[00:00:04]
IF WE COULD GET SETTLED AND GET READY TO START THE MEETING, PLEASE.LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF YOU WOULD TAKE YOUR SEATS, PLEASE.
[CALL TO ORDER]
THING I WANNA SAY IS THANK YOU TO THOSE OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE THAT DRESSED UP.AND ARE YOU GUYS DOING THIS FOR A CHARITY? IS THAT WHAT SOMEONE TOLD ME? OH, A-C-M-C-A-C-M-C-C.
SO THAT'S FOR THE UNITED WAY, SO THANKS FOR, FOR DOING THIS.
IT IS 2:33 PM ON AUGUST 31ST, 2024.
AND I'M LISA CLARK, THE CHAIR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION, AND I'M CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER AS AN IN-PERSON MEETING AT THE CITY HALL ANNEX AT 900 BAGBY.
YOU MAY ALSO MONITOR THE MEETING BY VIEWING, UH, VIA HTV SPEAKERS.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AN ITEM, PLEASE FILL OUT THE SPEAKERS FORM BEFORE THE ITEM IS CALLED AND TURN IT INTO STAFF NEAR THE FRONT DOOR.
CONSENT AND REPEAT SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED ONE MINUTE AND NEW SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED.
UH, TIMED FOR TWO MINUTES TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
PRESENT, UH, COMMISSIONER ALLMAN PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER LINDA POR PERLE IS NOT.
SORRY I DIDN'T SEE YOU BEFORE.
HELLO? UH, COMMISSIONER ROBBINS ROBBINS.
WE HAVE HECTOR RODRIGUEZ SITTING IN FOR HER TODAY.
I DO HAVE AN ITEM THAT'S BEEN WITHDRAWN TODAY, SO WE WON'T BE HEARING OR SPEAKING ON THAT ITEM.
IT'S IN THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION ITEM 1 0 4, WILLOW CREEK RANCH, SECTION FIVE, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER TWO.
AND IT IS, UH, WITHDRAWN FOR NOTICE.
[Director’s Report]
ASK FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT FROM MR. RODRIGUEZ.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLAN COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS STOR RODRIGUEZ WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, WE'LL BE SITTING IN AS SECRETARY FOR THE COMMISSION IN PLACE OF TRAN, DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
UM, THIS SATURDAY WILL BE THE LAST COMMITTEE MEETING ON SIDEWALK AMENDMENTS, AND IT WILL BE VIRTUAL.
IT'LL BEGIN AT 10:00 AM THIS SATURDAY TILL NOON.
AFTER THIS, THE PLAN COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER THE CHANGES TO THE, UH, AWA AMENDMENTS ON THE MEETING ON THE 14TH OF NOVEMBER.
THAT CONCLUDES MY, MY, UH, PRESENTATION.
[Consideration of the October 17, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes]
UH, WE'RE CONSIDERING THE MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17TH.MAY I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? GARZA.
[Platting Activities a & b]
ALONG TO PLATING ACTIVITY.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 94 SECTIONS A CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBER ONE THROUGH 47, AND SECTIONS B REPL ITEMS ARE NUMBER 48 THROUGH 94.
IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO MOVE CONSENT AND RELA ITEMS 6, 7, 8, 9, AND 11 WITH ITEM NUMBER 1 0 5 IN THE VARIANCE SECTION.
THERE ARE NO OTHER ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND THERE ARE NO CHANCE TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MADAM CHAIR, IF THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS THAT PLAYING IN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSENT AND REPLAY
[00:05:01]
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATIONS.SAVE AND ACCEPT, UH, ITEMS NUMBER 6, 7, 8, 9, AND 11.
SO WE ARE, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION ACT.
I NEED TO KNOW, UH, ABSTENTIONS.
COMMISSIONER HYS? UH, YES, MADAM CHAIR.
I DO NEED TO ABSTAIN FROM A FEW ITEMS AND THAT'S GONNA INCLUDE THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE GONNA GET MOVED.
BUT I'LL, I'LL STATE THEM FOR THE RECORD ANYWAY.
I'M GONNA ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS THREE SIX THROUGH 11, 16, 38, 39, AND 40.
ANY OTHER ABSTENTIONS? COMMISSIONERS.
SO WE ARE GOING TO LOOK FOR A MOTION FOR ALL ITEMS IN A AND B, SAVE AND ACCEPT ITEM 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 38, 39, AND 40.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION, MOTION.
SO NOW WE'LL VOTE FOR ALL ITEMS THAT I, WE LEFT OUT, WHICH WAS ITEM THREE SIX THROUGH 11 16, 38, 39, AND 40.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? OH, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.
I TOOK, I NEED TO TAKE OUT SIX THROUGH 11.
SO, 6, 7, 8, 9, AND 11 WILL BE MOVED TO ITEM 1 0 5.
SO WE ARE GOING TO BE VOTING ON 3 10, 16, 38, 39, AND 40.
MOTION BALDWIN, SECOND ALLMAN.
YES, I DO HAVE A SPEAKER ON 90 MINUTES CHAIR.
WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR MS. MICKELSON TO WEIGH IN ON THE LITTLE LETTER THAT WE GOT HERE ON THIS ITEM? IS THAT APPROPRIATE JUST TO SAY ANYTHING? DO YOU WANNA DO THAT NOW? DO YOU WANNA DO IT IN PUBLIC COMMENTS OR, YEAH, WE, YOU, I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY APPROVED 66.
WHICH WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM DENIAL LEGAL SUPPORTED THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION.
THIS BODY FOR THE RECORD IS THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY FOR RE RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVING PLAT.
SO DOES THE DATE START ON DATE? IT IT STARTS THE WAY WE DEFINE IT.
AND THAT DATE IS DEFINED WHEN IT'S PUT ON THE AGENDA AND FEES ARE PAID.
WHEN IT'S ON THE AGENDA OF A MEETING OF THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVING PLATS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
[c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Dorianne Powe-Phlegm and John Cedillo)]
DOING PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR US.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS DORIAN FLM, QUEEN OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS TODAY.
ITEM 95 IS CAMILLA ESTATES RELAID NUMBER ONE.
THE SITE IS LOCATED NORTH ALONG FILLMORE STREET, EAST OF CROT AND FIDELITY STREETS IN HOUSTON.
THE REASON FOR RE PLAID IS TO CHANGE THE DWELLING UNIT DENSITY TABLE ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM.
CONDITIONS REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS PLAT.
MADAM CHAIR PLEASES COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER, YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE IT ON THE SCREEN.
NUMBER 95, CAMILLA STATES REPL NUMBER ONE IS OPEN.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONERS.
WERE LOOKING FOR A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED.
ITEM NUMBER 96 IS CARUTHERS MANOR.
THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH ALONG CARUTHERS STREET, EAST OF ALBERT STREET, NORTH OF LAY ROAD AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS.
THE REASON FOR REPLY IS TO CREATE FOUR LOTS AND ONE PARKING RESERVE.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE NO BEARING REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE C BBC 1 0 1 FORM.
CONDITIONS REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT
[00:10:01]
OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.WE HAD ONE CALLER ABOUT THIS, UH, PLAT AND THE INDIVIDUAL WAS CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, OWNERSHIP.
WE VERIFIED THAT THE OWNERSHIP IS OF THE PERSONS WHO SUBMITTED THE PLAID THROUGH THE APPLICANT.
AND SO, UH, THERE'S NO ISSUES WITH OWNERSHIP FOR THIS PROPERTY.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAID PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 96 CARUTHERS MANNER IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES ITEM 97.
THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH ALONG MELBA LANE, WEST OF SKYVIEW DRIVE IN BRITT MOORE ROAD IN HOUSTON.
EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE COMPENSATED OPEN SPACE RESERVE.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM.
CONDITIONS, THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
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.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM.
AT THIS TIME, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 97 DUE RULE ESTATE IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK APPROVAL OF, UH, EXCUSE ME.
SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
MOTION MANKA GARZA SECOND GARZA.
ALL IN FAVOR? A OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM 98 IS HAROLD STREET VIEWS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH ALONG HAROLD STREET, WEST OF SHEPHERD DRIVE IN HOUSTON.
THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO PROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS, THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS PLAT.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WOULD NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS PLAT.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
IN PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 98, HAROLD STREET VIEWS IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS SUPERMAN CLARK KENT JOHNSON, LEO SECRET IDENTITIES ITEM 99 IS NORTHWOOD CROSSING.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A NEARLY 13,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS NORTH ALONG TTE STREET, EAST OF HOMESTEAD ROAD AND SOUTH OF MOUNT HOUSTON ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND IT'S REQUESTING A 42 1 93 VARIANCE TO ALLOW LOT SIZE LESS THAN THOSE OF THE PRECEDING PLAT STAFF IS NOT CURRENTLY IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOT TWO BLOCK ONE OF NORTHWOOD MANOR, SECTION TWO PARTIAL RE PLAT NUMBER ONE, WHICH CAME OUT OF A WATER WELL RESERVE IN THE ORIGINAL PRECEDING PLAT NORTHWOOD MANOR.
SECTION TWO, NORTHWOOD MANNER.
SECTION TWO DOES HAVE ACTIVE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT RESTRICT LOT SIZE, WHICH LEGAL HAS STATED IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE LOTS COMING OUT OF THE WATER WELL SITE.
THE CURRENT PLAT IS PROPOSING TWO LOTS SMALLER THAN THOSE ALLOWED BY THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THE SUBJECT SITE HAD PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED A PLAT WITH THREE LOTS ON A SHARED DRIVEWAY AND REQUESTED THE SAME VARIANCE.
THE PLAT WAS DENIED AND AND DISAPPROVED AS THE LOTS WERE FAR SMALLER THAN THE ORIGINAL PLAT AND OPPOSITION WAS OFFERED FROM THE NORTHWOOD MANOR CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
THE TWO LOT FORMATION PROPOSED TODAY IS SIMILAR TO THE PLAT SUBMITTED FOR NORTHWOOD VIEWS, WHICH CAME OUT OF LOT ONE BLOCK, ONE OF NORTHWOOD MANOR PARTIAL REPLAY NUMBER ONE.
ALSO FROM THE WATER WELL RESERVE.
THIS PLAT REQUESTED THE SAME 42 1 93 VARIANCE AND WAS DENIED AND DISAPPROVED AS THE APPLICANT FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY SUPPORT FROM THE NORTHWOOD MANOR CIVIC ASSOCIATION, NOR THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS OUT OF NORTHWOOD MANOR.
SECTION TWO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO COORDINATE WITH THE CIVIC CLUB AND NEIGHBORS TO GARNER UH, POTENTIAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND TO COORDINATE WITH LEGAL CITY STAFF.
MADAM CHAIR FOR THE PLEASE OF THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 99, NORTHWOOD CROSSING.
I DO HAVE A SPEAKER, MR. FRED WOODS.
[00:15:05]
GOOD AFTERNOON MR. WOODS.IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
UH, I'M THE PRESIDENT OF NORTHWOOD MANOR CIVIC CLUB.
I COME BEFORE YOU WITH MY NEIGHBORS TODAY IN OPPOSITION OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
NORTHWOOD MANOR IS A DEED RESTRICTED COMMUNITY COMPRISED OF NEARLY 2000 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
THE DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR SECTION TWO CLEARLY STATE THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT PERMIT THE SUBDIVISION OF ANY LOT AS TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE RESIDENCE ON A SINGLE LOT.
THEY ALSO STATE THAT ANY SUBDIVIDED LOT HAVE A WIDTH OF NOT LESS THAN 60 FEET AND NOT LESS THAN 6,600 SQUARE FEET.
ALLOWING THIS VARIANCE WOULD VIOLATE BOTH DEED RESTRICTIONS.
ADDITIONALLY, PER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 42 DASH 83, EACH NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WITHIN THE DEFINED BOUNDARIES IN IN WHOSE AREA THE SUBDIVISION PLAT IS LOCATED SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED NOTIFICATION.
THIS PLAT IS WELL WITHIN NORTHWOOD MANOR CIVIC CLUB'S BOUNDARIES, AND WE RECEIVE NO SUCH NOTIFICATION BY MAILED LETTER OR AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT.
NORTHWOOD MANOR CIVIC CLUB IS REGISTERED WITH THE CITY OF HOUSTON WITH UPDATED CONTACT INFORMATION APPEARING ON THE CIVIC CLUB DIRECTORY WEBSITE.
FURTHERMORE, I SEE NO UNDUE HARDSHIP DEPRIVING THE APPLICANT OF REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND AS THE DEED RESTRICTIONS PERMIT AND IS CUSTOM WITH ALL ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
HOWEVER, ALLOWING THIS VARIANCE WOULD CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BY INCREASING THE RISK OF FLOODING DUE TO THE ALREADY ANTIQUATED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS AND, AND ADDED WATER RUNOFF AND OR ACCUMULATION CAUSED BY REMOVING PERMEABLE SURFACES.
ADDITIONALLY, CREATING A SEPARATE SUBDIVISION NESTED WITHIN AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A LONGSTANDING HISTORY WILL DRIVE COMMUNITY DIVISION.
THE APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET WITH OUR COMMUNITY AS WAS AGREED UPON WHEN THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE YOU PREVIOUSLY.
UH, FOR THESE REASONS, I HUMBLY REQUEST YOU VOTE TO DENY THIS VARIANCE AND KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTENT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN? SO THEY DID NOT MEET WITH YOU ON THE OTHER, THE OTHER TIME THEY FAILED TO MEET WITH YOU? THEY HAVE NOT MET WITH US SINCE I, SINCE, SINCE THE LAST TIME? YES, SIR.
HAVE THEY REACHED OUT OVER THIS LOT WHATSOEVER SINCE? NO, SIR.
MR. SEDILLO, CAN YOU RESPOND TO THE NOTICE? UM, SO WE DO HAVE A, A MAIL OUT NOTICE THAT GOES OUT.
UH, I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS INCORPORATED WITH EMAIL OR BY OTHER MEANS, BUT I CAN LOOK INTO AND SEE IF THAT WAS SOMEHOW AN OVERSIGHT OR IF IT WAS SENT OUT.
IF YOU WOULD DO THAT AND THEN MAYBE LET MR. WOODS KNOW THAT WE'D APPRECIATE IT.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 99.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY.
HEARING NO FURTHER SPEAKERS? I WILL.
UM, UH, I NEED A MOTION TO DEFEND.
YES, MR. I'LL JUST MOVE TO DENY.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY MM-HMM
QUESTION, QUESTION WITH COMMISSIONER GARZA.
SO, UM, IF THIS WERE DEFERRED AND CURRENTLY THERE'S A MOTION TO DENY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE TWO WEEKS OF THAT DEFERRAL, THE APPLICANT CAN TAKE THAT TIME TO COORDINATE NOT ONLY WITH THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, BUT ALSO ADJO NEIGHBORS POTENTIALLY GARNER SOME ASPECTS OF SUPPORT ALSO.
UM, THEY DID WANT TO MEET WITH CITY STAFF TO GO OVER SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AS STATED.
THE, UH, THE, UH, LEGAL HAS STATED THAT THE LOTS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF THIS WATER WELL BECAUSE OF THE WATER WELL SF, ARE NOT ACTUALLY NOT APPLICABLE TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AS THEY WERE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN.
SO IT IS THE SOLELY THE VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE RESTRICTED FROM COMING TO US.
SO IT'S BECAUSE IT CAME OUT OF THE WATER.
IT DIDN'T, IT WASN'T RESTRICTED BY DE RESTRICTIONS, BUT, AND IT ALSO IS NOT MEETING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD YES.
OKAY, SO I HAVE A MOTION BY BALDWIN TO DENY MAAM.
CHAIR, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION BY COMMISSIONER JONES.
AND IT KIND OF FOLLOWS THE SAME LINE.
I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, SINCE THE WATER PLANT PROPERTIES IN, IN THE SUBJECT BUT NOT PART OF THE, IN THE HOA OR WAS THAT PROPERTY CLEARLY DEFINED TO BE PART OF IT INCLUDED IN, IN THE HOMER'S ASSOCIATION? SO LOOKING AT THE PLAT, IT APPEARS TO BE AS PART OF IT, BUT I BELIEVE WE CAN CONFER WITH LEGAL WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS LIKE THE LANGUAGE OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT EXCLUDED IT TO SOME MEANS.
OR IS THERE ANOTHER ASPECT TO THAT? MAYBE MS. JONES, CAN YOU GIVE US SOME EXPLANATION PLEASE? I ALWAYS CALL YOU MS. JONES.
JUST I'M GONNA PASTE IT RIGHT HERE SO I DON'T MAKE THAT MISTAKE.
THE DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR THIS SUBDIVISION SPECIFICALLY TALK ABOUT ALL OF THE LOTS AND IT SAYS SAVE AND ACCEPT FOR, UH, RESERVE A
[00:20:01]
IN BLOCK EIGHT.THIS, UH, THESE LOTS WERE A PART OF RESERVE A IN BLOCK EIGHT.
AND SO I BELIEVE ORIGINALLY THERE WERE TWO LOTS THAT CAME OUT OF THIS RESERVE.
AND THIS ONE FOR NORTHWOOD CROSSING IS ONE OF THE LOTS, IT'S LOT TWO THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SUBDIVIDE INTO TWO MORE LOTS NOW, BUT THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE THEY WERE A PART OF RESERVE A BLOCK EIGHT THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY SAVED AND ACCEPTED FROM THE RESTRICTIONS.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE I'M GOING TO NOTE IN FACT IS ARE THESE LOTS SUBJECT TO THOSE RESTRICTIONS? AND I'M NOT SURE I HEARD THAT THEY ARE, THEY ARE NOT.
THEY'RE NOT, BUT BUT, BUT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THEM BEING OF CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY'RE NOT OF CHARACTER, WHICH IS WHY WE DENIED THE ONE TO THE LEFT AND IF THEY MADE NO WAY.
MR. SIA, WHAT DOES THE APPLICANT PURPORT TO BE THEIR HARDSHIP FOR THIS VARIANCE? UM, I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE APPLICANT.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
I DON'T SEE ANY APPARENT HARDSHIP BASICALLY TO THE STATE.
IS THAT, THAT THEY CANNOT FINANCIAL DEVELOP AS THEY'RE INTENDED? THAT WOULD HAVE, I HAVE TO LET THEM COMFORT WITH THAT.
UM, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY BALDWIN TO DENY WE HAVE A SECOND BY ROBINS.
AND I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 99.
ITEM 100 IS PLAZA ESTATES AT SHELBY.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A NEARLY 7,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF SHELBY CIRCLE AND CANNON STREET NORTH OF BELFORT ROAD AND EAST OF STATE HIGHWAY 2 88.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTS WITH THIS ITEM.
AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS THE RE PLAT OF THREE LOTS OF WITH THREE DWELLING UNITS THAT WAS RECORDED IN 2023 AND THE APPLICANT IS NOW RECREATING TWO LOTS, UH, BUT WITH FOUR DWELLING UNITS INTENDING TO DO DUPLEXES REVIEW.
BGO INDICATES THAT THE PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS REGARDING THE PLAT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF YOU PLEASE THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 100.
I HAVE NO SPEAKERS SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
MOTION GARZA ALLMAN SECOND ALLMAN.
ITEM 1 0 1 IS REED TERRACE, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER THREE.
THE SEPTIC SITE IS AN OVER 40,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS EAST ALONG SCOTT STREET, SPANNING BETWEEN LARK SPUR STREET AND CLOVER STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE.
UH, UH, THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUEST FOR THIS ITEM, HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HASN'T FAILED TO MEET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DISAPPROVE THE PLAT FOR FAILURE TO MEET NOTIFICATION MANAGER CHAIR.
IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM.
AT THIS TIME, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 1 0 1 REED TERRACE, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER THREE IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION OF DISAPPROVAL FOR NOTICE.
ITEM 1 0 2 IS SUNSET PLACE, PARTIALLY PLA NUMBER TWO.
THE SITE IS SOUTH OF BINET STREET NORTH OF RICE BOULEVARD, EAST OF SOUTH.
SHE DRIVE NORTH ALONG ALVIN STREET AT THE CORNER OF ALVINS AND ASHLEY STREETS.
THE REASON FOR REPL IS TO CREATE ONE RESERVE RESTRICTED TO MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
THIS, THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND, UM, REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED, UH, ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
THERE WERE ADVANCED COMMENTS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED USE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THE PROPOSED HEIGHT
[00:25:01]
OF THE BUILDING.STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT PER COUNCIL MEMBER.
COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, CAYMAN'S, UM, STAFF IS HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL MEMBER CAYMAN.
MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
ITEM 1 0 2, I HAVE, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE, UM, COUNCIL MEMBERS REPRESENTATIVE UP FIRST.
AND, UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH PLANNING COMMISSION FOR LETTING ME SPEAK TODAY.
UM, WE REALLY RESPECT ALL THE WORK THAT YOU DO AND THE TIME, THE LONG HOURS THAT GOES INTO IT.
I'M HERE TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST ANOTHER DEFERRAL ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL MEMBER CAYMAN.
WE NEED SOME, WE NEED SOME ADDITIONAL TIME FOR OUR OFFICE TO REVIEW NEW INFORMATION AND FOR RESIDENTS TO BE ABLE TO PROCESS AND REVIEW AND CONNECT WITH CITY STAFF, LEGAL AND OR PLANNING.
REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OUR DEFERRAL TODAY.
AND I DID NOT OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'M OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING RETROACTIVELY.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU I'M CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONERS.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, I'LL CALL OUR NEXT SPEAKER.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS MARQUEZ KOLBY.
IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
HI, UH, MY NAME IS MARQUEZ KOLBY.
UM, I'M A RESIDENT ON ALBANS ROAD.
I HAVE, UH, GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UH, I'M A FATHER FIRST OFF, UH, ON ALBANS ROAD.
I HAVE A DAUGHTER, TWO DAUGHTERS, ACTUALLY A FOUR AND A 1-YEAR-OLD.
UH, WE LIVE AT 17, 10, JUST A FEW HOUSES DOWN ACTUALLY.
AND I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM ONE OF THE OWNER.
HE ALSO OWNS TWO PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME.
SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE OWNER SPECIFICALLY.
UH, I JUST WANTED TO TALK TO YOU AS A PARENT FIRST OFF.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PART OF A COMMUNITY OF COURSE.
AND, UM, BY BUILDING THIS, UM, MULTI USE, UH, I CALL IT LIKE AN AIRBNB SETUP BASICALLY.
UM, HE PLANS ON FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGING THE CO THE, THE, THE FABRIC OF OUR COMMUNITY.
IT'S ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
UM, WE'RE NOT AGAINST RENTERS.
ALL OF US HAVE RENTERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE UNDERSTAND WE'RE RIGHT BY RICE UNIVERSITY, SO WE'RE OPEN TO THAT.
UM, I THINK THE IDEA OF OPENING UP AN AIRBNB IS A LITTLE SCARY FOR US.
UM, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS, UH, UH, ALREADY HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE TO PROHIBIT THIS KIND OF STUFF.
LIKE WE ALREADY HAVE AN AGREEMENT.
IF HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE PART OF THE AGREEMENT, THEN HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY.
THERE'S ALREADY STUFF THERE, SO I DON'T, WE'RE NOT HOLDING HIM BACK FROM USING THE PROPERTY ALREADY.
UM, TO ALSO SPEAK TO YOU AS AN ARCHITECT, I'M A LOCAL ARCHITECT HERE IN HOUSTON.
I DESIGN HOTELS, SO I KNOW A HOTEL.
WHEN I SEE ONE, I'LL JUST SAY THAT MUCH.
UM, ALSO AS AN ARCHITECT, THE STREET IS REALLY SMALL.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO BACK THE, THE TRAIN, UH, THE TRASH TRUCK HAS TO BACK OUT EVERY DAY.
SO BY ADDING MORE PEOPLE ACT, JUST ADDING TRASH CANS TO THAT STREET JUST CHANGES EVERYTHING.
JUST THE TRACK CAN'T EVEN BACK UP.
SO, UM, DELIVERIES ARE ALSO HORRIBLE.
AND, UM, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT FIVE FOOT SETBACK IS CRAZY.
LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE HAS TO RESPECT THAT.
BUT A FIVE FOOT SETBACK OFF OF A CORNER STREET WHERE KIDS WOULD LIVE, IT IS LIKE MIND BLOWING TO ME.
UH, AND I SAY THAT AS SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN THROUGH ALL THIS PROCESS BEFORE.
ANY QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER MAREZ.
YOU MENTIONED, UM, AN AGREEMENT.
IS THAT LIKE WITH THE HOA OR COULD YOU PLEASE ELABORATE? UH, THERE'S AN EXISTING COVENANT BETWEEN THE RESIDENCES.
I, I, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS.
I KNOW SOME OTHER PEOPLE ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON THAT, THAT PROBABLY KNOW MORE THAN I DO BASED ON THE COVENANT.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS EMILY MOORE.
I'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE FOR OTHER PROJECTS BECAUSE I AM ALSO AN ARCHITECT,
COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME PLEASE FOR THE RECORD? YES.
UM, MY NAME IS EMILY MOORE AND I'VE LIVED ON ALBANS ROAD SINCE 2011.
IT MAY BE COMICAL, BUT I HAVE LIVED IN FIVE HOMES ON THIS BLOCK, 17 37, 17, 18, 17, 11, 17 28.
MY HUSBAND AND I PURCHASED 1714 IN 2021.
THIS WAS A BIG DEAL FOR US BECAUSE THIS IS A STREET DEDICATED TO FAMILIES AND TO NEIGHBORS.
MY COMMITMENT TO THE STREET IS OBVIOUSLY EVIDENT.
UM, I LIVE ACROSS FROM 1711 WHERE
[00:30:01]
THE AL HOUSE PROPERTIES BOUGHT A DUPLEX AND THEN PROCEEDED TO CHOP IT UP.IT, OUR COVENANT SAYS THAT DUPLEXES OR ANY, UM, ANY, ANY STRUCTURE NEEDS TO REMAIN IN THE SAME FORM THAT IT IS AND, AND ALLOW FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF, UM, PROPERTIES.
THESE TWO DUPLEXES WERE CHOPPED UP INTO FOUR PRIVATE BEDROOMS PER PIECE.
WHEN THE DUPLEX WAS CHOPPED UP, THEY ALLOWED PARKING PADS TO BE MADE ALL ALONG THEIR PROPERTY.
BUT LATER, THE AL HOUSE PROPERTY STARTED TO CHARGE STUDENTS EXTRA MONEY TO PARK ON THEIR GROUNDS, AND THEREFORE THE STUDENTS CHOSE TO BUY THE $25 VISITING PARKING PASS THAT YOU CAN USE TO PARK ON OUR STREET.
AND SO NOW WE HAVE ABOUT EIGHT EXTRA CARS LITTERING THE STREET.
I HAVE TWO YOUNG CHILDREN, THEY PLAY IN OUR YARD AND IN OUR STREET, WHICH IS A DEAD END.
JUST WRAP UP QUICKLY, QUICKLY PLEASE.
'CAUSE VIRTUALLY, UM, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTINUE THIS ACTIVITY WITH THE AMOUNT OF CARS COMING IN AND OUT OF THE STREET.
FURTHERMORE, I'D LIKE TO STATE HOW DANGER IT IS.
DANGEROUS IT IS TO PULL INTO ALBANS ROAD WHEN TRAVELING NORTH ON ASHBY.
THE CARS LINE, THE STREET BLOCK, YOUR VIEW IS THE CARS LINING THE STREET BLOCK.
YOUR VIEW OF ANY TRAFFIC APPROACHING THE INTERSECTION, LET ALONE ANY CHILDREN PLAYING A FIVE FOOT SETBACK, IF IT WERE GRANTED, WOULD BE VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE THIS TURN WITHOUT MANY ACCIDENTS AND HOPEFULLY NO TRAGEDIES.
WITH THE ADDED BURDEN BEING ADDED TO OUR SECTION OF SOUTH HAMPTON BY THE ASHBY HIGH RISE, THE AL HOUSE PROPERTIES ON SUNSET, WHICH IS A VERY LARGE APARTMENT BUILDING BEING PLACED ON SUNSET FOR RICE STUDENTS, BECAUSE RICE HAS INCREASED THEIR POPULATION BY 3000 STUDENTS.
UM, I AM ASKING THE COMMITTEE TO PROTECT THE BUILDING STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE PLACE AND THE PROPERTY VALUES THAT WE MAY STILL HAVE LEFT.
ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MS. MOORE.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MR. S MALEEK.
I'M A RESIDENT OF SUNSET BOULEVARD, UH, DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS PROPOSED REPL BY THIS DEVELOPER.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME TODAY.
AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MULTIPLE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA, AND YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM A COUPLE OF US.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE AREA IS A QUITE RESIDENTIAL AREA.
UM, CHRIST UNIVERSITY IS CLOSE BY.
SO THERE ARE LOTS OF STUDENTS NEARBY.
UH, THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPER HAS JUST BUILT A LARGE APARTMENT BLOCK RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
IN FACT, ALMOST DIRECTLY OPPOSITE THIS, UH, PROPOSED REPL.
UM, HE'S CRAMMING A BUNCH OF STUDENTS INTO THESE APARTMENTS AS MUCH AS EIGHT PER, PER, UM, PER UH, ROOM.
AND AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THAT DOES CREATE SOME CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO SAFETY, WITH RESPECT TO NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT'LL BE ON THE ROADS.
AND YOU JUST HEARD THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER TALKING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS THAT RESIDENTS ARE NOW HAVING, FINDING PARKING ON THE STREETS.
UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, UM, THE ASHBY HIGH RISE, LITERALLY THREE BLOCKS AWAY, IS COM COMPOSED OF 174 RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
THAT'S AT LEAST 300 NEW RESIDENTS AND AT LEAST 200 NEW VEHICLES.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE THIS CONCERN ABOUT SAFETY, UM, FOR YOUNG CHILDREN.
THE AREA ALSO HAS A LOT OF ELDERLY RESIDENTS.
AND SO I, I IN PARTICULAR FEEL THAT THE SAFETY ASPECT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL SHOULD PLEASE CONSIDER.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE PROPOSED REPL, AS WE KNOW FROM THIS DEVELOPER, WILL LIKELY RESULT IN SOME VARIANCES THAT HE WILL ASK FOR AT SOME POINT IN TIME.
AND IF THIS PROPOSED RE PLAT IS IN FACT GRANTED, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU MAY HAVE TO DO ANYWAY, WE STRONGLY, UH, WOULD, WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT ANY VARIANCES BE REJECTED, PARTICULARLY VARIANCES AROUND THE, THE SETBACK OF 20 FEET AND THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF 24 FEET, WHICH IS WHAT THE CURRENT DEEDS CURRENTLY STATE.
ANY QUESTIONS? YES, MR. RODRIGUEZ? UM, IF HECTOR RODRIGUEZ WITH THE PLANET DEPARTMENT, UH, WE'RE REQUESTING A SITE PLAN, CAN WE GET A SITE PLAN FOR, FOR RS TO REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT? I'M NOT THE DEVELOPER, BUT CERTAINLY.
THERE IS A, THERE IS A SITE PLAN THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE, I'M SURE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, I, I WOULD SIMPLY SAY, UH, TO STAFF THAT I, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A SITE PLAN BEFORE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THIS.
THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT, HOW IT MIGHT CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.
AND SO I, I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS UP FOR A DEFERRAL AND I WOULD SAY DURING THAT DEFERRAL PERIOD, WE NEED TO GET A SITE PLAN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
UM, BEFORE WE GO ON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COVENANT MS. WOODS? DO
[00:35:01]
YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT? YES.I, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO, 'CAUSE IT KEEPS GETTING MENTIONED AND I KNOW THE COMMISSIONERS PROBABLY HAVE QUESTIONS ON IT.
ORIGINALLY, THERE WERE RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN SOME OF THE FIRST DEEDS OUT IN THESE, UH, IN THIS SUBDIVISION.
THEY EXPIRED BACK IN EARLY 1990S.
UH, THERE WAS A FORMATION OF PETITION COMMITTEE UNDER CHAPTER 2 0 1 TO PLACE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTIES.
THERE ARE MANY CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROCESS THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWED IN PLACING RESTRICTIONS.
THERE ARE, THERE'S A VERY SPECIFIC WAY AND MANNER THAT YOU HAVE TO DO IT.
AND WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT WAS DONE THAT IT WASN'T PROPERLY FOLLOWED.
UM, I CAN GO INTO SPECIFICS IF YOU WANT ME TO.
YOU OR THE DEVELOPER HAS CONCERNS.
WHO ARE YOU SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF? PARDON? PARDON ME.
IF YOU WANNA SPEAK, WILL YOU SIGN UP FOR US? THIS IS OUR LEGAL ADVICE FOR OUR PLANNING COMMISSION.
WHETHER THE DEVELOPER YEAH, THAT'S WHY I ASKED LEGAL TO SPEAK UP.
ONE UP HERE IN THE HORSESHOE REPRESENT IS, IS REPRESENTING ANY APPLICANT.
WE'RE ALL ON THE COMMISSION OR REPRESENTING LEGAL DEPARTMENT OR PUBLIC WORKS.
COMMISSIONER, UH, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN.
SO LIKE, THEY MAY NOT HAVE THE RIGHT REPRESENTATIVES FOR MEET SUBDIVISION OR WHATEVER, LIKE MIGHT CLOSE THE, MAY NOT MEET THE, THE DEFINITION OF A SUBDIVISION MAY NOT HAVE GIVEN NOTICE TO EVERYONE WHO SHOULD HAVE, THEY SHOULD HAVE GIVEN NOTICE TO.
THEY MAY NOT HAVE GOTTEN ENOUGH SIGNATURES IN ORDER TO CREATE THE RESTRICTIONS THERE ARE, WHICH THEN THE CITY WOULD DETERMINE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THEY'RE NOT ENFORCEABLE.
COMMISSIONER MAREZ, HAS THAT DECISION BEEN MADE YET? WHETHER THEY ARE OR NOT? ENFORCEABLE? YES.
THEN WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT THEY, THEY'RE NOT, IT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THIS PROPERTY.
IS THERE A HARDSHIP? UH, SORRY, NO QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT, MS. WOODS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JONAS RISIN.
MR. RISIN DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE HERE.
ARE YOU SIGNED UP? I'M JONAS RISEN.
MY NAME IS JONAS AND I SPOKE, UH, IN FRONT OF YOU TWO WEEKS AGO.
UH, I'M THE THIRD ARCHITECT UP HERE AND I JUST, UM, UH, CAME TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE REPL.
I UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THAT THE COUNCIL IS IN, AND CERTAINLY SOME OF THE NEWS WE HEARD TODAY WAS EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTING.
YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE HAVE BEEN LAWSUITS FILED IN THE PAST AND ALL OF THOSE WERE BASED ON THE CONS ON THE NOTION THAT, UM, THAT THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS WERE APPLICABLE IN, IN, IN THAT CASE.
AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN WORKING AND PURCHASING HOMES ON THE, ON THE, ON THESE PROPERTIES ON THE STREET.
UM, WITH THAT IN MIND, SO I I, YOU KNOW, I LOOK FOR THE PLANNING COUNT, PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF YOU COULD BE OUR ADVOCATES AT SOME LEVEL, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH THIS PROCESS OR OTHER PROCESSES, UH, THROUGH THE, THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT.
UM, YOU KNOW, YOU STAND AND REPRESENT US AS CITIZENS.
AND I, I REALLY APPRECIATE ANYTHING YOU CAN DO, UM, WHETHER IT'S IN THIS MEETING OR FUTURE FUNCTIONS, UM, WHETHER YOU'RE THINKING OF, OF WAYS TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND, AND DO KNOW THAT WE ALL ARE ADVOCATES FOR EVERY CITIZEN OF THE CITY.
THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE VOLUNTEER, UH, OUR TIME AND OUR EXPERTISE AND STAFF THE SAME WAY.
SO, UM, YOU'VE GOT A REPRESENTATIVE FROM PUBLIC WORKS HERE.
YOU'VE GOT A BUNCH OF STAFF FROM PLANNING, YOU'VE GOT LEGAL.
UM, SO WE'RE ALL HEARING YOUR CONCERNS AND AS IF THIS MOVES FORWARD, UM, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS WILL BE LOOKED AT.
BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
OUR LAST SPEAKER SIGNED UP IS STEVEN CRAIG.
WOULD YOU MIND SP STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? UH, I'M STEVEN CRAIG.
I LIVE AT 1736 ALBANS, I APPRECIATE Y'ALL GIVING US A HEARING.
SEVERAL OF MY NEIGHBORS HAVE SPOKEN PRETTY ELOQUENTLY ABOUT THE PROBLEMS. WE UNDERSTAND YOU'RE CONSTRAINED TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
CLEARLY WE'RE A LITTLE DISTRESSED TO HEAR THAT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE BEING ATTACKED AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE TO PUT UP RESOURCES TO TRY TO DEFEND THEM, WE WILL.
'CAUSE WE ALL BOUGHT OUR HOUSES WITH THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS INCLUDED.
[00:40:01]
THE CURRENT PURCHASER, I'M SURE GET THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WHEN HE BOUGHT HIS HOUSE.WE'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SETBACKS.
YOU'VE HEARD THAT THIS DEVELOPER IS NOT GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I ACTUALLY DID AN ANALYSIS JUST TO SHOW THAT OUR PROPERTY VALUES OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS USING HCA DATA HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY FLAT, EVEN THOUGH THE CITY ON AVERAGE HAS RISEN 30%.
AND SO THAT TELLS YOU THAT THIS IS ALL REALLY PERTINENT TO US BECAUSE IT'S OUR FINANCIAL HEALTH.
IT'S BEEN VERY AFFECTED BY THE NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND US.
AND THIS DEVELOPER IS ONE OF THE MAIN, UH, CREATORS OF THOSE NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE OUR FEAR IS COMING FROM.
WE UNDERSTAND YOU'RE CONSTRAINED TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
AND IN THIS TIME WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE LAW BEING FOLLOWED.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE ARE LOOKING TO YOU ALL FOR, FOR HELP, FOR, TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE TO PAY MORE MONEY TO CONTINUE TO PROTECT IT, WE WILL.
BUT IT'S, UH, OF COURSE DISCONCERTING.
AND SO, UH, YOU KNOW, IN PARTICULAR ON THIS PROPERTY, WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE SETBACKS.
SO WE HOPE THAT THE 20 FOOT SETBACK IS FOLLOWED.
YOU KNOW, THE, IT SAYS MULTIFAMILY ON IT.
OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS SAY RESIDENTIAL OR TOWNHOUSES.
AND, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE GOING TO REVISE THE BUILDING THAT'S THERE, THEN IT SHOULD BE IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT.
UH, OR ELSE THE GRANDFATHERING DOESN'T APPLY.
BUT, UH, YOU ALL MIGHT KNOW THE LAW BETTER.
UM, AND SO WE'RE HOPING THAT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS.
AND, UH, WE APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO HELP US.
LIKE I SAID, IT'S VERY, IT'S FINANCIALLY AS WELL AS EMOTIONALLY VERY IMPORTANT FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE, WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING IN TODAY.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? UH, YES.
COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG CAN, UM, STAFF NOT FOR THE SPEAKER, FOR STAFF.
CII FULLY APPRECIATE THAT WE DON'T OPINE ON, UM, USE AND, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE MORE, HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE REQUEST AND THE REASON FOR SETBACK VARIANCE BECAUSE I MEAN THAT IS CHARACTER DRIVEN AND, AND, AND RELATED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, AND WHAT THE REASON, UH, FOR THAT REQUEST, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT, UM, THAN, THAN SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS.
UH, AND I'M STRUGGLING TRYING TO SEE HOW THE, THE SETBACK IS, IS A JUSTIFIED REQUEST.
UM, THIS IS A, A SHALL APPROVE.
THERE'S NO VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED.
THE MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL, UM, RESERVE IS OUTRIGHT, ALLOWS A FIVE FEET BUILDING LINE ALONG, UM, A LOCAL STREET.
SO, SO THERE'S NO, NO VARIANCES? NO, I THINK THEY WERE CONFUSED BECAUSE THEY, THERE'S 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE PER THEIR DEED RESTRICTION.
SO THEY'RE THINKING THAT THE APPLICANT ASKED FOR A BEARING, BUT HE'S NOT.
I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR 'CAUSE I DID HEAR MM-HMM
COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG, I THINK THAT HELPS CLARIFY FOR A LOT OF FOLKS.
COMMISSIONER, CAN WE CLARIFY ABOUT ONE MORE TIME? IF THEY'RE BUILDING A HOUSE, WOULDN'T THERE BE A 10 FOOT BUILD LINE AUTOMATICALLY FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE? JUST ON ANY LOT.
AND THEN A 10 FOOT SITE SET BACK ON A TYPICAL CORNER HOUSE.
ON A TYPICAL YES, BUT, BUT THE EXCEPTION, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, IS FOR MULTIFAMILY GETS AN AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION TO THE FIVE FEET AND FIVE FEET IN THE ORDINANCE.
IT'S, IT'S WHAT THE CODE IS AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S IT'S ACCEPTABLE OUTRIGHT FOR MULTIFAMILY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THAT WAS MS. BANDY.
MY NAME IS VITA BANDY AND THE COMMISSION.
I JUST WANNA MENTION THAT THIS IS THE, DUE TO THE NEW AMENDMENTS, THE MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL IS A NEW CATEGORY THAT WAS INTRODUCED AND THE MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL IS ALLOWED TO HAVE ALONG THE LOCAL STREETS, IT CAN HAVE FOUR UNITS MAXIMUM.
AND ALONG THE MAJOR AFFAIRS THEY CAN HAVE EIGHT UNITS.
IN THIS CASE, THESE ARE BOTH LOCAL STREETS AND THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE MAXIMUM OF FOUR UNITS.
AND THE BUILDING LINES CAN BE FIVE FEET MINIMUM.
SO THAT IS DUE TO THE NEW REQUIREMENTS.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH PROBABLY HAS MAYBE EIGHT UNITS.
WE ARE NOT SURE EXACTLY, HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED US INFORMATION THAT THEIR PLAN IS TO DEMO THE STRUCTURE AND BUILD TWO BUILDINGS IN TOTAL FOUR UNITS.
SO THERE WILL BE ONLY FOUR UNITS IS THE APPLICANT'S, UH, CLAIM.
WE ARE REQUESTING A SITE PLAN PER YOUR REQUEST RIGHT NOW.
SO THAT WILL BE PART OF THE DEFERRAL PERIOD.
BUT THEY COULD HAVE HOW MANY BEDROOMS IN EACH UNIT? THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT ON HOW MANY BEDROOMS
[00:45:01]
CAN IT BE, BUT IT HAS TO BE DWELLING UNITS NO MORE THAN FOUR DWELLING UNITS, WHICH IS SOMETHING THE CODE ENFORCEMENT WILL REVIEW AND CONFIRM WHEN THE NEW, UH, CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ARE SUBMITTED.AND THERE WOULD BE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY IN THE, JUST BY CODE OF THOSE UNITS, CORRECT? YES, CORRECT.
BUT THAT WOULD BE THROUGH CODE ENFORCEMENT.
SO THAT SIR, THAT'S BEYOND, THAT'S BEYOND THIS COMMISSION.
CAN I, I ASK YOU A QUESTION OF LEGAL, UH, SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR, YOUR READING OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE THAT THEY ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE AND, AND YET THIS SEEMS TO BE A BIG SURPRISE TO THE, TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE.
AND I, I GUESS THERE AREN'T A LOT OF ONGOING LAWSUITS THAT HAVE BEEN DECIDED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER TO, YOU KNOW, CONFIRM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I JUST, I THINK MAYBE THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S, UM, OFFICE COULD HELP WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO A SPREAD THE WORD THAT THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT THEY THINK THEY HAVE ARE NOT, MAY, MAY NOT BE ENFORCEABLE.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE UP TO THEM TO DECIDE IF THEY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING TO, YOU KNOW, APPROPRIATELY PROCESS THEM IN THE FUTURE.
AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S ONLY BEEN ONE LAWSUIT REGARDING THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
AND IT WASN'T A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE RESTRICTIONS.
BOTH SIDES CONCEDED THESE RESTRICTIONS AND IT WAS ABOUT A BUILDING, WHETHER IT WAS A PRIMARY BUILDING OR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING AND THERE WAS SOME JUDGMENT, BUT IT, THERE WAS NEVER A CHALLENGE REGARDING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT I'M AWARE OF.
AND OF COURSE THERE IS THE, IT CAN BE BROUGHT BEFORE A COURT TO EITHER DECLARE THAT THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE VALID OR THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE INVALID.
BUT THAT'S SOMETHING EITHER FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS THERE TO DO.
IF, IF, IF YOU HAD LOOKED AT THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND DETERMINED THAT THEY WERE VALID, THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD VIOLATE THEM, WELL, LET ME SAY THIS.
WHAT THEY WANT TO BILL THERE ACCORDING TO THE RESTRICTIONS WOULD NOT BE A VIOLATION IF INDEED THEY WERE WANTED TO BILL TWO DUPLEXES.
ACCORDING TO THE RESTRICTIONS DUPLEXES ARE ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY.
I THINK WHERE THE, UM, WHERE THE, THE, THE PROBLEM IS, IS THE FIVE FOOT BUILDING LINE VERSUS THE 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE.
'CAUSE IN THE RESTRICTIONS THERE'S A 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE AND THE WAY THAT THE DEVELOPER OR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, THEY WANT A FIVE FOOT BUILDING LINE.
AND THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF CONTENTION COMES.
SO OFF TO THE SIDE NOTE, MAYBE YOU COULD, UM, GET WITH SOME OF THE RESIDENTS AFTER WE FINISH AND GIVE THEM SOME INPUT ON MINIMUM SETBACK.
MAYBE THEY COULD, UH, START THAT PROCESS.
UM, THAT MIGHT BE GOOD INFORMATION FOR THEM.
COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG STARTING TO FEEL LIKE I'M BEATING A DEAD HORSE.
BUT, UM, A, A QUESTION IS STATEMENT ONE, THE STATEMENT IS, RESTRICTIONS CAN BE CHANGED AND SO ENCOURAGE THE NEIGHBORS TO, TO DO WHAT YOU CAN DO TO, TO LOOK AFTER YOUR OWN INTERESTS.
UM, THE SECOND IS, I'VE HEARD A COUPLE DIFFERENT THINGS.
IS THIS A MULTI-UNIT PROPERTY OR IS THIS LITERALLY AN AIRBNB SHORT TERM RENTAL? DO WE HAVE A CLEAR DEFINITION? 'CAUSE I THINK THE WAY THINGS ARE EVOLVING AS THIS MULTIFAMILY ORDINANCE HAS CHANGED, YOU COULD LOOK AT IT AS A HOTEL, AS A UNDER AS A SMALL HOTEL.
AND THAT I COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT, UH, AGAIN, SPLITTING HAIRS, BUT AS, AS THINGS EVOLVE AND USES CHANGE AND, AND ALL OF THAT, MAKING SURE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T WRITE DEED RESTRICTIONS WAY BEFORE CONCEPTS ARE EVOLVED.
UM, DO WE HAVE A, A SPECIFIC USE? DO WE KNOW WHAT THE, THE INTENT IS? IS IT SHORT TERM STAY? IS IT APARTMENTS? IS IT SCHOOL HOUSING? DO YOU KNOW? DOESN'T NEED TO TELL US.
SO RIGHT NOW THE PROPERTY IS BEING, THE RESERVE IS RESTRICTED TO MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL.
THAT MEANS THEY CAN HAVE, UH, FOUR UNITS MAXIMUM ON THE STRUCTURE.
NOW CAN THEY DO AIRBNB AND RENT THEM OUT THROUGH AIRBNB IS A SEPARATE QUESTION.
SO THAT'S NOT PART OF WHAT WE REVIEW HERE.
WHAT THEY'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS PLATTING THE RESERVE AS MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL MEANS THAT ONLY FOUR UNITS ARE ALLOWED ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
IF THEY DO ANYTHING MORE THAN THE FOUR DWELLING UNITS, THEN THAT WILL BE A VIOLATION
[00:50:01]
OF THE CODE.I HOPE I ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
SO WE CANNOT GET INTO THE AIRBNB DISCUSSION.
AND ALSO, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'LL BE ABLE TO FIND THAT INFORMATION OTHER THAN FROM THE APPLICANT OR THE DE UH, I WASN'T GETTING INTO THE CODE.
I WAS SAYING WHEN DOES IT BECOME A RESIDENCE AND WHEN DOES IT BECOME A HOTEL? 'CAUSE WE HAVE SPECIFIC ORDINANCES RELATED TO SMALL HOTELS ON CERTAIN LOTS.
AND, AND AGAIN, KIM, FEEL FREE TO TELL ME AND YOU KNOW, SET ME STRAIGHT HERE.
I JUST AS THESE AS USES EVOLVE AND OUR SOCIETY EVOLVES, I THINK SOMETIMES WE HAVE SOME CATCHING UP TO DO AND JUST THINKING OUT LOUD SO TO SPEAK.
SO, SO THE DUPLEXES FOR THE MUR REGULATIONS AREN'T ALLOWED USE, THE DUPLEXES ARE ALLOWED IF THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS WERE FOUND BY A COURT TO BE VALID.
UM, THAT IMPLIES TO ME, SINCE IT'S UNDER THE, THE DEFINITION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THAT THAT'S FOUR RESIDENTIAL FOR FAMILIES.
UM, HOW FAMILY IS DEFINED IS ANOTHER MORASS OF LEGAL FIGHTS, UM, AS OUR SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
AND WE DON'T HAVE SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS.
AS YOU ALL PROBABLY ARE AWARE, THE, UM, THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT IT BECOMES WHAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED A HOTEL WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT AFTER IT'S DEVELOPED.
AND IF I CAN JUST ADD, IF I CAN JUST READ TO YOU, UH, WHAT THIS RESTRICTION SAYS.
ALL LOTS SHALL BE USED FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEX RESIDENCES.
ONLY EXISTING APARTMENT USES MAY BE MAINTAINED AT EXISTING DENSITIES.
EXISTING APARTMENT USES MAY BE RECONSTRUCTED AT EXISTING DENSITIES AS MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES OR TOWNHOUSES.
AND NEW APARTMENTS MAY BE ADDED TO OTHER LOTS AS ACCESSORY USES INSOFAR AS ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING ARE PROVIDED OFF STREET.
UH, THEN WHAT I DIDN'T HEAR IN THERE, WHAT YOU JUST READ OR RECITED IS THAT THERE'S NOT A MINIMUM PERIOD OF TIME WITHIN WHICH A UNIT COULD BE LEASED.
FOR EXAMPLE, ONE YEAR MINIMUM SIX MONTH MINIMUM.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT PARTICULAR, UH, PROVISION IS, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANOTHER PROVISION.
LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND ONE THAT MAY HAVE SOMETHING ABOUT SHORT TERM RENTALS.
BUT REALLY THESE WERE DONE IN THE EARLY NINETIES, SO I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THERE'S ANYTHING THERE.
YEAH, I'M JUST BRINGING THIS UP.
IT'S THE WHOLE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE AIRBNB PROGRAM.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? I'M STILL CONFUSED.
IF THEY CAN GET TWO BUILDINGS OF FOUR OR TWO BUILDINGS OF TWO DUPLEXES, TWO BUILDINGS, THEY WILL HAVE TWO BUILDINGS AND EACH AND EACH BUILDING WILL HAVE TWO UNITS.
SO IN TOTAL THEY CAN ONLY DO FOUR UNITS FOR THE ENTIRE SITE.
IF THEY'RE DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENT, IT CANNOT EVEN BE AN MUR.
AND THIS WHOLE PROJECT THEN DOESN'T MEET CHAPTER 42 AND WE'D HAVE THE DIFFERENT SETBACKS ALTOGETHER.
COMMISSIONER HEINZ AND I DO, I WOULD'VE CALLED ON YOU FIRST IF YOU'D HAVE HELD THAT UP.
UM, AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE HAS HOW MANY UNITS? RIGHT.
UM, WE GOT A MESSAGE FROM SOME OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT THERE IS EIGHT.
UH, I AS STAFF HAS NOT VERIFIED YET, BUT WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THAT INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT.
AND FROM WHAT I, UH, COUNSEL JUST READ, TECHNICALLY THEY COULD REBUILD AT THE SAME DENSITY.
YES, BUT NOT WITH THE FIVE, IF I MAY ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
NOT THE QUESTION FOR LEGAL, BUT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF UNITS PER THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, THEY PROBABLY MAY BUILD EIGHT UNITS, HOWEVER, THEY'RE RESTRICTING THEMSELVES WITH THE TYPE OF RESERVE THEY'RE DOING.
SO THEY ARE PUTTING A RESTRICTION NOW ON THEIR PROPERTY, CALLING IT AN MUR SO THEY CAN BUILD ON THE FOOTPRINT, BUT THEY CANNOT HAVE EIGHT UNITS IF THEY'RE DOING AN MUR BECAUSE MUR AGAIN IS MAXIMUM FOUR UNITS.
IN ORDER TO GET THAT SETBACK, AND AGAIN, NOT TO BE THE DEAD HORSE, BUT EUNICE IS NOT EQUAL BEDROOMS. RIGHT.
SO UNITS IS NOT EQUAL TO BEDROOMS. DWELLING UNIT IS DEFINED IN THE CODE AND IT ALSO HAS SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT, UM, HOW LONG YOU CAN RENT IT.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE SHORT TERM RENTAL MAY NOT BE ALLOWED.
BUT I'M NOT A CODE PERSON, SO I'M NOT GONNA
[00:55:01]
COMMENT, BUT THERE IS CERTAIN LANGUAGE ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE, UM, RENTED PROPERTY.IT AND, AND I PURELY, I'M ASSUMING THIS WILL BE HANDLED DOWN THE ROAD WITH EITHER PERMITTING OR ENFORCEMENT.
BUT IF IT IS LIKE STUDENT HEALTHY AND THEY PUT TWO BEDROOMS PER UNIT, THEY'LL HAVE TO MANAGE WHATEVER PARKING REQUIREMENTS OR, OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THAT'LL HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT AT THAT TIME IF THAT'S WHAT THEY DO.
AND FOR THESE UH, MUR UNITS, THERE IS ONE UNIT, UH, ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT AND THAT'S ONE OTHER CHANGES.
IT'S NOT BASED ON THE BEDROOMS, IT'S BASED ON THE UNIT.
AS LONG AS THE UNIT IS, I THINK THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THOUSAND TO 1500 SQUARE FEET.
SO WE'RE CLEAR AGAIN BY GRANT, BY LETTING DO, LETTING THEM DO THE FIVE FEET, THEY'RE LIMITED TO THESE FOUR UNITS TOTAL.
IF THEY DECIDE NOT TO GO THIS ROUTE AND HAVE 10 FOOT SETBACK AND 10 FOOT SETBACK, THEY COULD GO TO EIGHT UNITS OR 12 UNITS OR THEY COULD HAVE MORE UNITS IF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WERE NOT ENFORCEABLE.
SO IT MIGHT BE TO THEIR ADVANTAGE FOR THEM TO TAKE THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK AND LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNITS THEN TO NOT HAVE THE SETBACKS AND MORE UNITS.
UH, I'M JUST CURIOUS IF, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD DISAGREES WITH YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THEY SUE, ARE THEY, IS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AVAILABLE TO THEM TO STOP THE DEVELOPMENT OR DOES THE SO IT IS, THAT'S THEIR, LIKE THAT'S THEIR, AND THEY HAVE, UM, I HAVE TALKED TO AN ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTS, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR JUST SOME NEIGHBORS.
THEY WOULD, HE SHOULD BE AWARE OF THEIR OPTIONS THERE.
AND JUST ON THE OFF CHANCE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD GOT LUCKY, THE LITIGATION THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE PAST WERE BOTH SIDES STIPULATED, THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE RESTRICTIONS MM-HMM
THIS DEVELOPER WAS NOT ONE OF THOSE PARTIES TO THAT LAWSUIT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND LET ME JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A COURT WHO DECIDES ABOUT THE VALIDITY OR THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS, THAT'S OF COURSE WHAT WE WOULD, WE'LL LISTEN.
COMMISSIONERS, ANYONE, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WHILE BEFORE I GO TO THE NEXT SPEAKER? OKAY, THE LAST SPEAKER I HAVE SIGNED TO SPEAK IS JANET.
COLE HAS GOOD AFTERNOON AND, UM, YOU'RE A, A REPEAT SPEAKER SO YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE.
UH, THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I'VE ADDRESSED, UH, YOU ALL AND I'M VERY WELCOME TO BE HERE.
BUT I STILL FEEL THAT THE 20 FOOT SETBACK IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD DEED RESTRICTION AND SHOULD BE HONORED WHEN WE GET TOO HIGH DENSITY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE GET SUCH CROWDING FOR TRAFFIC, UM, ONE PARKING UNIT PER UNIT.
IF WE HAVE SIX BEDROOMS PER UNIT, WHICH THIS DEVELOPER HAS DONE IS GONNA CAUSE IMMENSE TRUCK, UH, TRAFFIC PROBLEMS FOR PARKING.
HAVING A FIVE FOOT SETBACK WHEN YOU COME TO THE CORNER, VERY HARD TO SEE AROUND THE CORNER.
AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE ANALYSIS THAT THE PREVIOUS UH, PERSON TALKED ABOUT, ABOUT THE LOSING 30% VALUE, THAT TRANSLATES INTO $200,000 PER HOUSE.
SO WE ASK YOUR, UH, YOUR, YOUR COGNIZANCE FOR OUR, OUR PLIGHT.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN SPECIAL MINIMUM BUILD LINE IS YOUR FRIEND THAT, THAT YOU REALLY NEED TO MAKE AN APPLICATION QUICKLY FOR SPECIAL MINIMUM BUILD LINE, WHICH WOULD SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM.
NO, THAT'S THE ORDINANCE, RIGHT? THAT'S THE ORDINANCE, NOT THE DEED RESTRICTION.
RIGHT? IF YOUR DEED RESTRICTIONS, IT'S EASIER, IT'S EASIER TO PUT IN PLACE THAN TRY TO GET THE RESTRICTIONS.
IT'S 10% OF YOU TO START THE PROCESS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? NO.
THIS TIME OR THE PREVIOUS TIME? SO I'M GONNA MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, MS. FLM, THAT YOU LET THE APPLICANT KNOW IT WOULD BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S OFFICE AND BE A PART OF THE CONVERSATION OVER THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.
AND IT MIGHT EVEN BE A GOOD IDEA FOR HIM TO SHOW UP AT THE MEETING.
OKAY? I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY, HEARING NONE.
AND WAIT A MINUTE, I, I NEED A MOTION TO DEFER AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE APPRECIATE YOU GUYS COMING DOWN TODAY.
ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO 1 0 3.
[01:00:01]
THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH AT THE NORTHEASTERN INTERSECTION OF WEST DREW AND WHITNEY STREETS AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS.THE REASON FOR REPLAY IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS PLAT.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 1 0 3 IS OPEN.
I HAVE, UH, MASANI DENMAN, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD BECAUSE I PROBABLY MESSED IT UP.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY.
I'M A HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHER OF 22 YEARS AND I BOUGHT MY HOUSE IN 2009 AND I'M VERY FORTUNATE TO OWN THIS 99-YEAR-OLD THREE STORY HISTORIC HOME ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT TO FOUR 11 WEST DREW, RIGHT WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING THE HOUSES.
THIS PROPERTY IS A COUPLE OF BLOCKS AWAY FROM FREEDMAN'S TOWN, THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, ALSO KNOWN AS FOURTH WARD, THE FIRST NEIGHBORHOOD THAT FREED BLACKS WERE ALLOWED TO LIVE, AND I OWN THERE.
UM, AND I'M A TEACHER, SO I'M REALLY GRATEFUL TO HAVE THIS HOUSE OVER TWO, UM, SO MANY YEARS.
WHEN I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, IT WAS EASIER TO THINK ABOUT TEARING IT DOWN, BUT I LOVED THE BONES OF THE HOUSE AND DECIDED TO LIVE IN THE HOUSE IN THE CONDITION IT WAS IN FOR OVER A DECADE UNTIL I HAD ENOUGH MONEY TO RENOVATE IT.
IT TOOK A LOT OF SUMMER SCHOOL MONEY TO FINALLY RESTORE THE HOUSE TO ITS REAL STATE, AND NOW THE INTERIOR OF THE HOME BOAST A BEAUTIFUL TROPICAL SPANISH COLONIAL THEME, AND THE EXTERIOR HAS, UM, BEEN MADE BEAUTIFUL AS WELL.
I AM HERE TODAY TO SAY THAT I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS DEVELOPER WHO HAS BEEN SPECULATING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAY BEFORE I BOUGHT MY HISTORIC HOME IN 2009.
IN FACT, WHEN I BOUGHT IT, HE ASKED ME IF I WANTED TO SELL IT BECAUSE IT WAS DISTRESSED.
IT WAS DISTRESSED, BUT I DIDN'T WANNA SELL IT.
HE'S BEEN USING THE PROPERTY HE'S BEEN USING.
FOUR 11 WEST DREW HIS PROPERTY, UM, AS A HOTEL VIA AIRBNB AND OTHER, AND USING OTHER SITES, NOT JUST AIRBNB, AND VIOLATING CITY AUDIENCES MULTIPLE TIMES.
AND I HAVE THE EVIDENCE OF THIS, THEY'RE POSTING SIGNS ON THE, ON THE DOOR ALL THE TIME.
IN ADDITION, THE DEVELOPER HAS MOVED MY FENCE TO ACQUIRE MORE LAND.
THIS HAPPENED ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.
MY PORCH WAS CUT BY THE DEVELOPER IN ORDER TO PUSH THE FENCE OVER DECREASING MY PROPERTY.
HIS JUSTIFICATION IS THAT HE HAS TWO SURVEYS SHOWING MY FENCES ON HIS PROPERTY, BUT IN REALITY, I'VE SEEN, UM, TWO SURVEY COMPANIES COME OUT TO, TO THE HOUSE AND TAKE MEASUREMENTS.
BUT WHEN I BOUGHT MY HISTORIC HOME IN 2009, I ALSO ACQUIRED MY SURVEY SHOWING MY BOUNDARY LINES.
MAY I CONTINUE A LITTLE MORE FOR JUST A SECOND? JUST A SECOND.
THE DEVELOPER ALSO WANTS TO VIOLATE A UTILITY EASEMENT THAT I HAVE ON THIS, THAT I HAVE ON HIS PROPERTY.
MY GAS AND WATER LINE WERE CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT I WOULD HAVE TO WALK ON HIS PROPERTY, UM, TO ACCESS THAT.
THIS CONSTRUCTION WAS GRANDFATHERED IN WHEN I PURCHASED THE HOUSE.
HE HAS OFFERED ME MONEY, HOWEVER, I I DO NOT AGREE TO TAKE ANY MONEY TO, UM, TO, UM, ERASE THAT EASEMENT.
UM, I HAVE MORE TO SAY, BUT MY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT, UM, HISTORY IS BEING TO TORN DOWN WITH THESE BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC HOMES, UM, IN THE MONTROSE AREA THAT'S SO VERY CLOSE TO FREEDMAN TOWN, AND I'M SO GRATEFUL TO BE AN AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMAN WHO OWNS ONE OF THOSE, UM, HOMES.
I I'M NOT IN FREEDMAN TOWN, BUT I'M RIGHT OUTSIDE OF IT.
I I WENT THROUGH A LOSS OF A CHILD, LOSS OF A HUSBAND.
I AM STILL THERE AND I'M STILL WORKING AS A TEACHER 22 YEARS.
IT IS A MULTIPLE, IT IS A MULTI-FAMILY HOME AND I DO SOMETIMES HAVE, UH, TENANTS RENTING, BUT I KEEP MY PRICES VERY LOW AND THEY HELP ME.
IT'S, IT'S KIND OF A COMMUNITY HOUSE.
AND SO I WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE THAT 100-YEAR-OLD HOUSE NEXT TO ME TORN DOWN, AND I WOULD NOT LIKE TO, UM, BE OFFERED ANY MONEY, UM, TO GET RID OF THAT EASEMENT.
I WANT THAT HOUSE TO STAY THERE.
UM, I WANNA DEDICATE THAT HOUSE TO, UM, TO QUEEN MARY.
AND, UM, I WANT THAT HOUSE TO BE HERE LONG AFTER I, I'M GONE.
WE APPRECIATE YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS YOU WANNA PUT ON THE RECORD.
YOU CAN GET WITH MS. FLM AND ADD THOSE.
I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 0 3.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED TO HAVE A MOTION.
MOTION GARZA TO HAVE A SECOND.
[01:05:02]
MOTION CARRIES.ITEM 1 0 4, ITEM 1 0 4 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
[d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests (Petra Hsia, John Cedillo, Tammi Williamson, and Aracely Rodriguez)]
ON TO VARIANCES LETTER D.MADAM CHAIR, I'M GOING TO, UH, RECUSE MYSELF FROM 1 0 5, 1 0 6 AND 1 0 7 AND THAT AS WELL AS 7, 8, 9, 10.
I BELIEVES WE WERE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 1 0 5 IS BRIDGELAND CREEK LAND VILLAGE GP.
STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ITEM SIX, BRIDGELAND CREEK BEND VIEW, CROSSING STREET, DEDICATION, ITEM SEVEN, BRIDGELAND CREEK, LAND VILLAGE, SECTION 14, ITEM EIGHT, BRIDGELAND CREEK, LAND VILLAGE, SECTION 16, ITEM NINE, BRIDGELAND CREEK, LAND VILLAGE, SECTION 19 AND ITEM 11, BRIDGELAND STAR GAZING TRAIL STREET DEDICATION, SECTION ONE TOGETHER AS THEY ARE RELATED.
UM, THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HOUSTON ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY WEST OF GRAND PARKWAY AND NORTH OF NORTH BRIDGELAND LAKE PARKWAY.
BRIDGELAND CREEK LAND VILLAGE GP PROPOSES A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND IS REQUESTING SIX VARIANCES.
THE FIRST VARIANCE IS TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BETWEEN THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE GP AND JACK ROAD.
THE SECOND VARIANCE IS TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BETWEEN JACK ROAD AND THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE GP.
THE THIRD VARIANCE IS TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE GP BETWEEN BECKER ROAD AND PEAK ROAD.
FOURTH VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG JACK ROAD BETWEEN BECKER ROAD AND PINK ROAD.
UM, THE FIFTH VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG JACK ROAD BETWEEN STARGAZING TRAIL AND PEAK ROAD.
AND THIS SIXTH VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW THE STEPS STREET OF HOUSE ROAD A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO EXTEND AS A PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTS.
THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY AND JACK ROAD ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE GP IS ABOUT 3,750 FEET.
AND THE DISTANCE BETWEEN JACK ROAD AND THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE GP IS ABOUT 4,100 FEET.
STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES AT LEAST FOUR ADDITIONAL EAST WEST PUBLIC STREETS TO ADDRESS THE MINIMUM 1400 FOOT INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENT.
HOWEVER, PROVIDING THESE PUBLIC STREETS WOULD BE INFEASIBLE AS THERE IS AN EXISTING CENTER POINT TRANSMISSION EASEMENT AND PIPELINE EASEMENT CONTAINING HIGH CAPACITY TRANSMISSION LINES.
IN ADDITION, DUE TO THE LOCATION OF CYPRESS CREEK, A LARGE AMOUNT OF DETENTION AND FLOOD MITIGATION AREAS ARE BEING PROPOSED ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE GP PREVENTING FURTHER STREET CONNECTIONS.
THE INTERSECTION SPACING BETWEEN STARGAZING TRAIL AND PEAK ROAD ALONG JACK ROAD, A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE MEASURES APPROXIMATELY 2,910 FEET, WHICH IS A 12% DEVIATION FROM THE REQUIRED 2,600 FEET.
DUE TO THE LOCATION OF CYPRESS CREEK, A LARGE AMOUNT OF DETENTION AND FLOOD MEDICATION AREAS ARE BEING PROPOSED WITHIN THIS AREA.
THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF STARGAZING TRAIL WOULD PROVIDE SUFFICIENT CIRCULATION WITHIN THIS AREA.
THE GP IS PROPOSING A GATED COMMUNITY LOCATED ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF BLAND CREEK LAND ENCOMPASSED IN BLUE.
DUE TO THE COMMUNITY BEING A GATED COMMUNITY, THE GP IS EXCEEDING INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUND OF THE, OF THE GP BETWEEN BECKER ROAD AND PEAK ROAD, AND ALSO ALONG JACK ROAD BETWEEN BECKER ROAD AND PEAK ROAD.
AS THE PROPOSED STREETS ARE PRIVATE, THE GATED COMMUNITY WILL HAVE THREE POINTS OF ACCESS FROM HOUSE ROAD, PEAK ROAD AND JACK ROAD, AND THESE ENTRANCES WILL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT ACCESS TO THE COMMUNITY.
IN ADDITION, THERE IS AN EXISTING CENTER POINT TRANSMISSION EASEMENT THAT RUNS FOR THE NORTH IN A SOUTHWEST SOUTHEAST DIRECTION ACROSS THE GP, ALONG WITH THE NUMBER OF PROPOSED DETENTION AND FLOOD MITIGATION DUE TO LO LOCATION OF CYPRESS CREEK, HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS NO NO OBJECTIONS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE GP SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
IN ADDITION, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER ITEM SIX, BRIDGELAND CREEK, CREEK BEND VIEW, CROSSING STREET, DEDICATION, AND APPROVE ITEMS SEVEN THROUGH NINE AND 11, WHICH INCLUDES BRIDGELAND CREEK LAND VILLAGE, SECTION 14 16 19, AND BRIDGELAND STARGAZING TRAIL STREET DEDICATION.
SECTION ONE, SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THESE VARIOUS ITEMS? OKAY, SO TO RESTATE, YOU ARE REQUESTING, WE'RE RECOMMENDING A DEFERRAL FOR ITEM SIX, APPROVAL OF SEVEN THROUGH NINE AND 11, AND ITEMS 1 0 5 1 0 6
[01:10:01]
GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT.AND ITEM 1 0 7 APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED.
SO ARE WE DOING 1 0 1 0 5 WITH JUST 1 0 5 WITH WITH THE OTHERS? OKAY.
YEAH, WITH SIX, SEVEN THROUGH NINE AND 11.
SO ITEM 1 0 5, WHICH IS GRANT, THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT DEFER ITEM SIX AND APPROVE ITEM SEVEN THROUGH NINE AND 11.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION FOR SECOND? SECOND MODEST.
WILL YEAH, PLEASE NOTE, UH, THAT COMMISSIONER COVAR IS LEAVING THE MEETING.
ITEM 1 0 6 AND 1 0 7 ARE PRAIRIE, UH, BRIDGELAND PRAIRIELAND VILLAGE, GPN SECTION 46.
IF STAFF LET US TAKE IT TOGETHER.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A 3,900 ACRE GENERAL PLAN LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WEST ALONG GRAND, UH, 99 GRAND HIGH PARKWAY WITHIN A GRID OF MULTIPLE MAJOR THOROUGHFARES ALL WITHIN THE 100 AND 500 YEAR FLOODPLAINS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES WITH THE FIRST VARIANCE BEING IN MULTIPLE PARTS, WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT SECTION 46 SHOWN IN YELLOW VARIANCE.
ONE TO ALLOW, UH, EXCESSIVE INTERSECTION SPACING, UH, EXCEEDING 1400 FEET ALONG PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND DETENTION BY ALLOWING FIRST APPROXIMATELY 2,500 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERN RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF BRIDGELAND CREEK PARKWAY BETWEEN MIGRATION WAY AND POLLINATORS DRIVE SECOND APPROXIMATELY TO ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 2,170 FEET BETWEEN BRIDGELAND CREEK PARKWAY AND NATURE PRESERVED WAY THIRD APPROXIMATELY 1,520 FEET BETWEEN NATURE PRESERVE WAY AND TUCKERTON ROAD, AND FOURTH APPROXIMATELY 1600 FEET BETWEEN TUCKERTON ROAD AND THE SOUTHERN MOST UNNAMED COLLECTOR ROAD.
THE SECOND VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW EXCESSIVE INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG A, UH, 270 FOOT WIDE COMMISSION, UH, CENTER POINT TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR AND PIPELINE EASEMENT.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THESE REQUESTED VARIANCES THROUGH THE REQUEST TO EXCEED 2,500 ALONG BRIDGELAND CREEK PARKWAY IS NOT NECESSARY AS A RIGHT OF WAY IS IN MA FER AND INTERSECTION SPACING IS 2,600, UH, FOR THE ALLOWANCE.
SO THAT OF THE VARIANCE IS NO LONGER NEEDED.
THE FIRST VARIANCE AFTER THAT IS BEING REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE INTENDED DRAINAGE AND DETENTION.
SIMILAR VARIANCES HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BRIDGE CREEK PARKWAY AS THE GENERAL PLAN PROVIDES A LARGE COLLECTOR LOOP SHOWN IN GREEN, WHICH EFFICIENTLY CONNECTS THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.
THE GENERAL PLAN IS LOCATED WITHIN THE 105 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAINS, AND GRANTED THE VARIANCES WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO CREATE MORE FUNCTIONAL DETENTION AND DRAINAGE.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS ALSO DIVIDED BY A 270 FOOT WIDE TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR AND PIPELINE EASEMENT REPRESENTING AN EXISTING BOUNDARY THAT LIMITS THE RIGHT OF WAY NETWORK.
HOWEVER, THE GENERAL PLAN ITSELF IS LOCATED IN A FAIRLY DENSE GRID OF MAJOR THOROUGHFARES SHOWN IN RED, AND GRANTING THE VARIANCES WOULD NOT PLACE UNDUE BURDEN ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY NETWORK.
AS A COMBINATION OF THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND THE COLLECTOR LOOP PROVIDES SUFFICIENT CONNECTIVITY.
HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST OF VARIANCES.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO CCP C 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE NEW ONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLA ON ITEMS 1 0 6 AND 1 0 7 TO HAVE A MOTION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ITEMS 1 0 8 THROUGH ONE 15 TOGETHER AS THEY'RE RELATED.
ITEMS 1 0 8 THROUGH ONE 15 ARE EAST BLOCK SECTIONS ONE THROUGH SECTION EIGHT.
THE SITES ARE LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS IN EAST DOWNTOWN BETWEEN WALKER STREET AND POLK STREET AND BETWEEN SAINT EMANUEL STREET AND NAGEL STREET.
ALL EIGHT SITES ARE PART OF A PROJECT SCOPE BY THE ONE DEVELOPER.
THE PLAT APPLICATIONS ARE PROPOSING UNRESTRICTED RESERVES AND ARE ALL REQUESTING ZERO FOOT DUAL BUILDING LINES AND THE ONES LOCATED AT INTERSECTIONS, NO VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
STAFF RECOMMENDS TO DEFER ALL EIGHT APPLICATIONS PER APPLICANT'S REQUEST BECAUSE THERE WILL ONLY BE ONE DEFERRAL PERIOD.
STAFF WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A BRIEF ISH PRESENTATION.
THE OVERALL PROJECT SCOPE IS A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING AND REVITALIZING EXISTING WAREHOUSE STRUCTURES FROM THE 1940S THAT PREDATE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS RIGHTS OF WAY PLACING THE STRUCTURES ON THE ESTABLISHED PROPERTY LINES.
ITEM 1 0 8 EAST BLOCK SECTION ONE
[01:15:01]
IS PROPOSING TO RENOVATE THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE STRUCTURE WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE FENESTRATIONS AND PROPOSES NEW INTERNAL STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO SUPPORT TWO, TWO ADDITIONAL STORIES AT A ZERO FOOT BUILDING.LINE ITEM 1 0 9 EAST BLOCK SECTION TWO IS PROPOSING A NEW BUILDING AT A ZERO FOOT BUILDING LINE ON ALL THREE STREETS AND NO VISIBILITY TRIANGLES TO BE PLACED IN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT IS NOT STRUCTURALLY SOUND ENOUGH TO REMAIN.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR USES ON ALL STREET FRONTAGES AND A SIX LEVEL PARKING GARAGE SETBACK FIVE AND A HALF FEET FROM MCKINNEY WITH A SINGULAR CURB CUT ITEM 1 0 1 10 EAST BLOCK SECTION THREE IS PROPOSING TO RENOVATE THE EXISTING WESTERN STRUCTURE AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EASTERN STRUCTURE WITH A NEW TWO STORY LEASE SPACE STRUCTURE STRADDLING THE TWO, CREATING AN OUTDOOR PEDESTRIAN SPACE BETWEEN THE STRUCTURES ARE AT A ZERO FOOT BUILDING LINE AND NO VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
ITEM ONE 11 EAST BLOCK SECTION FOUR IS PROPOSING TO RENOVATE THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH MODIFICATIONS TO THE FENESTRATIONS LOCATED AT A ZERO FOOT BUILDING LINE AND NO VISIBILITY TRIANGLES EXISTING HEAD END PARKING AREAS WILL BE REPLACED WITH REDEVELOPED PEDESTRIAN REALM AREAS OF SIDEWALKS AND LANDSCAPING.
ITEM ONE 12 EAST BLOCKS SECTION FIVE IS PROPOSING TO RENOVATE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR NEW FENESTRATIONS AT A ZERO FOOT BUILDING LINE AND NO VISIBILITY TRIANGLES LIKE SECTION FOUR.
THE EXISTING HEAD END PARKING ALONG HUTCHINS WILL BE REPLACED WITH REDEVELOPED PEDESTRIAN REALM AREAS OF SIDEWALKS AND LANDSCAPING.
ITEM ONE 13 EAST BLOCK SECTION SIX IS PROPOSING TO RENOVATE THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE STRUCTURE FOR NEW FENESTRATIONS AT A ZERO FOOT BUILDING.
LINE ITEM ONE 14 EAST BLOCK SECTION SEVEN IS PROPOSING TO RENOVATE AN EXISTING MULTI-STORY OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING FOR A MULTI-TENANT MIXED USE CENTER, LOCATED A ZERO FOOT BUILDING LINE WITH SOME EXISTING ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY AND NO VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.
ITEM ONE 15 EAST BLOCK SECTION EIGHT IS PROPOSING TO RENOVATE AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE STRUCTURE FOR NEW FENESTRATIONS AT A ZERO FOOT BUILDING LINE AND NO VISIBILITY TRIANGLES WITH REDEVELOPED PEDESTRIAN REALM AREAS.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM EAST DOWNTOWN TERRA 15 AND STATE REP REPRESENTATIVE YOLANDA JONES, DISTRICT 1 47 STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE EIGHT PLAT APPLICATIONS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED LETTERS, UM, OF OPPOSITION FROM EAST, NO WAIT HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE, INCLUDING CONCERNS FOR SAFE VISIBILITY AT INTERSECTIONS AND OBSCURING EXISTING RESIDENCE FEUDS.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
MY NAME IS TOM MURPHY AND I'M A HOMEOWNER AS WELL AS PRESIDENT OF THE LAMAR LIVE OAK CREST HOMEOWNERS OF ASSOCIATION.
OUR COMMUNITY IS SITUATED BETWEEN SECTION SEVEN AND EIGHT OF EAST BLOCKS PROJECT.
I'M HERE TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS REGARDING THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION, I'D LIKE TO CALL PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE SAFETY OF SOME INTERSECTION CROSSINGS FOR BOTH VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS.
THE INTERSECTIONS ON LIVE OAK STREET WITH BOTH MCKINNEY STREET AND DALLAS STREET ARE MY SPECIFIC CONCERNS.
THESE VARIANCE REQUESTS TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHED BUILDINGS TO BE REDEVELOPED WHILE MAINTAINING CURRENT ZERO FOOT BUILDING LINES ON THE EASEMENTS WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION POSE POTENTIAL RISKS.
WHILE I'M EXCITED AND APPRECIATE THE DESIGN PHILOSOPHY AND REPURPOSING THAT THIS PROJECT DEMONSTRATES, I BELIEVE THE ANTICIPATED INCREASE IN TRAFFIC COULD WORSEN EXISTING SAFETY ISSUES AT THOSE INTERSECTIONS.
THE CURRENT SIGHTLINES ARE INADEQUATE, OFTEN DANGEROUSLY REQUIRING PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLES TO NOSE OUT INTO TRAFFIC LANES TO ASSESS ONCOMING TRAFFIC, WHICH WILL ONLY BECOME MORE DANGEROUS WITH INCREASED TRAFFIC.
THIS DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO BRING TO THE AREA.
THOUGH I'M NOT A DEVELOPER OR CITY PLANNER, I RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES.
THE EAST DOWNTOWN DEVELOP DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TURNS 15, HAS PREVIOUSLY COLLABORATED WITH THE CITY AND DEVELOPERS TO ENHANCE WALKABILITY IN OUR AREA.
AS EVIDENCED BY THEIR WORK ON LAMAR STREET, I SUGGEST THAT THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY WORK TOGETHER WITH THE INVOLVEMENT OFTS 15 TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF THESE INTERSECTIONS AND MITIGATE THE ADDITIONAL RISKS POSED TO THE PUBLIC AT A MINIMUM.
SHOULD THE VARIANCE REQUEST BE APPROVED.
I URGE THE CITY TO CONSIDER IMPLEMENTING SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO VEHICLE STREET PARKING NEAR THESE INTERSECTIONS TO IMPROVE SIGHT LINES AND ENSURE THE SAFETY OF BOTH DRIVERS AND PEDESTRIANS.
ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR COMING IN TODAY.
I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO
[01:20:01]
SPEAK? OKAY, HEARING NONE.WE HAVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER ITEM ITEMS 1 0 8 3 1 15.
COMMISSIONER MARTI, ANY QUESTION FOR STAFF? UM, I MEAN, I KNOW THAT THEY'RE EXISTING STRUCTURES, BUT YOU KNOW THAT NO VISIBILITY TRIANGLE'S A LITTLE CONCERNING.
LIKE ARE THERE ANY CREATIVE SOLUTIONS LIKE GLASS OR WHATEVER BEING LOOKED AT, CONSIDERED OR DISCUSSED IN ANY WAY? MOST BUILDINGS HAVE STRUCTURES ON THE CORNER LIKE THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS, SO IT WOULD BE MORE DIFFICULT TO CUT A CORNERBACK OR MAKE IT TRANSPARENT, YOU KNOW, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
IT IT IS AN 80 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY AND SO MOST OF THE PEDESTRIAN DISTANCES, UM, ARE AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, 13 TO 20 WHATEVER FEET.
UM, SO IT, THERE IS UM, SOME, BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER AT THE INTERSECTIONS.
COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG, I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD DRIVING THROUGH THAT AREA A LOT.
MOST OF THE TIME YOU'RE NOS AND OUT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE PAST THE CARS IN THE HEAD END PARKING LOT.
I MEAN, THE HEAD END PARKING SPOTS THAT OBSTRUCTION WILL BE REMOVED.
UM, I THINK A, A HOLISTIC APPROACH SHOULD BE LOOKED AT THIS LOOKING AT MR. SMITH RIGHT HERE THAT, UM, IT'S NOT THAT MANY CORNERS THAT CAN'T BE ANALYZED AND LOOKED AT INDIVIDUALLY, UM, BUT I WOULD STRONGLY S UM, SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION PERSONALLY.
I THINK IT'D BE AN AMAZING, UM, IMPROVEMENT FOR THE AREA.
UM, AND SO, UH, I, I, UM, ENCOURAGE YOU TO, TO LOOK AT THAT THROUGH THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS IN THE DEFERRAL.
SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF ITEMS 1 0 8 THROUGH ONE 15 TO DEFER PER APPLICANT REQUEST.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM ONE 16 IN HARRIS COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT NUMBER SEVEN.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY, SOUTH OF SPRING ROAD, EAST OF LEXINGTON ROAD AND NOR OF EAST LUTA ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE RESERVE FOR A FIREFIGHTING TRAINING CENTER AND IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES TO EXIT INTERSECTION BASED IN, BUT NOT PROVIDING NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST WEST PUBLIC STREET AND TO NOT EXTEND NOR TERMINATE BRENT ROAD AND GREENFIELD ROAD INTO A CUL-DE-SAC.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLA PER THE APPLICANT REQUEST TO CONTINUE COORDINATING WITH HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION FOR DEFERRAL.
DO I HAVE A MOTION ALLMAN ALL MOTION ALLMAN SECOND GARZA.
ITEM ONE 17, ITEM ONE 17 ICAH M TOWER.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMIT AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF MONROE BOULEVARD AND WEST CLAY STREET START OF WITH ISLAND PARKWAY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A NINE FOOT BORDERLINE ALONG MOUNT WOODS BOULEVARD INSTEAD OF 25 AND TO ALLOW A FIVE FEET BUILDER LINE INSTEAD OF 10 ALONG WEST CLAY STREET.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLOT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ARTICULATE A HARDSHIP AND TO COORDINATE WITH THE MONROE ON THE IMPROVEMENT ON MONROE BOULEVARD.
AND STAFF DID NOT, UM, STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
HELLO, MY NAME IS KAREN GORDON.
UH, COLUMBUS STREET IS JUST TWO BLOCKS LONG AND IT RUNS NORTH AND SOUTH, UH, BETWEEN MONTRA, WELL, IT'S A REALLY BUSY INTERSECTION WHERE YOU HAVE WEST DALLAS AND MONTROSE AND IT'S BECOME A VERY POPULAR CUT THROUGH FOR ANGRY PEOPLE IN A HURRY.
UM, THE STREET IS SO CRAZY THAT BLOOMBERG NEWS USED IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF PLANNING ISSUES IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
[01:25:01]
SCHOOL IS THERE.UH, WE HAVE TREMENDOUS TRAFFIC FROM PICKUP AND DELIVER, UH, AND DROP OFF.
WE HAVE A 400 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT WENT UP TO ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME AND THE ONLY ENTRANCE AND EXIT FACES MY SIDE OF THE STREET.
UH, MOST DAYS IT'S REALLY HARD TO GET OUTTA THE DRIVEWAY.
UM, AND THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
THERE ARE PROBLEMS THAT ARE ESCALATING.
UH, PEOPLE WILL DRIVE 50 MILES AN HOUR DOWN THAT STREET, SO I'M NOT HERE TO OPPOSE IT.
BY THE WAY, THE DEVELOPMENT IS 20 STORIES.
IT'S A 20 STORY TOWER AND THAT AREA RIGHT NOW IS SO DEVELOPED AND ACTUALLY I LIKE IT.
I THINK IT'S INTERESTING AND VIBRANT, SO I'M NOT HERE TO OPPOSE IT.
BUT FOR FIVE YEARS WE'VE TRIED TO GET SOME HELP WITH SPEED MITIGATION ON THAT STREET AND WE'VE WORKED WITH, UH, COUNCILMEN'S CAYMAN'S OFFICE.
WE'VE SUBMITTED, UH, PETITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SIGNED.
WE'VE BEEN PROMISED THAT IT WOULD BE EVALUATED, BUT NOTHING EVER HAPPENS.
SO I'M HERE TO ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SOME HELP.
AND WHAT WE'D REALLY LIKE IS SPEED CUSHIONS ON THOSE TWO BLOCKS.
THAT'S REALLY ALL THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
UM, AND TO DO MAYBE LOOK AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT, IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO CROSS THE STREET IN EITHER A VEHICLE OR ON FOOT, UH, DURING RUSH HOUR.
UM, SO THAT'S ALL I I CAME TO SAY IS TO SAY THAT.
YEAH, IT'S VERY DEVELOPED, BUT WE'D LIKE SOME HELP WITH UH, INFRASTRUCTURE, SO THANK YOU.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER BLA QUESTION FOR STAFF.
UM, WOULD THE RESISTANCE TO GETTING SPEED CUSHIONS ON THAT STREET BE STREET DESIGNATION? IS IT, DOES IT NEED TO BE RECLASSED? YOU CAN'T JUST DO ONE LITTLE BIT AT A TIME.
I MEAN, WELL LET'S ANSWER THAT SINCE THAT QUESTION WAS SPOKEN OUT LOUD.
UM, MR. SMITH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ANSWER THAT? IT COULD BE MULTIPLE THINGS.
UM, SPEED CUSHIONS ARE, AGAIN, IT COULD BE THE, AS YOU SAID, THE DESIGNATION OF THE STREET.
UM, WE DO NOT PUT SPEED CUSHIONS ON MAJOR THROW FARES, THINGS LIKE THAT COULD BE THE VOLUME ON THE STREET.
USUALLY SPEED CUSHIONS ARE RESERVED FOR STREETS WITH A VOLUME OF 5,000 CARS OR LESS.
UM, I WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK TO SEE IF THEY'RE, WHAT THE SPECIFICS ARE AS TO WHY WE, WE ALSO LOOK AT A LARGER AREA, BUT WHAT THE CHANGE IN THE SPEED, UH, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ORDINANCES JUST RECENTLY THAT IF IT DOESN'T MEET ANY OF THOSE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OR DOESN'T FAIL TO MEET THOSE OTHER REQUIREMENTS, THEN IT COULD BE THAT WE WOULD THEN LOOK AT IT.
BUT SO IT JUST GONNA HAVE TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AND COME BACK TO YOU WITH THAT.
MAYBE YOU COULD DO THAT AND UM, HAVE ONE OF YOUR PEOPLE GET IN TOUCH WITH MS. GORDON AND MAYBE TALK THROUGH IT WITH HER SO THAT SHE UNDERSTANDS AND IF THERE'S STEPS THAT SHE COULD TAKE MAYBE THAT COULD HELP HER, WE'D APPRECIATE THAT.
UH, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, YOU HAD A QUESTION? WELL, JUST SO I'M CLEAR, WE APPROVED THIS A COUPLE YEARS AGO AT THE 22 STORIES RIGHT.
AND NOW THEY'RE GOING DOWN TO 18.
18 AND 45 AND ONE FOOT DIFFERENCE.
WE GAVE THEM A 10 FOOT SETBACK.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY HAVE APPROVAL OF ALREADY A 10 FOOT SETBACK IN 22 STORIES.
SO THEY ARE, THEY'RE CHANGING FROM 22 STORIES TO 18 STORIES.
THEY'RE REDUCING THE NUMBER ROOM TO 45.
THE BUILDER LINES IS REMAIN THE SAME NINE FEET AND FIVE FEET.
HOWEVER, THEY ARE MODIFYING THE SITE PLAN.
PREVIOUSLY THEY HAD A TWO DRIVEWAYS ON ROAD AND ONE DRIVING ON WEST CLAY.
CURRENTLY THEY REMOVE THE DRIVEWAY FROM WEST CLAY, BUT THERE'S ALSO SOME, SOME CONCERN TRAFFIC CAN HAVING ONLY ASSETS ON AMONG ROAD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER MORRIS? DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? NOT A QUESTION.
UM, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR CATCHING THIS LATE.
I'M GONNA AIR, UM, BEING CAUTIOUS AND FROM THIS ITEM AND I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH YOU.
ANY QUE OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.
SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
ITEM ONE 18 NEW KE MUNICIPAL DISTRIBUTED UTILITY DISTRICT WATER PLANT NUMBER FOUR GP.
AND THAT WILL ALSO LIKE TO INCLUDE ONE 19.
ONE 19 NEW KE MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT WATER PLANT NUMBER FOUR.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, A TJ IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY
[01:30:01]
EAST OF UN 59 AND SOUTH OF GRAND PARKWAY.THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES TO NOT EXTEND OR TERMINATE SOLVE THE LANE WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC.
AND NUMBER TWO TO NOT PROVIDE THE REQUIRED ONE FOOT RESERVE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RIGHTWAY.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST PER THE GP A WATER PLANT SITE IS BEING PROVIDED TO ADDRESS BOTH CURRENT AND FUTURE WATER NEEDS IN THE AREA WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION ALONG THE ALIGNMENT OF PARK DRIVE.
THE SUBSIST SITE IN THE ADJACENT TRACK CURRENTLY TAKE ASSETS TO PARK DRIVE, WHICH IS A 30 FOOT WIDE COUNTY MAINTAINED PRESCRIPTIVE ROAD THAT HAS BEEN IN THEIR CONFIGURATIONS IN 1983.
THE APPLICANT'S SEEK TO MAINTAIN THE CONFIGURATION AND THEREFORE REQUEST THE VARIANCES TO NOT EXTEND SOFT LANE AND TO NOT PROVIDE THE ONE FOOT RESERVE.
THE SOFT LINE IS CURRENTLY A, UM, AN UNIMPROVED RIGHT AWAY, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE ENC SION INTO THE EXISTING WATERLINE EASEMENT AND THE ONE FOOT RESERVE IS NOT NECESSARY AS THIS CHECK ALREADY TAKE ASSETS FROM PARK DRIVE.
COMMISSIONER MATT GRAY FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY PRISON FOR IS IN SUPPORT OF THESE VARIANCES.
SO STA RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE GP AND THE PLOT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK FOR ITEMS ONE 18 OR ONE 19.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY, HEARING NONE.
COMMISSIONERS I NEED A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM ONE 18 AND ONE 19.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES NOTHING UNDER E SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR F FOR CONSIDERATION REQUIREMENTS.
[Platting Activities g - j]
SO WE'LL MOVE TO G EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL.GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS GHI AND J AS ONE GROUP? YES PLEASE.
SECTION G EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEMS ONE 20 THROUGH 1 28 SECTION H.
NAME CHANGES CONSIST OF ITEM 1 29 SECTION I CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CONSISTS OF ITEMS ONE 30 AND 1 31 AND SECTION J ADMINISTRATIVE HAS NO ITEMS. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTIONS G-H-I-N-J.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NO ONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK.
COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE ALL ITEMS UNDER GH AND I.
[k. Development Plats with Variance Requests (Ed Buckley)]
ON TO KAY DEVELOPMENT PLOTS.PLEASE NOTE THAT UH, COMMISSIONER VICTOR IS LEAVING THE MEETING.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM ONE 30 IS 51 57 AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD EAST OF MER, WAY WEST OF OSPREY DRIVE AND SOUTH OF SIMS BAYOU.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 17 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE IN LIEU OF THE CITY ORDINANCE REQUIRED 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THE SITE IS PART OF A PLATTED SUBDIVISION THAT IS NOT BUILT OUT AND HAS A 16 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG AIRPORT BOULEVARD, WHICH WAS NOT A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AT THE TIME.
AS PART OF THE PROPOSAL, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO CONSTRUCT A PORTION OF THE PLATTED 28 FOOT PRIVATE STREET.
SO THE SITE WILL NOT TAKE DIRECT VEHICLE VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
THE REQUESTED 17 FOOT BUILDING LINE WOULD LEAVE JUST OVER 24 FEET FROM THE BACK OF CURB TO THE BUILDING.
UH, THE PORTION OF THE HOUSE THAT WOULD ENCROACH THE 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE IS A GARAGE WHICH WOULD BE ALLOWED A 15 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE IF IT WERE DETACHED FROM LIVING SPACE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO TAKE ACCESS FROM A PLATTED 28 FOOT PRIVATE STREET RATHER THAN AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
AND BECAUSE THE PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT IS A GARAGE, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
ITEM 1 32 IS BEING RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
AND DO I HAVE A MOTION? ALLMAN ALLMAN.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? UH, POROUS PERLE.
[II. Establish a public hearing date of December 5, 2024]
TO ROMAN NUMERAL TWO.ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF DECEMBER 5TH, 2024 FOR BENDER LANDING ESTATES.
SECTION SEVEN PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE
[01:35:01]
KAYWOOD PLACE CREEK MONT BRANCH REPL NUMBER ONE EQUIVALENT.RU WASHINGTON FAMILY FORT FOR LIFE.
HEALER HAVEN AT SAMSON DIVISION MANUM SQUARE PADDOCK SILVER PROPERTY PLAZA ESTATES AT EASTWOOD VASQUEZ PLACE.
VENTANA LAKES EAST NORTH BOARDWALK AND VAN VENTANA LAKES EAST SOUTH BOARDWALK.
COMMISSIONERS DO HAVE A MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
[III. Consideration of an Off-Street Parking Variance at 3200 S. Shepherd Drive (Ed Buckley)]
NUMERAL THREE CONSIDERATION OF AN OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE AT 3,200 SOUTH SHEPHERD.ROMAN NUMERAL THREE IS 3,200 SOUTH SHEPHERD DRIVE.
THE SITE IS ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH SHEPHERD DRIVE, SOUTH OF WEST ALABAMA STREET AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH SHEPHERD AND SILVER ROSS STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN INTERIOR REMODEL OF A BANK TO CONVERT THE EXISTING BUILDING TO A DESSERT SHOP AND IS REQUESTING TO ALLOW MORE THAN 25% OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENT TO BE LOCATED ON OFFSITE TRACK.
MORE THAN 500 FEET AWAY, 11 PARKING SPACES ARE PROPOSED ON SITE WITH THE REMAINING PARKING PROVIDED ROUGHLY 720 FEET AWAY AT THE SITE OF DAMARIS BARBECUE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME IS TO DEFER AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF, UH, DEFERRAL FOR THE PARKING VARIANCE FOR SHEPHERD.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION GARZA SECOND MAR.
[IV. Consideration of an Off-Street Parking Variance at 2003 Union Street (Ramon Jaime-Leon)]
ROMAN NUMBER FOUR.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM UH, FOUR, UH, 2003 UNION STREET.
THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF WASHINGTON AVENUE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF UNION STREET AND WHITE STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 3,400 SQUARE FEET SQUARE FOOT NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANT WITHIN AN EXISTING, UM, HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM THE OFF STREET, UH, PARKING REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE 10 SPACES AS OPPOSED TO THE REQUIRED 18 STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF WHITE STREET AND UNION STREET WITHIN THE OLD FIRST WARD HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE SITE CONSISTS OF A DESIGNATED HISTORIC, UH, COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, WHICH IS PROTECTED FROM THE, FROM DEMOLITION BY THE CITY CITY'S HISTORIC ORDINANCE.
THE SITE FEATURES A PARKING LOT, UH, PARKING LOT WITH ROOM FOR 10 PARKING SPACES.
UM, THOUGH THE CODE REQUIRES 18 AFTER APPLYING THE 40% REDUCTION FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND 10% REDUCTION BY ADDING BICYCLE SPACES.
THIS ITEM WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL 18TH, 2024.
THIS NEW APPLICATION IS REMOVING EIGHT MORE, UH, PARKING SPACES.
THE REASON FOR THE NEW REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A TWO-WAY DRIVE ALONG UNION STREET AND TO REMOVE THE EXIT ON WHITE STREET, WHICH MAKES IT SAFER FOR PEDESTRIANS.
THE SITE IS, UH, ACROSS, UH, THE SITE IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM 22 PAID PARKING, UH, SPACES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS.
WASHINGTON STREET ALSO FUTURES METERED PARKING AVAILABLE.
UH, UH, THESE NEARBY PARKING AREAS WOULD DISCOURAGE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM DISTURBING NEARBY RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST JUSTIFIED, CONSIDERED THE SITE CON, UH, CONSTRAINTS AND NEARBY PUBLIC TRANSIT, UH, TRANSIT, SORRY, AND NEARBY PUBLIC PARKING OPTIONS.
UH, IT WILL BE TO, ON THE SITE PLAN, CAN YOU GO TO THE SITE? SO, UH, THE CONDITION OF ONE CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE ALONG UNIONS KNOW THAT WOULD BE WHITE STREET, UM, THE, THE REMOVAL OF THE DRIVEWAY APPROACH, UM, WHICH IS REQUIRED.
BUT, UM, THE CONDITION IS TO CONTINUE THAT, UM, THAT BRICK SIDEWALK INSTEAD OF DOING ASPHALT.
UH, THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY STAFF.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION BALDWIN.
UM, WE'LL GO ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT I'D LIKE TO GIVE MS. MICKELSON JUST A SECOND.
[01:40:01]
PRIVILEGE.I'D JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE SOME STUDENTS FROM, UH, GRADUATE PROGRAMS AT TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY HERE WITH DR.
UM, SOME OF WHOM I HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE IN MY CLASSES WHEN I'VE TAUGHT THERE AS A PROFESSOR OF PRACTICE AND SOME OF WHOM MAYBE I'LL HAVE NEXT SEMESTER.
SO, UM, DR. LOWE IS VERY SUPPORTIVE AND ALWAYS SEND HIS STUDENTS HERE.
SO, UM, WE WANNA APPLAUD THE FUTURE PLANNERS ABSOLUTELY.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE, UH, FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE? I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
WELL, COMMISSIONERS, THAT'S THE LAST ITEM.
SO WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 4:13 PM HAPPY HALLOWEEN, YOU GUYS.