTE IN THE EVENT OF A TIE.
MOVING ON TO, UM, I'VE LOST MY PLACE 'CAUSE Y'ALL MADE ME DO A TIEBREAKER VOTE.
MY SECOND MEETING, YOU THREW ME FOR A LOOP.
OKAY, SO NOW WE NEED TO GO ON TO, UM, YES.
[II. Establish a public hearing date of May 30, 2024]
NUMERAL TWO.ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF MAY 30TH, 2024.
I WAS WAITING TO SEE IF JEFF WAS GONNA SAY SOMETHING.
[III. Consideration of an Off-Street Parking Variance at 201 Eastwood Street (Geoff Butler)]
NUMERAL THREE CONSIDERATION OF THE OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE.ROMAN NUMER THREE IS 2 0 1 EASTWOOD STREET.
THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT, UH, NORTH OF HARRISBURG, SOUTH OF CANAL, AND WEST OF LOCKWOOD.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY OF 11 UNITS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO OFF STREET PARKING SPACES RATHER THAN REQUIRED.
14 STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION AT EASTWOOD AND SHERMAN STREETS IN THE SECOND WARD COMPLETE COMMUNITY.
THE SITE CONSISTS OF A MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE WITH A REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
THE SITE HAS LONG BEEN USED AS A FIVE UNIT MULTI-FAMILY COMMUNITY WITH THREE ON STREET, EXCUSE ME, OFF STREET SPACES ALONG SHERMAN AND HEAD IN PARKING.
ALONG THE EASTWOOD RIGHT OF WAY, THE HEADEND SPACES ALONG EASTWOOD CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENT BECAUSE HEADEND PARKING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY IS NOT ALLOWED.
THE APPLICANT HAS EXPANDED THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 11, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE 14 OFF STREET SPACES.
THEY HAVE RECENTLY REVISED THEIR APPLICATION TO INCORPORATE TWO OFF STREET PARKING SPACES AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING ONE RESERVE FOR THE DISABLED.
THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO CONDITIONS TO REMOVE AN ENCROACHING FRONT CANOPY AND TO CLOSE THE HEAD END PARKING ALONG EASTWOOD.
THE SITE IS ALSO WITHIN A COMMUNITY THAT HAS NUMEROUS MODES OF TRANSPORTATION OTHER THAN PRIVATE AUTOMOBILES.
THIS INCLUDES CLOSE PROXIMITY TO RAPID TRANSIT BUS ROUTES, MULTI-USE PATHS, AND A ROBUST STREET GRID THAT ENCOURAGES PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE APPLICATION MEETS THE INTENT OF THE OFF STREET PARKING ORDINANCE AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT IN THIS ITEM, AND THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I DO.
COMMISSIONER GARZA, JUST TO BE BOTHERSOME.
SO, UM, PREVIOUSLY WE HAD DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN AWNING ON THE WEST SIDE, UH, FACING EASTWOOD.
AND I THOUGHT WE HAD HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT COMING DOWN AND BECAUSE THERE ARE PARKING CARS THERE, RIGHT? SO WHAT ARE THE MEASURES THAT ARE GONNA BE TAKEN THAT WE'RE ASKING, UM, TO BE TAKEN TO PREVENT CARS FROM BEING PARKED ACROSS THE RIGHT OF WAY? SO THE CONDITIONS ARE TO REMOVE THAT 'CAUSE IT'S ENCROACHING INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY AND TO CLOSE THE HEAD END PARKING AREA WITH A CURB, A PEDESTRIAN ARM, AND A SEVEN FOOT SIDEWALK.
HOW DID YOU GET COMFORTABLE WITH IT? I MEAN, WHAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THIS FOR A WHILE.
[01:20:01]
I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT GOT YOU COMFORTABLE WHERE YOU'RE NOW RECOMMENDING APPROVAL? WELL, THERE'S, WE'RE GETTING A SPACE RESERVED FOR THE DISABLED, SO I THINK THAT'S A BIG WIN.AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REMOVE, ALTERING AN ALTERATION THAT THEY MADE TO THE ACCESSORY BUILDING IN ORDER TO FIT TWO PARKING SPACES BACK THERE.
SO THEY'RE PUTTING AS MANY AS THEY CAN.
PRESUMABLY THE UNITS THAT THEY BUILT IN THERE WILL BE PERMISSIBLE BY THE TIME IT GETS THROUGH PERMITTING.
UM, AND THEN OF COURSE THERE'S THE ASSETS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND PLACES TO WALK.
AND SO WOULD, WOULD IT BE REASONABLE FOR DEVELOPERS AROUND HERE TO ASSUME THAT THEY WILL GET A COMPARABLE TREATMENT THAT WE'RE SORT OF DOING AWAY WITH PARKING REGULATION IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD? WELL, IN CERTAIN PLACES NEARBY THEY GET THIS BY RIGHT.
AND OTHER PARTS THEY GET 50% OFF.
BUT WE'RE CERTAINLY, THERE'S NUMEROUS OTHER MULTIFAMILY DEVELOP SMALLER MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS AROUND WITH A SUBSTANDARD PARKING.
UM, JUST SO YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THAT BUILDING, WHETHER IT'S FOUR UNITS OR 11 UNITS, HAS NEVER HAD PARKING.
SO THERE ARE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS HERE.
THIS IS KIND OF GRANDFATHERED A LITTLE BIT.
IF YOU REMEMBER WE DID LIKE MOON TOWER, WHICH HAD NO PARKING AND NEEDED LIKE 14 TO 20 PARKING.
SO THE POINT THAT I'M MAKING IS A LOT OF THESE WERE BUILT BEFORE THE ORDINANCE WAS IN PLACE AND THEY'VE NEVER OFFERED PARKING TO THEIR TENANTS.
SO AGAIN, AS I SAID IN ONE OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS, IF THERE'S NO PARKING, SOMEONE'S GONNA SAY, GREAT, I HAVE A BIKE OR A MOPED.
AND SOMEONE ELSE IS GONNA SAY, CAN'T LIVE HERE, BUT IT WILL BE UP TO THIS GUY TO RENT THEM AT A, AT A REASONABLE RATE WITH NO PARKING.
AND SO, JUST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE MOON TOWER IS A GREAT EXAMPLE BECAUSE THAT'S A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT.
PEOPLE CAN UBER, THEY CAN BIKE, THEY CAN WALK, THEY CAN CHOOSE TO GO.
AND IF IT DOESN'T WORK, THEY GO OUTTA BUSINESS.
IN THIS CASE, WE'RE CONVERTING HOW MANY UNITS TO 11? THE NOT WE THE DEVELOPERS CONVERTING.
IS IT GOING FROM FOUR OR FIVE TO 11 UNITS? IT IT WAS BETWEEN FOUR AND SIX UNITS THAT EXIST IN THE BILLING PRIOR.
SO THE RENT, IT, IT WILL BE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING WITH NO PARKING.
SO IT'S JUST GONNA BE LOWER RENT.
AND IF PEOPLE CHOOSE WHO CAN DRIVE AND CHOOSE TO RENT THERE, THEY'RE JUST GONNA PARK ON THE STREET IN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN MOON TOWER, WHICH IS A COMMERCIAL AREA.
THAT'S MY ISSUE AND THAT'S WHY I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? IF NOT, UH, MR. BUTLER, WOULD YOU MIND RESTATING THE RECOMMENDATION PLEASE? STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO PROVIDE TWO SPACES INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 11.
AND I WANT TO CLARIFY, THAT'S MY ISSUE.
I'M, I VERY STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF PARKING VARIANCES, BUT THIS ISN'T EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO WHAT'S REQUIRED AND THERE'S NOT REALLY EVEN A HEAD FAKE TO GETTING THERE.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO YOU A RAISE OF THE HAND.
WELL, EVERYBODY'S SHAKING THEIR HEAD.
OKAY, LET'S, OKAY, WE ROLL CALL AGAIN.
I'LL TRY AND KEEP BETTER NOTES.
COMMISSIONER GARZA, KEEP UP WITH ME.
COMMISSIONER ALLMAN? UM, NO, I THINK WHAT, OKAY, I'M SORRY.
THE MO TO APPROVE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? YES.
COMMISSIONER POROUS PERLE? NO.
AND COMMISSIONER MON PACO? YES.
OKAY, SO THIS IS EIGHT VERSUS NINE, HOWEVER THE NOS WHEN, OKAY.
SO IS THERE, SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A SECOND.
MOTION TO DENY S REALLY QUICK DISCUSSION.
WASN'T THE LAST GIRL CALL 9 9, 9 8.
[01:25:04]
LAST ONE WAS NINE.WHO SO WHO DIDN'T VOTE WHAT I'M ASKING? OH, WHO DID? I'M SORRY.
HOW DID WE LOSE ONE? WE LOST THE VOTE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T LOST ANYBODY.
THE PREVIOUS VOTE, AND I WAS GONNA BRING THIS UP AT THE END OF THE MEETING, WE RECOUNTED WITH STAFF AND THE CHAIR'S VOTE WAS NOT NEEDED ON THE EARLIER ONE.
JUST THAT TO ME EARLIER IT WAS NINE TO EIGHT AS A JOKE IN FAVOR.
SO THAT WAS A MISCOUNTING ON MY PART.
WHAT DO THEY CALL THAT? THEY WERE JUST SPOOFING ME, JOKING AROUND WITH ME.
YOU KNOW,
WE DID NOT LOSE A, LOSE A VOTE.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO DENY.
DO WE HAVE FURTHER COMMENTS? UH, COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG, UM, IT'S KIND OF A THEME WE'VE HAD TODAY OF PEOPLE DOING STUFF AND THEN, UM, SLAPPING THEIR HANDS.
UM, BUT IF WE WOULD'VE LOOKED AT THIS FROM THE BEGINNING, UM, WE PROVIDE VARIANCE REQUESTS ALL THE TIME TO PEOPLE WANTING TO BUILD SOMETHING NEW.
THERE WAS ALWAYS UNITS HERE THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING HERE ALREADY.
UM, SO THERE WAS A USE, THIS IS NOT NEW STUFF WHERE SOMETHING NEVER EXISTED AND WE'RE ADDING CAPACITY.
UM, I KNOW SOMETIMES, UM, YOU KNOW, BEGGING FOR FORGIVENESS OR, YOU KNOW, COMES AFTER THE FACT.
UM, YOU KNOW, THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW, LOOK AT THE PAPERS, THERE IS A HOUSING NEED IN THIS CITY.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE GOT IN, IN MY OPINION, THIS ISN'T A PASS FAIL SORT OF THING.
IT'S, IT'S, UM, KIND OF A JUDGMENT CALL, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
BUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE, THE QUALITY OF THE PUBLIC REALM, ALL ARE GREATLY IMPROVED FOR THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY FOR THIS.
UM, CARS CAN'T BLOCK THE SIDEWALK ANYMORE, THE WAY THEY USED TO PARK.
UM, YOU KNOW, PERFECT WORLD, NO, IT'S, IT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT, BUT WE DO APPROVE THIS.
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, RESISTING THE, THE MONEY'S ALREADY INVESTED, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSING IS NEEDED, UM, DENYING IT.
WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP IN PRACTICALITY? RIPPING OUT HALF THE HOUSES.
UM, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK IF WE DENY, I THINK WE HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, GIVE A LITTLE MORE SUPPORT.
'CAUSE THIS, BASICALLY, THIS PERSON'S GONNA HAVE SIGNIFICANT DEBT, HOUSING WON'T BE ABLE TO BE USED.
UM, AND IT'LL BE STUCK IN LIMBO.
SO I DON'T SEE ANYBODY WINNING IN THAT SCENARIO EITHER.
COMMISSIONER ROBBINS, I KNOW YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.
YEAH, I JUST WANT TO, UM, UH, I THINK YOU, UM, WHAT WAS THE WORD YOU USED? YOU SAID, WE AREN'T INCREASING CAPACITY OR UTILIZATION.
I MEAN, MY BIG, WE'RE WE'RE GOING FROM FIVE UNITS TO 11.
THAT'S A BIG JUMP AND THERE'S NO COURSE.
I MEAN, THERE, THAT'S MY ISSUE IS IF IT WERE FIVE UNITS, WHAT WOULD THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BE? SEVEN OR EIGHT.
I MEAN, IS IT 1.14? IS THAT WHAT IT WAS? DEPENDING ON THE, THE SIZE UNIT.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S MY ISSUE IS WE'RE, WE'RE 80 OR 90% OFF OF THE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT'S 11 UNITS.
AND AT FIVE UNITS WE'D ONLY BE HALF OFF.
WE'D ONLY BE 40 OR 50%, YOU KNOW, 35 OR 45% OFF.
SO THAT'S PART OF MY ISSUE, JUST TO BE CLEAR.
AND I KNOW HOUSING'S IMPORTANT, BUT I, I DON'T THINK IT, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD TO PROVIDE PARKING FOR THIS DEVELOPER BECAUSE HE DECIDED TO JUMP FIRST.
AND I, I KNOW IT'S A LEGITIMATE ISSUE AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT, UM, AND I, I REALLY DON'T KNOW THE, THE WHERE IN THE PROCESS THIS IS, IF IT'S ALREADY 11 UNITS OR IF IT'S, THAT'S THE PLAN.
IF IT'S ALREADY 11 UNITS AND HE DID IT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE PROPER STEPS, THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO PUNISH HIM IN ANY WAY.
IT'S, IT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE, BUT THAT'S WHY I'M VOTING AGAINST IT.
IF I MAY RESPOND, UM, I DID JEFF ASK IF YOU FOUND THE OLD BROKER, WHAT DID THEY TELL YOU? THEY CONFIRMED THAT THE LISTING, THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE LISTING IS ACCURATE.
HOW MANY UNITS? COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER, COLVARD, YOU HAD A QUESTION? WELL, I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO SAY WHAT THING.
I MEAN, 50% IS A HUGE DEVIATION, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
AND A HUNDRED PERCENT IS BIGGER.
BUT WE'VE GIVEN MASSIVE PARKING VARIANCES TO LARGE PROJECTS IN MIDTOWN THAT ARE WALKABLE AND ALL OF THAT.
THAT'S ALL BRAND NEW CAPACITY.
UM, AGAIN, THESE UNITS ARE ON THE GROUND, NO PARKING.
HOPEFULLY THE RENT WILL BE A LITTLE CHEAPER, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IT'S IN.
[01:30:01]
ALL OF THAT INTO ACCOUNT.WHAT I LOVE TO SAY, TOUGH LUCK.
I MEAN, THE GUY DID GET A PERMIT, HE JUST GOT A REPAIR PERMIT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE OR NOT, BUT THE POINT OF THE MATTER IS, THESE HOUSES ARE ON THE GROUND.
AND WHEN I TAKE EVERYTHING INTO ACCOUNT, I THINK GETTING THE HOUSES OCCUPIED IS, IS, HAS GREATER VALUE THAN DENYING IT AND LEAVING IT BASICALLY IN LIMBO.
AND TAKING ALL OF THAT INTO ACCOUNT TO REACH.
UM, SO TO CONFIRM IT WAS ORIGINALLY FIVE, IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING? OR IS IT 11? THE MOST, THE MOST RECENT LISTING ADVERTISED AS FOUR TO SIX UNITS.
THERE WERE FOUR IN THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
AND I GUESS THE IDEA WAS THAT THE REAR STRUCTURE COULD BE ALTERED TO AS MANY AS TWO.
AND AND I DON'T WANNA BE PUNITIVE EITHER.
I THINK WHAT MAKES ME REACH A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION ON THIS ONE IS THE, THE OFFSET AND THE IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS.
AND I FEEL LIKE THAT'S NOT FAIR TO THEM BECAUSE I, I THINK THERE'S A GOOD POSSIBILITY THERE WILL BE CARS, BUT THIS IS REALLY TOUGH.
COMMISSIONER MORRIS, UH, WELL, HE JUST ASKED, ASKED MY ANSWER TO MY QUESTION WAS WHAT WAS IT PERMITTED FOR VERSUS WHAT HAPPENED? AND, UM, I'M, I'M JUST IN AGREEMENT WITH EVERYBODY ELSE.
IF THIS WAS FOUR OR SIX, I WOULD LITERALLY NOT EVEN BLINK AN EYE AT THE VOTE.
UM, IT'S, IT'S JUST WHAT IT WAS PERMITTED FOR, WHAT WAS INTENDED FOR VERSUS WHAT'S THERE.
UM, AND IT JUST DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ANY OTHER QUE UH, COMMISSIONER GARZA? SO, UH, AGAIN, TALKING ABOUT JUST COMING BACK INTO COMPLIANCE.
SO I REALIZE THAT IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE BENDING OVER BACKWARDS AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU, BUT I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S MY JOB TO DENY THIS APPLICANT THE USE OF HIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE.
IF WE DENY THIS PARKING GRANTS, HE WON'T BE ABLE TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RENT IT.
IS THAT CORRECT? AS IT STANDS NOW, CORRECT.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO, IF, IF WE SAY NO, I THINK WE NEED TO OFFER SOME KIND OF SOLUTION, AND MAYBE IT'S CLOSING THOSE FOUR OTHER UNITS OR MAKING THEM TO TWO STORY UNIT, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT I THINK IT IS INCUMBENT UPON US TO OFFER SOME KIND OF SOLUTION OR AT LEAST GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF COMMISSIONER BALDWIN.
WHAT WE DO ALL THE TIME IS LET HIM GO SEEK NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT.
HE COULD HAVE GONE AND GOTTEN NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT LIKE OTHERS DO.
WELL NOW HE'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO AND SEE IF HE CAN LEASE SOME SPACES, IF THEY'RE AVAILABLE, WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE AVAILABLE THERE, THERE ARE OPTIONS FOR HIM TO COME BACK TO US AND GET INTO COMPLIANCE.
THE WAY THAT THEY DID THE WORK, THE WAY THAT THEY PURCHASED IT, THE WAY THEY'VE DONE THE PERMITTING, WE'RE REWARDING THEM FOR BAD BEHAVIOR.
AND I THINK THAT, THAT IT, IT WEIGHS INTO MY DECISION.
LOOK, I'M A HUGE MARKET-BASED PARKING ADVOCATE.
THEY DIDN'T PLAY BY THE RULES.
IF THEY HAD COME TO ME AND WE, WE ESTABLISHED THE RULES AND THEY PLAYED BY THEM, IT WOULD'VE BEEN ONE THING.
THEY DIDN'T PLAY BY THE RULES.
AND NOW THEY WANT US TO GRANT THEM A VARIANCE AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE I'M OBLIGATED TO GRANT THEM THE VARIANCE.
THEY'RE OBLIGATED TO COME AND PROVE TO US THAT THEY'RE WORTHY OF THE VARIANCE.
COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG, A COUPLE MORE, UH, QUESTIONS.
VARIANCE SIGN WAS UP, BEEN UP FOR A WHILE.
WHAT IS, WHAT HAVE YOU GOTTEN FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDS IT? 'CAUSE WE DEFINITELY KNOW COMMUNITY REACHES OUT WHEN THEY SEE THOSE THINGS.
I DON'T THINK THE APPLICANTS HERE, BUT WE MADE THE REC I MADE A RECOMMENDATION THAT IF HE WOULD GUARANTEE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THEM BEING RESTRICTED TO AFFORDABILITY OR SOMETHING, BUT WE COULD ALSO SAY, UM, WE RECOMMEND HALF OF HIM TO BEING OCCUPIED UNTIL HE COMES BACK WITH A SOLUTION.
I, THIS IS GONNA BE LOST IN LIMBO AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WINS.
ONE, ONE SUGGESTION THAT WE MADE AT THE BEFORE THE LAST MEETING WAS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO EIGHT BECAUSE THEN WE COULD JUSTIFY THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S NEW MUR REGULATIONS, WHICH ALLOW FOR ONE SPACE PER UNIT.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT IT THAT WAY, IF THIS WERE AN AN MER DEVELOPMENT, THEY'D BE REQUIRED ONE UNIT, ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EIGHT UNITS AND THEY CAN'T PROVIDE EIGHT PARKING SPACES, BUT AT LEAST TWO TO EIGHT IS DIFFERENT THAN TWO TO 14.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? YEAH, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME RECOMMENDATION WHERE WE CAP IT AT EIGHT, UM, UNTIL SOME OTHER ARRANGEMENT COULD BE MADE.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CAP IT AT EIGHT.
I THINK WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DENY IT AND OFFER GUIDANCE TO HIM AS TO WHAT MIGHT THE WORKING WITH STAFF, WHAT MIGHT BE ACCEPTABLE.
I THINK STAFF HAS, YEAH, I THINK STAFF HAS A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT.
YOU COULD APPROVE A VARIANCE WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT BE REDUCED TO EIGHT UNITS.
SO, OR WE COULD DEFER IT TWO MORE WEEKS AND
[01:35:01]
GIVE 'EM A LITTLE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF, IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE GONNA SAY? GET A FEEL FOR YES.SO YOU WOULDN'T WIN OTHERWISE YOU MIGHT WORK WITH US.
OKAY, SO WE HAD, WE HAD A SECOND ALREADY.
SO I NEED TO ASK YOU IF YOU WANT TO, I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION TO AN EYE.
SO, AND MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER AND, AND TO, TO YOUR POINT, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, HE DID PLAY OUTSIDE THE RULES, BUT I DON'T THINK ANY OF US ARE LOOKING TO BE PUNITIVE.
WE'RE LOOKING TO FIND THE BEST ANSWER.
I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
COMMISSIONER STEIN, I AND JUST ONE OTHER OPTION IS THAT THE APPLICANT GOES AND RENTS PARKING SPACES SOMEPLACE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH I THINK IS PROBABLY SOMETHING HE COULD DO.
AND THAT GIVES HIM EITHER REDUCE IT TO EIGHT OR FIND PARKING AND I, I THINK WE'LL GIVE HIM A CHANCE.
ALL GOOD SUGGESTIONS MR. BUTLER, FOR YOU TO CARRY BACK.
FOR MOTION WAS ROBIN SECOND HINES.
[Items IV & V]
FOUR.MADAM CHAIR, I'M GONNA ABSTAIN FROM THE NEXT TWO ITEMS. FOUR AND FIVE.
HE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD THAT STAFF, BUT COMMISSIONER, HE IS GOING TO ABSTAIN FROM I ROMAN NUMER FOUR AND FIVE.
MY I'M CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF IT PLEASE, THE COMMISSION STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ITEMS, UH, ROMAN NUMER FOUR AND FIVE TOGETHER.
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED A WALKABLE PLACES APPLICATION AND AN APPLICATION FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A SPECIAL PARKING AREA UNDER THE OFF STREET PARKING ORDINANCE.
A SPECIAL PARKING AREA IS DEFINED AS AN, AS AN AREA DESIGNATED BY THE CITY, BY CITY COUNCIL AND MANAGED BY THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY THAT MAY HAVE ALTERNATIVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO THOSE REQUIRED BY THIS ARTICLE.
THE PROPOSED WACO PLACES PLAN IS THE FIRST APPLICATION SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AFTER THE, THE ADOPTION OF THE WACO PLACES PLAN ORDINANCE IN 2020.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE WEST WEST CHASE DISTRICT, AND IT'S LOCATED SOUTH TO WEST OF THE WEST PARK TOLL ROAD, WEST OF THE SAM HOUSTON TOLL ROAD, EAST OF WILCREST, AND ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF BEL AIR, UH, BOULEVARD.
THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A WALKABLE PLACES PLAN AND A SPECIAL PARKING AREA DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPOSED PARK AID DISTRICT.
THE 48 ACRE PLUS TRACK IS UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP AND IS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED AS A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT OF OFF CONSISTING OF OFFICE, RETAIL, RESTAURANT, HOTEL, AND MULTIFAMILY USES ON A PUBLIC STREET, UH, SYSTEM.
LOOPING ASIDE THE WALK WALL PLACES PLAN PROPOSES PARK A WAY AS A PRIMARY WACO PLACES STREET WITH FOUR SECONDARY WACO PLACES STREET, UM, THE PEDESTRIAN REALM STANDARDS ALONG THE PRIMARY STREET PARK.
A WAY, UH, PROPOSES AT A MINIMUM A 16 FOOT PEDESTRIAN REALM WITH A MINIMUM EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK UNOBSTRUCTED SIDEWALK ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE, OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.
THE STANDARDS ARE AS FOLLOWS, ALONG A JALA AVENUE, A MINIMUM, AT A MINIMUM A 17 FOOT PEDESTRIAN REALM WILL BE PROVIDED WITH A, WITH A MINIMUM SIX FOOT UNOBSTRUCTED SIDEWALK.
GINZA ROAD PROPOSES A MINIMUM 10 FOOT REALM WITH MINIMUM, MINIMUM EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALKS.
HOLLAND BAY DRIVE PROPOSES A MINIMUM REALM OF 19 FEET WITH MINIMUM SIX FOOT UNOBSTRUCTED SIDEWALKS.
AND LASTLY, EVER PIECE AVENUE PROPOSES A MINIMUM 16 FOOT PEDESTRIAN REALM WITH EIGHT FOOT UNOBSTRUCTED SIDEWALKS.
THE PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE PARCELS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE APPLICANT, WHICH WILL DIRECT MOST OF THE, THE VEHICULAR AND LOADING ENTRIES TO THE SECONDARY STREETS AND PRIVATE DRIVES AS NO LAR ACCESS IS ALLOWED FROM THE PRIMARY STREET WHEN A SIDE HAS FRONTAGE ON MORE THAN ONE STREET.
LASTLY, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITIONAL AND ADDITIONAL PRI PRIMARY PRIVATE STREET ALOHA WAY, WHICH IS WHICH PER THE APPLICANT WILL BE THE PREMIER PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED, WALKABLE, WALKABLE STREET WITH PUBLIC, UH, BUILDING ENT ENTRIES THROUGHOUT AND WOULD FUNCTION AS THE MAIN PEDESTRIAN SPINE TO THE DISTRICT.
HOWEVER, THE DRIVERS DESIGNATED AS A PRIVATE STREET TO ALLOW FOR CLOSURES, UH, FOR STREET MARKETS, CULTURE, EVENTS, AND FESTIVALS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
THIS APPLICATION IS NOT CONSIDERING THE PRIVATE DRIVE FOR DESIGNATION FOR THE SPECIAL PARKING AREA.
THE DISTRICT AGAIN PROPOSES A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT OF OFFICE, RETAIL, RESTAURANTS, HOTEL, AND MULTI-FAMILY USES.
THE PARKING SUPPLY WILL BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT AND NO.
AND ADDITIONALLY, ON STREET PARALLEL PARKING WILL BE PROVIDED THROUGH THE DISTRICT.
THE DISTRICT PROPOSES A SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS BASED ON METHODOLOGIES ESTABLISHED IN THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE.
LATEST, UM, SHARED PARKING PUBLICATION,
[01:40:01]
AND IS INTENDED TO SATISFY THE CITY OF EASTERN REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGNATION FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE SPECIAL PARKING AREA.AS PER THE PUBLICATION, COMBINATIONS OF LAND USES REQUIRE LESS PARKING THAN THE SAME LAND USES IN FREE STANDING LOCATIONS.
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE SHARED PARKING CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON THE AVAILABILITY OF VARIOUS MODE OF TRANSPORTATION REC RECOGNI, RECOGNIZING THAT PATRONS ARE FREQUENTLY PARKING FOR MORE THAN ONE LAND, USE.
SEASONAL FACTORS AND HOURLY FACTORS, RECOGNIZING THAT LAND USES DO USAGE, DO NOT SIMUL SIMULTANEOUSLY GENERATE DEMAND FOR PARKING.
AT THE SAME TIME THE SITE REQUIRES A SHIRT, TOTAL PARKING, A NUMBER OF 4,983 VEHICLE SPACES, WHICH ARE BASED ON THE ULI SHARE PARKING ANALYSIS.
AND WITH A RATIO OF 2.13 SPACES PER EVERY 1000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS PER AREA FOR USES OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL AND A RATIO AND A RATIO OF 1.12 SPACES PER UNIT FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY COMPONENT, THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSES A TOTAL OF 5,314 VEHICLE SPACES, WHICH, WHICH IS A 16% REDUCTION FROM THE CITY OF HOUSTON SHARED PARKING REQUIREMENT OF 6,266 BASIS.
THE PROPOSED DISTRICT WILL IMPLEMENT A PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN TO REDUCE THE DEMAND AND SPILL OVER PARKING.
THE APPLICANT WILL PARTNER WITH THE CITY OF HOUSTON IN THE WEST CHASE DISTRICT TO MONITOR THE ON STREET PARKING AND UPHOLD REGULATIONS, AND WE'LL IMPLEMENT VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES TO MON MONITOR THE PARKING UTILIZATION THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT.
ALSO, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED EXISTING AND PROPOSED TRANSIT FACILITIES AND OTHER ALTERNATIVE MOST TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP SUMMARIES, THE DETAIL, THE EXTENT OF THE USES OF EXISTING TRANSIT RAILS NEAR THAT PROPOSED DISTRICT AND EXISTING AND PROPOSED SERVICES LIKE THE WEST CHASE PARK AND RIGHT THE FUTURE UNIVERSITY CORE BRT CONNECTION.
EXISTING PROPOSED AND PROPOSED BIO GREENWAY, HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS, MICRO MOBILITY DEVICES AND FU IN A FUTURE SHADOW SERVICE WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
THE PROPOSAL WILL CREATE A PLANNING, WILL CREATE PLANNING STANDARDS TO ENCOURAGE HIGH DENSITY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND ENHANCE WALKABLE PUBLIC GROUNDS BY ALLOWING MORE BUILDABLE AREA AND PARKING FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE PARK A WALKABLE PLACES PLAN AND THE SPECIAL PARKING AREA DESIGNATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
ALL MINIMUM REALMS SHOULD REMAIN AS PROPOSED WITH THIS APPLICATION ALONG ALL THE STREET SEGMENTS.
A 2.13 PARKING RATIO FOR ALL USERS OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL, A 1.1 PARKING RATIO PER UNIT FOR THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT.
UH, ONCE THE COMMISSION APPROVES THIS WACO PLACES PLAN AND SPECIAL PARKING AREA, THIS APPLICATION WILL BE FORWARDED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION.
AFTER TWO YEARS OF THE, OF THE DESIGNATION THAT THE SPECIAL PARKING AREA, IT WILL BE A RESPONSIBILITY OF, OF THE PARK DISTRICT TO MANAGE THE ENTITY, IN THIS CASE, THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY IN THIS CASE.
SORRY, TO SUBMIT A VIEW OF THE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN TO THE COMMISSION, UH, THE MANAGE THE PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AS LISTED IN THE ORDINANCE.
WE RECEIVE MULTIPLE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THIS APPLICATION FROM COUNCIL DISTRICT F UH, THE SOUTHWEST HOUSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, UH, THE WEST SHADE DISTRICT, AND A LIFT SUPER NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION.
AND I BELIEVE I NEED TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM FOUR AND FIVE.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK, SO I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE FOR FOR QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS? LEMME CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, JOSE DID, YOU GAVE A LOT OF LIST OF A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR IT, UM, THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY, UM, NEGATIVE FEEDBACK? ANY, UH, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITY PUSH BACK IN ANY FORM? NO.
WE DID SEND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SPECIAL PARKING AREA, WHICH IS, UH, REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE.
AND WE, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY OBJECTION FOR THAT.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
UH, MOTION BALDWIN SECOND COLLEAGUE.
I'M JUST VERY EXCITED TO SEE THIS WALKABLE PLACES APPLICATION AND HOPE THAT WE SEE MANY, MANY MORE OF THEM, UH, BEFORE I'M NO LONGER ON THIS PLANNING COMMISSION.
I WAS WAITING FOR YOU TO COMMENT.
UH, IT'S EASY WHEN IT'S ONE GROUP OF COMMON OWNERSHIP, BUT I STILL BELIEVE IF PEOPLE ARE LISTENING THAT IF THERE ARE COM, YOU KNOW, OWNERS OUT AT LOWER WESTHEIMER AT 19TH STREET, AND
[01:45:01]
I COULD GO ON AND ON AND ON WHERE I THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE, UH, VERY FAVORABLE FOR BOTH THE HOMEOWNERS, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE CITY.AND I'M JUST VERY EXCITED TO SEE THE FIRST ONE HAPPEN AND MAYBE GREAT.
YEAH, I I AM SO EXCITED ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT'S IN A PART OF HOUSTON WHERE WE REALLY NEED DEVELOPMENT AND I THINK I'M GONNA JUST WATCH IT WITH GREAT INTEREST.
I THINK IT'S WONDERFUL THAT IT'S HAPPENING.
AND WHAT I SHOULD HAVE ALSO ASKED
SO I'LL JUST OFFER THAT AS A SUGGESTED PERHAPS, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE MINDFUL OF IT AND MAYBE THEY, YOU KNOW, OFFER THE AMOUNT THAT THEY WOULD'VE PROVIDED IF THEY HADN'T RECEIVED, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE REDUCTION.
ANYONE ELSE? WELL, I'LL JUST ADD THAT, UM, ONE THING I REALLY HATE IS, UM, OR IS EMPTY PARKING GARAGES ON THE WEEKEND.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE WEEKDAY DEMAND VERSUS THE WEEKEND DEMAND, IT'S LIKE, UH, IT'S, IT'S INSANE.
THESE THINGS ARE EMPTY PLUS THE ADVENT OF WORKING FROM HOME AND WHATEVER ELSE IT IS.
WE HAVEN'T QUANTIFIED THAT YET.
SO, UM, MAYBE THERE'S A WAY WE IN THE FUTURE THAT'S BEING QUANTIFIED OR SOMEONE'S TRACKING WHO'S WORKING FROM HOME MONDAY AND FRIDAY FOR SURE.
AND MAYBE THERE'S THAT RANDOM WEDNESDAY, BUT ANYWAY.
UH, MY COMMENT IS YES, MY COMMENT IS, UH, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN SAID SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, HE'S EXCITED ABOUT THIS.
MY QUESTION WOULD BE FOR ALL COMMISSIONERS, ESPECIALLY COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, HOW CAN WE CREATE MORE AWARENESS, UH, AMONG HOUSTONIANS TO ENCOURAGE THIS KIND OF, UH, UH, ROUTE AVAILABLE? HOW CAN WE GET THE WORD OUT? THE FIRST ONE HELPS, RIGHT? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
AND THE SUCCESS THAT WE'VE HAD.
[VI. Public Comment]
HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
UM, I WOULD JUST REQUEST STAFF ON THE FIRST ROLL CALL VOTE, UM, ON THE SCREEN PRO, DID THEY REALLY MAKE SURE THE APPLICANT UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE CONDITIONS MEANT FOR THAT APPROVAL? BECAUSE, UM, WHEN YOU FIRST SUGGESTED IT, HE KIND OF SAID, LET ME CHECK THE COST ANALYSIS AND, AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE CONDITIONS TO THAT APPROVAL THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THEM VERY CLEARLY.
AND I, I BELIEVE WE STATED THAT, THAT IN THE MOTION, SO YEAH, HE SHOULD HAVE THAT.
DID YOU ALL VOTE ON ITEM NUMBER TWO ESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE? YES.
REGARDS OF YOUR WAS SNOOZING THEN? YEAH,
ANYTHING ELSE? WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND.