[00:00:08]
FROM CITY HALL ANNEX.IT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RIGHT HERE ON HTV.
[CALL TO ORDER]
HELLO.[00:05:02]
ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19TH, 2024.THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING IN PERSON MEETING OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S BETTER.
THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS ISN'T COMING BACK TO ME AS MUCH AS I THOUGHT IT WOULD
OKAY, SO I'M NOT GONNA REPEAT THAT AGAIN.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, I WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER BECAUSE, UM, LISA CLARK, OUR CHAIRMAN, IS JUST SLIGHTLY DELAYED.
UM, AND OUR VICE CHAIR GARZA IS GONNA BE ABSENT TODAY.
SO IN ORDER TO GET MOVING, UM, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THE MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER TO VERIFY OUR QUORUM.
UM, UH, CHAIR, UH, COMMISSIONER STEIN IS PRESIDENT, PRESENT COMMISSIONER, UH, CHAIR CLARK WILL BE DELAYED.
COMMISSIONER ALLMAN ALLMAN PRESENT.
PRESENT COMMISSIONER, HE, HE PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER MODEST, MODEST PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER POROUS PERLE IS ABSENT.
UH, COMMISSIONER ROBBINS PRESENT, PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG IS NOT PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER SIGLER SIGLER PRESENT, UH, COMMISSIONER TAHIR IS NOT PRESENT.
VIRA BLAND PRESENT, UH, COMMISSIONER KANE IS NOT PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER UH, SLO SLAWINSKI IS NOT PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER MAN, DEKA NOT PRESENT.
PRESENT AND DIRECTOR OF VON TRAN TRAN PRESENT IS PRESENT.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE 13 MEMBERS HAVE RESPONDED TO ROLL CALL.
[Director’s Report ]
NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS WILL BE THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT DIRECTOR DR. VAUGHN TRAN.GOOD AFTERNOON, SITTING CHAIR.
UM, MY NAME IS VAUGHN TRAN, SECRETARY OF THIS COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON AND PLANNING, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
OH, ALSO WELCOME COM COMMISSION MEMBERS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
I HAVE A FEW ANNOUNCEMENTS TODAY.
UH, TODAY IS OUR LAST MEETING FOR THE YEAR.
THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE HELD NEXT YEAR ON JANUARY THE NINTH.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILL BE CLOSED TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 24TH AND 25TH IN CELEBRATION OF CHRISTMAS EVE AND CHRISTMAS DAY.
WE WILL ALSO BE CLOSED NEW YEAR'S DAY, JANUARY THE FIRST.
UH, AND THAT'S ON A WEDNESDAY.
ALL OTHER DAYS WILL BE NORMAL OPERATING BUSINESS HOURS.
I HAVE A, UM, ONE FINAL ANNOUNCEMENT.
IT IS MY, UH, IT IS WITH GREAT HONOR TO ANNOUNCE A RETIREMENT OF ONE OF OUR OWN ESTEEM COLLEAGUES HUG MODO.
DO I HOPE I PRONOUNCED THAT CORRECTLY.
AFTER AN INCREDIBLE 40 YEARS OF SERVICE WITH THE CITY, HUCK WILL BE, UH, HANGING UP HIS HAT ON JANUARY THE THIRD, MARKING THE END OF A TRULY REMARKABLE CAREER.
CONGRATULATE, UH, TO HUCK, WE WISH HIM A AMAZING RETIREMENT FULFILLED WITH, FILLED WITH HAPPINESS, HEALTH, AND WELL DESERVED RELAXATION.
SO AFTER 40 YEARS OF SERVICE, CONGRATULATIONS TO HUCK.
IN CLOSING, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UH, CAN BE REACHED AT (832) 393-6600.
OR YOU CAN CALL THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNER OF THE DAY AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 6 2 4.
YOU MAY, YOU MAY VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM AND TAKE A LOOK AT LET'S TALK HOUSTON FOR MORE INFORMATION.
UH, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION, WE ALSO, UH, CONGRATULATE HUCK ON HIS RETIREMENT.
[Consideration of the December 5, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes]
ORDER OF BUSINESS IS CONSIDERATION OF THE DECEMBER 5TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, WHICH WERE IN YOUR PACKET.[00:10:01]
ADDITIONS OR, UH, CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES, IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? MOTION BALDWIN BALDWIN.PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONERS TAHIR AND POROUS PERLE HAVE JOINED US.
[Platting Activities a & b]
WITH THAT WE'LL GO TO ROMAN NUMERAL ONE PLATTING 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 89 SECTIONS A CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 43 AND SECTION B REPLAY ITEMS ARE NUMBER 44 THROUGH 89.
NO ITEMS NEED TO BE TAKEN OUTTA ORDER AND THERE ARE NO CHANGE TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
MADAM CHAIR, THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSENT AND RE REPLY ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION.
UM, NOTE FOR THE RECORD BEFORE WE GET STARTED, THAT, UM, ITEM 90, I'M SORRY, THAT'S IN UNDER THE NEXT SECTION.
UM, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK AS MR. UM, CALHOUN MENTIONED ON THE CONSENT.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE ITEMS, UM, IN THE CONSENT SECTION A AND B? IF NOT COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY ITEMS WE NEED TO TAKE SEPARATELY? COMMISSIONER HYS? YES, MADAM CHAIR, I'M ABSTAINING FROM ITEMS ONE THROUGH 6, 17, 36, 37 AND 49.
ANYBODY ELSE? ALRIGHT, UM, THEN, UM, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH VOTING ON SECTIONS A AND B.
UM, AND I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ALL ITEMS IN SECTIONS A AND B ONE THROUGH 89.
SAVE AND ACCEPT FOR ITEMS ONE THROUGH 6 17, 36, 37, 49.
AND THEN ON THE REMAINDER, WHICH IS ONE THROUGH 6, 17, 36, 37, 49, IS THERE MOTION SIGLER MAD? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AND NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER, HE ABSTAINED ON THOSE ITEMS. UM, WITH THAT WE'LL GO
[c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Dorianne Powe-Phlegm, John Cedillo, Antwanysha Berry, Aracely Rodriguez)]
TO SECTION C, PUBLIC HEARINGS.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 90 IS AIRPORT GARDENS, PARTIALLY PLAN NUMBER TWO, AND IT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
EAST SIDE IS LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS WEST OF COLUM BOULEVARD AND EAST OF SCOTT STREET NORTH OF SIX 10.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ALONG A 12 FOOT SHARED DRIVEWAY.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
LEGAL HAS DETERMINED THAT THE RE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICATION.
ALL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MA'AM CHAIR PLEASES THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 91 DREYFUS GROVE IS OPEN.
WE HAVE A COUPLE SPEAKERS, UM, INCLUDING THE APPLICANT.
MR. GR, DO YOU WANNA GO FIRST OR AT THE END FOR QUESTIONS ONLY? THAT WAS NINE.
OKAY, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP ON ITEM 91.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 91? IF NOT, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLATS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
IS THERE A DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION? VERA BLAND.
SECOND POROUS PER ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS NORTH OF HEMLEY BOULEVARD AND WEST OF HOLLISTER STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
LEGAL HAS DETERMINED THAT THE RE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICATION AND ALL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCP C 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF YOU PLEASE THE COMMISSION CAN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 92 HAM LEE ESTATES IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK HEARING NO RESPONSE? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
[00:15:02]
IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION VICTOR VICTOR, SECOND.SUBJECT SIDE IS OVER 6,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN HOUSTON.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS AN OVER 6,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS EAST ALONG HOLY STREET, UH, EAST OF SHEPHERD DRIVE AND NORTH OF FAIRVIEW STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
REVIEW BAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
WE HAVE NOW RECEIVED ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICATION.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCP C 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR OUR UH, 93 HOLD D PLACE IS OPEN.
DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM 93? IF NOT, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE.
IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION SIGLER SECOND.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS AN OVER FOUR ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS EAST ALONG MANGO ROAD AND NORTH OF HIGHWAY TWO 90.
SPANNING BETWEEN SHERWOOD DRIVE AND BROOKWOOD DRIVE, THE PLAT WAS DEFERRED LAST CYCLE PER THE REQUEST OF VICE MAYOR PRO TO AMY PECK.
AS WE ARE GOING INTO A THREE WEEK CYCLE, THE PLAT CANNOT BE DEFERRED AGAIN.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTS WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MADE, HAS MET ON NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE APPLICATION DOES NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
THE NORTHERN HALF OF, OR THE NORTHERN HALF PORTION OF THE PROPERTY COMES OUT OF WHITE OAK ACRES WHILE THE SOUTHERN PORTION COMES OUT OF LOTS.
ONE THROUGH FOUR OF BROOKWOOD ESTATES.
THE LOTS OF BROOKWOOD ESTATES ARE WITHIN A BOUNDARY OF A 2016 MINIMUM LOSS SIZE APPLICATION.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED ADVANCED COMMENTS FROM THE RESIDENTS OF BROOKWOOD CIVIC CLUB CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF RESTRICTIONS AND DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY DUE TO INCREASED TRAFFIC.
THOUGHTS ONE AND TWO WERE DEEDED AS BUSINESS LOTS.
AND IN 1999 A JUDGMENT WAS MADE SHOWING THAT LOSS THREE AND FOUR WERE AND CONTINUE TO BE IN COMMERCIAL USE AND THEREFORE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY USE RESTRICTIONS CARRIED WITH A MINIMUM MOD SIZE APPLICATION.
THE VICE MAYOR PROTO BROUGHT UP QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER THIS WOULD BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR WHETHER ACCESS COULD BE SOLELY TAKEN FROM MANGO.
THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THIS IS NOT PROPOSED TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SO ACCESS TO MANU WOULD BE FOUND UPON BY TRAFFIC AND ACCESS WOULD LIKELY BE TO ALL THREE STREET FRONTAGES.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 94 MANGA SQUARE IS CONTINUED.
UM, AS I SAID BEFORE, THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS VICKY FRASER.
UM, I'M HERE AGAIN REPRESENTING MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THERE WERE FOUR LOTS THAT ARE IN OUR SUBDIVISION.
SO THE FIRST, THE FIRST OBSERVATION I HAVE IS THAT THE NOTICE, UH, AND THIS IS NOT JUST FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT ALL NEIGHBORHOODS NAME IS ALWAYS PUT IN THE NEW SUBDIVISION NAME IN BIG LETTERS AND THEN IN LITTLE LETTERS IS ACTUALLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S BEING REPLANTED.
SO I HAD A BUNCH OF NEW NEIGHBORS WHO BOUGHT NICE HOUSE LOTS, TORE DOWN THE HOUSE, BUILT A NEW HOUSE, HAD KIDS RIDING BIKES.
THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT THAT PLEASE PUT BACK, BACK UP.
THE OTHER ONE, THE THE MAP PART.
SO IF YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE FOUR LOTS.
THOSE LOTS ARE PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN.
THEY'RE SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 42.
YES, WE DO HAVE TWO LOTS THAT ARE COMMERCIAL, BUT THE COMMERCIAL BUILDER WHO WAS THERE BEFORE WHEN HE LEFT, HE SIGNED THE CHAPTER 42.
AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A BUFFER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I GUESS MY OTHER CONCERN ABOUT TEXAS PROPERTY CODE IS THE RULES ARE CHANGED WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING IN THERE.
SO HOW CAN WE COME TO YOU AND SAY THIS IS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE.
'CAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE X, Y, Z HERE.
OKAY, SO INSTEAD YOU LEAVE US DEFENSELESS, NOTHING THAT WE CAN SAY PER YOUR RULES TO STOP IT.
AND THEN AFTER IT STARTS, THEN WE CAN SAY, OH, WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT HOUSES RIGHT NEXT DOOR WHO KNEW THAT THIS WAS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD KNEW WE WERE PART OF CHAPTER 42, AND YET
[00:20:01]
THEIR KIDS CAN'T RIDE THEIR BIKES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THERE'S, THAT'S GONNA BE RIGHT THERE.SO I REALLY ASK YOU TO PLEASE DON'T APPROVE THIS.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
I'M GONNA TURN TO OUR THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? WE DON'T.
I'M GONNA ASK OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO TO COMMENT.
YOU HAVE, THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED, IT MEETS ALL CONDITIONS.
THERE MAY BE A CAUSE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE DEVELOPER, BUT IN TERMS OF OUR AUTHORITY, CORRECT? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS NOT A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OR ANYTHING THAT RESTRICTS THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY.
EVERY PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND IN THE E TJ IS TECHNICALLY SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 42 IN THE SENSE THAT THERE MAY BE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR RE PLATTING OR REDEVELOPMENT AND SO FORTH.
BUT STATE LAW IS VERY CLEAR THAT PLATTING DOES NOT REGULATE LAND USE.
SO THE LAND USE OF THIS IS NOT BEFORE YOU.
AND STATE LAW ALSO PROVIDES THAT ANY, UM, APPLICATION FOR ANY KIND OF A PLAT, INCLUDING A RE PLAT THAT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS IN STATE LAW AND OUR OWN ORDINANCES MUST BE APPROVED.
UM, SO THIS IS FOR US, US IT PUT THE COMMISSION I UNDERSTAND IN A TERRIBLE WELL MAY UNCOMFORTABLE POSITION, UM, WITH WITH CONCERNS OF NEIGHBORS.
BUT STATE LAW'S VERY CLEAR, RIGHT? WE, WE HAVE GRAPPLED WITH THIS BEFORE.
I CAN'T LET YOU SPEAK ANYMORE.
I'M JUST GONNA THROW IT OUT AND SAY YOU UNT.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE HERE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 94 OR DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DID I HEAR SOMEBODY SAY SOMETHING? NO.
WELL THEN IF NOT, THEN WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, YOU KNOW THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE.
ITEM 95 IS SPRING BRIDGE RESIDENCES.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A NEARLY FIVE ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF FARM TO MARKET ROAD 1960 AND SPRING BRIDGE DRIVE WEST OF HARDEE TOLL ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A TYPE TWO PAE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPOSED OF 25 LOTS AND SIX RESERVES AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE IN LIEU OF THE 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE REQUIRED ALONG FM 1960.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND THE APPLICATION HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THE APPLICATION IS A PLT OF THE REMAINDER OF INVER FOREST TOWN HOMES.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
WE HAVE JUST RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THE MUD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, UH, REGARDING CONCERNS FOR THE SANITARY CONTROL SEWER EASEMENT.
UH, SPRING BRIDGE DRIVE ITSELF INTERSECTS FM 1960 AT THE FEEDER ROAD AS A RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT ONLY CONNECTION WITH AT THE ON RAMP.
THE PROPERTY IS SEPARATED FROM 1960 BY NEARLY 15 FOOT TALL CONCRETE SOUND WALL.
WITH THE SOUND WALL ITSELF RANGING 20 TO 35 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD.
PAVEMENT STAFF FINDS THE EXISTING SAN JUAN IN GREEN SPACE TO BE SUFFICIENT BUFFER BETWEEN THESE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND FM 1960 TRAFFIC.
AND DO NOT BELIEVE GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE INTRODUCED TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCP C 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MA'AM CHAIR PLEASE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 95 SPRING BRIDGE RESIDENCES IS OPEN.
FIRST SPEAKER IS GLENDORA ARMSTRONG.
WELCOME, WELCOME AND GOOD AFTERNOON.
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.
MY NAME IS GLENDORA ARMSTRONG.
I AM A RESIDENT OF THE
I OPPOSE THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION DENYING ASKING THAT IT BE DENIED.
ONE REASON, IT'S THE EASEMENT.
THE EASEMENT IS ALREADY COMPROMISED BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION.
THE EASEMENT, IF YOU WOULD SEE THE DIAGRAM THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, THERE IS A FIVE FOOT EASEMENT THAT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR UTILITY PURPOSES.
TWO WEEKS AGO AT AND T HAD TO REMOVE A 10 FOOT UTILITY POLE FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MY PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE EASEMENT THAT IS THERE AND ALREADY BLOCKED AND COMPROMISED BY THE OWNER.
THEY HAD TO DRAG THAT POLE THROUGH MY PROPERTY ALL THE WAY DOWN MY DRIVEWAY TO THE STREET.
IT'S NOT BEING HERE TO THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE BEEN
[00:25:01]
NOTIFIED.MY OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROPERTY IS CRIME SECURITY AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION.
AS NOTED, THERE IS ONE WAY OUT, A RIGHT TURN ONLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THEIR OPPOSED TOWNHOUSES.
OUR BUSINESSES THAT'S ALREADY ESTABLISHED ON TODAY, THEY'RE RECEIVING ALL PART, UH, APARTMENTS, PARTS.
A FEDEX TRUCK 18 WHEELER WAS BLOCKING AND WOULD BLOCK THE INTEREST TO THIS PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE AREA.
UM, OUR BACKYARD BACKS UP TO THIS PROPERTY FLOODING.
ONCE THEY START CONSTRUCTION, MY BACKYARD WOULD BE FLOODED.
ALL RESIDENTS BACKYARD WOULD BE FLOODED.
I'M REQUESTING THAT IT BE DENIED.
OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
OKAY, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS JACOB FLOYD.
UH, YES, MADAM SPEAKER, UM, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS JACOB FLOYD AND I AM THE, UH, DISTRICT ENGINEER FOR BERNESS FOREST IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.
UM, WE ARE HUMBLING ASKING FOR A DEFERRAL IN REGARDS TO THIS PLAT.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE MAP THERE, THE OTHER MAP THAT'S SHOWING THE PLAT, UH, THERE IS A WATER WELL IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THIS PROPERTY.
UH, THE DISTRICT WAS NOT INFORMED IN REGARDS TO THIS.
WE HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS, INCLUDING A SANITARY CONTROL EASEMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE, UM, DONE WITH THIS.
UH, WE NEED TO HAVE THAT INCLUDED IN THERE.
ALSO, AS I'M SEEING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME NOW, THERE NEEDS TO BE SHOWN AN EASEMENT DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC FOR THEIR SANITARY SANITARY SEWER COMING FROM THE NORTH DOWN TO THEIR BLOCKS TWO AND BLOCKS THREE TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO THAT AREA.
SO HUMBLY WE WERE ASKING THE COMMISSION TO DEFER THIS PLAT SO THAT WE CAN HAMMER OUT THESE ITEMS SO THAT WE CAN GET THESE TAKEN CARE OF, MA'AM.
UM, THOSE ARE THE SPEAKERS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? UM, COMMISSION, UH, DO WE HAVE I I SAW, I'M SORRY.
I SAW MS. UM, I THINK, I BELIEVE THEY'RE DISCUSSING A DIFFERENT ITEM.
ARE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS PLAT OR I BELIEVE THEY'RE DISCUSSING A DIFFERENT ITEM.
SO WE HAVE BEEN REQUESTED TO DEFER THIS.
UM, SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY THE FIRST SPEAKER ARE THINGS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE WITHIN OUR PURVIEW, BUT MR. SEDILLO, IF YOU WOULD SORT OF HELP POINT HER TO AT AND T OR WHOEVER ABSOLUTELY SHE NEEDS TO TALK TO ABOUT THAT.
UM, IS THE, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT TODAY OR, UH, I DO NOT BELIEVE SO, UNFORTUNATELY.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN? UH, UH, JOHN, I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT A DEFERRAL JUST TO GET THESE THINGS WORKED OUT WITH THAT GROUP.
DON'T, I MEAN IT JUST SEEMS REASONABLE TO ABSOLUTELY.
THEY'RE GONNA BE SERVED BY THAT ENTITY.
SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION FOR A DEFERRAL.
IS THERE A SECOND? VICTOR? THAT'S BALDWIN AND VICTOR.
UM, THEN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF DEFERRING AND CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING, SAY AYE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM NUMBER 97 IS VILLAS ON MANSFIELD.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE ACRES HOMES AREA AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF MANSFIELD STREET AND TUSKEGEE STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RELA IS CREATE 27 LOTS AND FIVE RESERVES ALONG A SHARE DRIVEWAY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM 42 DASH 1 93 TO REPL A RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO A SHARE DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING A PARKING RESERVE.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS A REPL OF ONE LARGE, ONE ACRE SINGLE FAMILY LOT RECORDED IN JUNE OF 2022.
THE SHARED DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT CONTAINS 27 UNITS, WHICH REQUIRES FOUR PARKING RESERVES.
STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE LIMITS THE TYPE OF USES ALLOWED TO BE REPLANTED FROM A SINGLE FAMILY LOT.
THIS SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN TO PROTECT THE SUBDIVISION FROM BEING REPLANTED INTO USES NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SINCE THIS IS A SHARED DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING PARKING RESERVES, A VARIANCE
[00:30:01]
MUST BE ADDRESSED.STAFF BELIEVES THIS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS A WHOLE MEETS THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE AS IT CONTAINS SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND THE PARKING RESERVES WHICH ARE REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT.
THE SUBDIVISION STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST AND REVIEW.
BY REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLA WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLATTER.
THOSE FILED SEPARATELY STAFFS RECOMMENDS GRANTED THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND 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.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 97 VILLAS ON MANSFIELD IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM 97 HEARING? NO RESPONSE? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN.
ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? ALLMAN ALLMAN ROBINS ROBINS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? A OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES ITEM 97.
[d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests (Petra Hsia, Aracely Rodriguez, Geoff Butler, and Devin Crittle,) ]
ON TO VARIANCES.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 98 IS ALLIANCE TRIPLE E INDUSTRIAL.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HOUSTON ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY, SOUTH OF WOOD EDGE DRIVE, WEST OF JONES ROAD AND NORTH OF FM 1960.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES.
ONE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT EXTENDING NOR TERMINATING BARELY LANE IN A CUL-DE-SAC AND TWO TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG LOCAL STREETS BY NOT PROVIDING A NORTH SOUTH STREET THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT IS REVISING THEIR PROPOSAL TO TERMINATE BARELY LANE IN A CUL-DE-SAC PER STAFF IN HARRIS COUNTY'S RECOMMENDATION.
THEREFORE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO PROVIDE REVISED MATERIALS AND FOR STAFF TO REVIEW THE REVISED PROPOSAL.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 98? IF NOT, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE ITEM.
ANY DISCUSSION IN A MOTION? BALDWIN SECOND HIN.
ITEM 99 IS BARON CYPRESS BEND.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HOUSTON ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY NORTH OF CYPRESS, NORTH HOUSTON ROAD, WEST OF MILL RIDGE DRIVE AND EAST OF OAK PLAZA DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE RESERVE TO TAKE ACCESS FROM AN ACCESS EASEMENT INSTEAD OF A PUBLIC STREET STAFF.
THE APPLICANT UM, HAS BEEN COORDINATING WITH STAFF AND HARRIS COUNTY REGARDING OUR CONCERNS ON ACCESS AND TRAFFIC.
THE APPLICANT IS WORKING ON REVISING THEIR PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS.
THEREFORE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THIS ITEM TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT MORE TIME TO CO COORDINATE WITH HARRIS COUNTY AND STAFF REGARDING THE ITEM AND PROVIDE REVISED MATERIALS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
UM, SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER 99.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON 99? UH, ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER MOTION? VERA BLAND.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES ITEM 100, COMMISSIONER HE MADAM CHAIR, I'M GONNA REC, UH, ABSTAIN OR RECUSE FROM THE NEXT THREE ITEMS. 1 101 0 1 1 0 2.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 100 IS BRI QUICK VILLAGE, VILLAGE GP.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY WEST OF GRAND PARKWAY AND NORTH OF FUTURE NORTH BRICKLAND LAKE PARKWAY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANT TO EXIT INTERSECTION BASIN, UH, 1400 FEET PROPOSING 19 1,990 FEET BETWEEN PICK ROAD AND HALF ROAD AND 2,440 FEET BETWEEN LORETTA ROAD AND PICK ROAD.
THIS IS INTENDED TO ACCOMMODATE A LARGE DRAINAGE AND THE INTENTION AREA IN THE CENTER OF A PRIVATE GATED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY TO AS A MITIGATION MEASURE.
HOWEVER, STEP RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE GP PER HARRIS COUNTY REQUEST.
HARRIS COUNTY REQUEST A DEFERRAL REPORT TO ALLOW FURTHER REACHERS ON A PROPOSED WEST PUBLIC STREET CONNECTION WHERE ALIGNMENT ALONG THE NORTHEASTERN GP BOUNDARY BETWEEN PICK ROAD AND CLAND VILLA DRIVE, WHICH MAY REQUIRE SOME ADJUSTMENT TO THE GP STREET PATTERN.
AND THAT CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION.
[00:35:01]
OOPS.UM, IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 100? IF NOT, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER PER HARRIS COUNTY.
ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION TO DEFER MOTION? K KALIK SECOND VICTOR, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES ACTUALLY 1 0 1.
WE DO NOT NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON UNTIL OUR JANUARY 9TH MEETING.
SO ITEM 1 0 2 IS GRAND PARKWAY GP.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN FORT BEND COUNTY, EAST OF GRAND PARKWAY AND SOUTH OF BINU STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANT TO EXIT THE MINIMUM 2,600 INTERSECTION FACING ALONG GRAND PARKWAY.
BETWEEN PROPOSED PEAK ROAD AND THE SOUTH GP BOUNDARY.
WE'RE ABOUT 2000 700 720 FEET.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
GP PROPOSES A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH AN INTERNAL CENTRAL MEDIA COLLECTOR WITH ADEQUATE ASSETS TO MAJOR AFFAIRS TO THE WEST AND NORTH.
THE PROPERTY BORDER GRAND PARKWAY TO THE SOUTHWEST AND IS SUBSTITUTE A NORTH SOUTH PUBLIC STREET CONNECTION TO GRAND PARKWAY TO MEET THE INTERSECTION FACING REQUIREMENT.
GRAND PARKWAY IS THE CONTROL ASSET FREEWAY WITH NO FRONT IS AND LIMITED ASSETS.
SO MAKING IT IMPRACTICAL TO REQUIRE A STRICT CONNECTION THIS REQUIRES THAT THEY WILL HAVE, WILL HAVE VERY MINIMAL LIKELIHOOD TO BE EXTENDED OR CONNECTED TO GRAND PARKWAY FOR BEND COUNTY HAS EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION TO THE VARIANT REQUEST.
SO THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE, REQUEST THE VARIANCE AND APPROVED THE GP SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION AND THEY CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION.
UM, I, IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 0 2 GRAND PARKWAY? IF NOT, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION MA.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM 1 0 3, ITEM 1 0 3 IS HARDY AT
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMIT AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF HARDY STREET AND HARTON STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THREE VARIANCES TO ALLOT THE LOT TO BE LESS THAN 3,500 SQUARE FOOTAGE IN SIZE.
SECOND, TO ALLOW DUAL BORDERLINE FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THREE TO ENCLOSED INTO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT AT THE INTERSECTION.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLA FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE REVIVE INFORMATION BY NOON.
NEXT ONE DAY STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN EVENT AND THEY CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION.
UM, I HAVE NO ONE SIGN TO SPEAK.
DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON 1 1 0 3? UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER ANY DISCUSSION.
JUST CURIOUS ABOUT HOW MUCH INTO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE ARE THEY HOPING TO ENCROACH INTO HOW MUCH UHHUH?
I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CORRECT.
YOU'RE GONNA TALK TO HIM ABOUT THAT? YEAH.
IN THE DEFERRAL PERIOD WE WILL
UM, AND IS THERE THEN A MOTION TO DEFER ITEM 1 0 3, BALDWIN, VE BLAND.
ITEM 1 0 4 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 1 0 5 IS JDS HOP FEE ROAD GP.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HARRIS COUNTY ETJ, ALONG MASON AND BOTKINS NORTHWEST OF THE GRAND PARKWAY.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A GENERAL PLAN OF LOTS ALONG PUBLIC STREETS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR EXCESSIVE INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG THE NORTHEASTERN GENERAL PLAN.
BOUNDARY STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG A PLAN SEGMENT OF MASON ROAD, SOUTH OF CYPRESS SCREEN GP.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO CREATE A NORTH-SOUTH PUBLIC STREET CONNECTION IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE LACK OF REQUIRED PUBLIC STREETS BETWEEN MAJOR THOROUGHFARES.
THE APPLICANT ASSERTS THAT RECENT DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AT THIS LOCATION MAKES MEETING THIS REQUIREMENT.
IN PRACTICAL, WHILE THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT GAP BETWEEN THE NEAREST PLANNED STREET CONNECTIONS, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN MASON AND THE EASTERN GP BOUNDARIES LESS THAN 2000 FEET.
[00:40:01]
CHAPTER 42 DOES ALLOW INTERSECTION SPACING OF THIS DISTANCE IN AREAS THAT ABUT RECORDED DRAINAGE EASEMENT SUCH AS THE ONE AFFECTING THIS GP.THOUGH THE APPLICANT DOES NOT TECHNICALLY MEET THIS REQUIREMENT, THE RESULT IS SIMILAR WITH THE LAND ENCOMPASSED BY THIS GP.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENT AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
AND WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT.
OKAY, ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 0 5? UH, IF NOT, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS NOT ON THE SCREEN, BUT IT IS TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT.
ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION HINES HINES SECOND ALLMAN ALLMAN.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM 1 0 6, ITEM 1 0 6 IS JUBILEE GENERAL PLAN.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HARRIS COUNTY ETJ, SOUTH OF US, TWO 90 IN WEST OF THE GRANT PARKWAY.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A GENERAL PLAN WITH A PUBLIC STREET SYSTEM.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENTS AT FOUR LOCATIONS.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THESE REQUESTS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF US, TWO 90 SOUTH OF THE HOCKLEY COMMUNITY.
THIS APPLICATION REPRESENTS THE THIRD GP OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN REFINED TO SHOW NEW SECTIONS AND TWO SCHOOL SITES.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THE INTERSECTION SPACING FOR THE STREET PATTERN TO ACCOUNT FOR THESE CHANGES AS WELL AS BARRIERS OUTSIDE THE GP.
THE FIRST VARIANCE IS TO NOT PROVIDE A STREET CONNECTION OVER A STRIP OF LAND FEATURING ELECTRIC AND DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE.
MUCH OF THIS AREA IS SUBJECT TO VARIANCE, UH, VARIANCE THAT WAS GRANTED IN THE NEIGHBORING GP THAT FOUND THE CONNECTION HERE TO BE IMPRACTICAL.
THE SECOND INVOLVES LONGER INTERVALS TO ACCOUNT FOR A PROPOSED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND A THIRD A MULTI-SCHOOL CAMPUS ALONG KATY HOCKLEY ROAD.
THE FINAL REQUEST INVOLVES LAND ABUTTING IN THE KATY PRAIRIE CONSERVANCY, WHICH PRECLUDES ANY STREET DEVELOPMENT.
THE OVERALL STREET PATTERN PROVIDES ACCESS AND CIRCULATION OPPORTUNITIES THAT CIRCUMVENT THE PROPOSED SCHOOL SITES AND BARRIERS OUTSIDE.
THE GP STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST, MEETS THE INTENT OF THE INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENT AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
HARRIS COUNTY'S EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION AND WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 0 6? UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION ALLMAN RA BLAND.
ITEM 1 0 7 I WILL RECUSE FROM 1 0 7.
ITEM 1 0 7 IS LELAND AT EMANCIPATION RESERVE.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ON A BLOCK BOUND BY EMANCIPATION AVENUE, LELAND BASTROP AND BELL STREET.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESERVE FOR A MULTI-FAMILY COMMUNITY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR REDUCED BUILDING LINES ON ALL FOUR SIDES OF THE SITE.
THE STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE EAST DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY.
THE SITE IS ON A BLOCK WITH RECENTLY INSTALLED LANDSCAPING AND SIDEWALKS ALONG THE NORTHEAST AND WEST SIDES.
THE DEVELOPMENT IS ORIENTED WITH MUCH OF THE COMMON AREAS ALONG BASTROP AND BELL MAXIMIZING GROUND FLOOR TRANSPARENCY AT THE TRAILHEAD OF A BASTROP MULTI-USE PATH.
THE EMANCIPATION GROUND FLOOR WILL FEATURE APARTMENT TERRACES AND SEMI OPAQUE FENCING MIRRORING A SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE STREET.
THE APPLICANT ASSERTS THAT THE GROUND FLOOR TRANSPARENCY AND PEDESTRIAN REALM DIMENSIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE RESULTS ENVISIONED BY THE CITY'S WALK WILL PLACES STANDARDS WHICH GOVERN GOVERN SETBACKS ACCORDING TO THE PEDESTRIAN REALM RATHER THAN A SPECIFIC PLAT DIMENSION.
THE PROPOSED TRANSPARENCY IN EXISTING PEDESTRIAN REALMS COMPLIMENT THE EXISTING WALK WILL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDINGS WHILE LIMITING VEHICULAR ACCESS TO A SINGLE POINT ALONG LELAND.
THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE WALK WILL PLACES STANDARDS AS WELL AS OTHER CITY PROGRAMS INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION.
THE DEVELOPMENT IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF, EXCUSE ME, THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF EMANCIPATION, WHICH IS APPROVED WITH THE REDUCED BUILDING LINE VARIANCES GRANTED UNDER SIMILAR JUSTIFICATION.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S BUILDING LINE REQUIREMENT AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE CITY'S BUILDING LINE REQUIREMENT RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT IN THIS ITEM AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
UM, I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 0 7.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK OR ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IF NOT, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT AND APPROVE AS LISTED ON THE SCREEN.
ANY DISCUSSION ON WHAT ITEM? 1 0 7.
IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION BALDWIN SECOND VERA BLAND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES.
[00:45:01]
TAINED ITEM 1 0 8, ITEM 1 0 8 IS OAKS AT HIGHLAND HEIGHTS.THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG PAUL QUINN, NORTH OF TIDWELL AND WEST OF WHEATLEY.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SHARED ACCESS DEVELOPMENT WITH A NORTH SOUTH PUBLIC STREET CONNECTION.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE PUBLIC STREET TO CONSIST OF A 40 FOOT RIGHT AWAY RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 50 FEET.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ACRES HOME COMPLETE COMMUNITY.
THIS AREA WAS SUBJECT TO A RECENT MOBILITY STUDY TO ADDRESS A SEVERE DEFICIENCY IN INTERSECTION SPACING RELATIVE TO RECENT DEVELOPMENT.
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY INCLUDE ALLOWING FOR NARROWER RIGHTS AWAY TO ENCOURAGE STREET CONNECTIONS IN A COMMUNITY OF RELATIVELY NARROW LOTS CITY STAFF.
IN COLLABORATION WITH THE ACRES HOMES, RESIDENTS HAVE CONCLUDED THAT NARROWER STREETS CAN SAFELY CIRCULATE TRAFFIC IN CASES WHERE DIRECT ACCESS IS LIMITED.
IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SHARED ACCESS TO THE NEW STREET DISCOURAGING POTENTIAL CONFLICTS.
THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONDITIONS OF RECENTLY, UH, RECENTLY APPROVED VARIANCE TO THE NORTH, WHICH WILL PROVIDE THE REMAINING PUBLIC STREET SEGMENT TO CONNECT THE BLOCK.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST REPRESENTS A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE TO STRICT INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 42 AS IT ALLOWS FOR A NEEDED STREET CONNECTION AND WE'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT.
OKAY, UM, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED ON 1 0 8.
IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? UH, IF NOT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT AND APPROVE ANY DISCUSSION.
IS THERE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION.
ITEM 1 0 9, ITEM 1 0 9 IS A SET OF GAS COMPLEX.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG HAIGHT AND HANNAH STREETS.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE FOR A FOUR UNIT MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO ALLOW FOR A 10 FOOT OF RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 15 AND TO ALLOW FOR AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE TO BE 4,000 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW AND DUE TO THE UPCOMING THREE WEEK CYCLE, THIS WILL BE THE LAST OPPORTUNITY TO TO DEFER.
UM, THE APPLICANT ASSERTS THAT THE RESERVE SIZE AND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT REPRESENTS HARDSHIPS THAT WOULD PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE.
HOWEVER, STAFF FINDS THAT THIS JUSTIFICATION REPRESENTS A SELF-IMPOSED HARDSHIP.
CONSIDERING THE AVAILABLE OPTIONS AVAILABLE UNDER 42.
STAFF HAS ADVISED THE APPLICANT THAT THEY CAN PURSUE SHARED ACCESS FOR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OR MUR DEVELOPMENT BY WRIGHT STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL TO ALLOW FOR THE APPLICANT TIME TO CONSIDER THESE OPTIONS AND SUBMIT REVISIONS.
STAFF DID RECEIVE TWO PHONE CALLS FROM THE PUBLIC WITH NEIGHBORS OBJECTING TO THE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC.
UH, COMMISSIONERS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A COUPLE SPEAKERS.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS ISAIAH CARR, OR I PROBABLY SAID THAT WRONG.
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
HI, MY NAME IS IS CAR AND I AM, UM, HERE TODAY ABOUT 1 0 9.
I'M A RESIDENT OF THE CITY GAS NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF TOWN.
I'M HERE TO GIVE A FEW EXAMPLES WHY HIGH STREET SHOULD NOT BE WIDENING.
MY FAMILY HAS LIVED ON THE CORNER OF HIKES AND BATCH STREET FOR OVER 30 YEARS OVER THE IT'S OKAY.
JUST LOST MY MOM OVER THE YEARS.
MY FAMILY HAS BEEN FLOODED TWICE.
SHE CAN TE STOP AND TAKE A BREATH.
ARE ARE YOU THE NEXT SPEAKER? YES, I AM.
WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND THEN MAYBE SHE CAN CATCH HER BREATH A LITTLE BIT.
UM, I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET AND, UH, WIDENING THE STREET OF HANNAH IS NOT GONNA BE SAFE FOR NEITHER ONE OF OUR HOUSES.
AND ALSO, I WANTED TO KNOW HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT, UH, PART OF MY, MY LAND AS FAR AS ME BUILDING OTHER ITEMS ON THERE? YES MA'AM.
ARE THEY GONNA TAKE ANY INTEREST FROM MY LAND? UM, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE DO HERE, BUT WHAT I CAN DO IS I CAN GET MR. BUTLER TO GET YOU IN TOUCH WITH, UM, PUBLIC WORKS AND THEY COULD HELP YOU OUT THERE.
HE'S THE ONLY ONE THAT COULD TELL ME ABOUT IF THEY'RE GONNA REPL PART OF MY LAND WITHOUT ME KNOWING ABOUT IT.
NO, THEY CANNOT REPL ANY OF YOUR LAND.
THEY CAN ONLY REPL THEIR LAND.
THEY CAN'T TOUCH YOURS AT ALL.
UM, OVER THE YEARS, MY FAMILY HOME HAS BEEN FLOODED TWICE AND ALMOST DRIVEN INTO
[00:50:01]
MULTIPLE TIMES BY IMPAIRED DRIVERS OR SPEEDING VEHICLES BY WHITINGHAM STREET.MY FAMILY WILL LOSE A PORTION OF OUR PROPERTY.
THE DITCHES WILL BE FILLED WITH CEMENT AND NO LONGER ABLE TO ABSORB OR STORE WATER DURING HEAVY FLOODS.
PLUS THE DITCHES WILL NO LONGER ASSIST IN PROTECTING OUR FAMILY FROM VEHICLE ACCIDENTS.
THE NEW HOME DEVELOPMENT, THE NEW HOME DEVELOPMENT ON HIKE STREET HAS CAUSED OVERCROWDING ALONG THE STREETS.
THE POOR PLANNING OF THE DEVELOPER SHOULD NEVER HAVE AFFECTED ANY OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT HAS FOR THE SAFETY OF MY FAMILY, MY NEIGHBORS.
WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU DID NOT A REQUEST, UM, OF WHILING HANNAH STREET FOR THE FACT FOR THE PAST.
GO AHEAD AND WRAP IT UP PLEASE.
UM, IF YOU DO WANT TO GET IN TOUCH WITH PUBLIC WORKS TO FOLLOW THIS ALONG, IT'S, IT'S RECOMMENDED FOR DEFERRAL TODAY, BUT IF IT GOES FORWARD, WE'LL SEE.
SO, UM, IN TWO WEEKS YOU CAN COME BACK AND SPEAK AGAIN.
UM, SO IN THREE WEEKS YOU GUYS CAN COME BACK AND SPEAK AGAIN AND, UH, FOLLOW THIS ALONG.
BUT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS, JEFF, MR. BUTLER WILL HELP YOU OUT THERE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING IN TODAY.
THOSE ARE ALL THE SPEAKERS I HAVE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE.
WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
JEFF, I MEAN I'M JUST, WOULD WE NEED 15 FEET ON BOTH SIDES IF THERE'S A 40 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY NOW? I MEAN, ARE WE, WOULDN'T WE NORMALLY JUST TAKE FIVE FEET FROM BOTH SIDES AND WELL, HANNAH STREET ORIGINALLY WAS PLANTED AT 30 FEET AND THEN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, NOR ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BLOCK DEDICATED THEIR PORTION.
THIS PROPERTY TO REDEVELOP WILL HAVE TO DEDICATE A PORTION.
TWO, THEY'RE ASKING TO DEV, UH, DEDICATE LESS THAN WHAT'S REQUIRED.
DID WE TAKE 10 FEET THEN FROM LOT TWO OVER THERE? YES.
AND THAT'S AN OPTION VERSUS 15, RIGHT? THE THE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ARE ACROSS THE STREET, SO IT REQUIRES LESS SPACE.
COMMISSIONER HEINZ, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH, IT'S MORE, UM, JUST FOR EDUCATING EVERYONE WHO'S SITTING BACK THERE.
UM, WHAT DOES A DEDICATION MEAN? IT JUST, UM, GIFTS THE LAND TO THE PUBLIC.
UH, AND IS THERE SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY? NO.
THIS IS RICHARD SMITH WITH PUBLIC REPRESENTING PUBLIC WORKS.
SO JUST BECAUSE THIS PIECE WOULD BE DEDICATED UNTIL THE ENTIRE BLOCK FRONTAGE WAS DEDICATED, THERE WOULDN'T BE ROOM OR THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR US TO GO IN AND BUILD ANYTHING BECAUSE AGAIN, JUST THIS PIECE, I CAN'T EXTEND THE ROADWAY OR DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I CAN'T, THE ROADWAY WOULD NEED TO BE OFFSET AND CENTERED BACK WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO JUST WITH THIS PORTION, WE WOULDN'T BE DOING ANYTHING TODAY.
YOU KNOW, ONCE MAYBE THE ENTIRE BLOCK FACE, UM, WAS DEDICATED, THEN YOU'D BE LOOKING FOR US.
AND IF IT WAS ALL DEDICATED, THEY WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE, WE'D JUST, THE DRAINAGE DITCHES WOULD BE RELOCATED BACK TO THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE FROM WHERE THEY ARE TODAY.
SO THEY WOULDN'T BE LOSING DITCHES, THEY WOULD JUST BE RELOCATED.
AND THEN THE ROADWAY, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A NARROW ROADWAY, IT WOULD BE WIDENED OUT TO 24 OR 26 FEET, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO, BUT AGAIN, UNTIL WE HAD ALL THE DEDICATION, THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO WITH IT.
I MEAN, BUT IF YOU DON'T GET THE DEDICATION OR SOME DEDICATION, THEN YOU AREN'T ABLE TO IN THE FUTURE DO ANYTHING.
SO YEAH, WE WOULD LOOK, WE COULD LOOK AT SMALLER DEDICATIONS.
AND MR. SMITH, JUST TO SUMMARIZE, I THINK WHAT I HEARD IS THE CITY'S ALWAYS PLANNING, UH, FOR WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE AND TO MAKE THOSE FUTURE HAPPENINGS OCCUR.
IT REQUIRES, UM, AS PROPERTY IS REPLANTED, CREATING A DEDICATION, SAYING IT, HEY, YOU, YOU'VE COMMITTED TO THIS PORTION OF YOUR LAND AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, UM, BEING PART OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO EXPAND THE ROAD.
AND AS LOTS ON YOUR STREET COME UP FOR REPL, THE, THE SAME REQUIREMENT IS MADE OF THAT LOT.
AND AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 YEARS FROM NOW, MAYBE THE CITY WILL FIND A NEED TO WIDEN THE ROAD.
MR. SMITH MADE A GOOD POINT ABOUT THE DITCHES BEING RELOCATED.
THEY WILL NOT BE FILLED IN WITH CONCRETE AND CULVERTS.
[00:55:01]
RELOCATED AS DITCHES IN THE FUTURE.SHE WANTS YOU RELOCATED, RELOCATE THE DITCHES.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM I'M HAVING.
WELL, I HAVE TO TAKE DOWN THAT THING AT THE EVENTUAL WIDENING.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT IS PROBABLY, IT'S GONNA COME TO THE END OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, AND I CAN'T TELL YOU WHERE THAT'S AT.
I'M NOT, I WILL, I WILL SPEAK TO HER OUTSIDE POINT PLEASE.
BUT TO BE CLEAR MA'AM, NOTHING WOULD HAPPEN ON YOUR PROPERTY UNTIL YOU TED IT.
SO IF YOU NEVER REPLANTED IT AND YOU ALWAYS JUST BUILT ONE HOME THERE, IT WOULD NEVER OCCUR.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY, NOTHING WOULD EVER HAPPEN THERE THAT WIDER RIGHT OF WAY, BUT MR. SMITH WILL HELP YOU OUT.
HE'S GONNA EXPLAIN IT MUCH BETTER THAN, THAN WE ARE
OKAY, SO I HAVE A MOTION BY KLIK FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
[e. Subdivision Plats with Special Exception Requests (John Cedillo)]
ITEM ONE 10, MADAM CHAIR, I'M GONNA RECUSE FROM ITEM ONE 10.UH, ITEM ONE 10 IS NORTHFIELD ESTATES.
UH, THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS EAST OF SOUTH GASNER ROAD AND SOUTH OF WEST BELFORD AVENUE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO NOT EXTEND A PUBLIC STUB STREET.
THROUGH THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, STAFF HAS RECEIVED CALLS FROM THE PUBLIC RELATED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT AND I BELIEVE THE COUNCIL'S OFFICE HAS ALSO RECEIVED CALLS.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE APPLICATION PER MAYOR PRO TEM CASTEX TATUM OF DISTRICT K'S REQUEST, UH, MATTER CHAIR.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT MAY BE AVAILABLE AS WELL.
UM, ACTUALLY, UH, MAYOR PRO TEM CASTEX TATUMS, CHIEF OF STAFF BERITA CHAVEZ HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I AM PIDA CHAVIS, THE CHIEF OF STAFF FROM MAYOR PROTE, KE SIX TATUM.
I WANNA THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME FORWARD, UM, BEFORE YOU.
UH, FIRST I WANNA THANK THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, UH, STAFF DEVIN CRILE FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEMS REQUEST, AND ALSO THANK THE RESIDENTS AND HOMEOWNERS OF NORTHVILLE ESTATES, UH, SUBDIVISION FOR THEIR COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS PLAT APPLICATION.
UM, AND ALSO THANK THE APPLICANTS, UH, FOR REACHING OUT, UM, TO MAYOR PRO TEM AND THE BRAZO OAKS MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, UM, BOARD, UM, WHO EXPRESSED TIME TO DISCUSS WITH MAYOR PRO TEM, UM, WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION, HOWEVER, SHE IS TRAVELING OUT OF THE COUNTRY.
UM, AND THUS RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A DEFERRAL SO THAT SHE HAVE TIME TO REVIEW IT.
ALL OF THE COMMENTS AND, UM, INFORMATION COMING, UM, FORWARD, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JERRY GAR GARDNER.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY SPEAKERS I HAVE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE WILL SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DEFERRAL.
[f. Reconsiderations of Requirement ]
ON TO F RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENTS NUMBER ONE 11.ITEM ONE 11 IS KEITH HARROW BOULEVARD STREET DEDICATION SECTION ONE.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HARRIS COUNTY, EAST OF MASON ROAD AND WEST OF WEST GREEN BOULEVARD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING, EXCUSE ME, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A PORTION OF A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE TO BE LESS THAN 100 FEET AS REQUIRED BY THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND FREEWAY PLAN.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THIS STREET DEDICATION IS LOCATED WITHIN THE WESTFIELD VILLAGE GENERAL PLAN.
WHILE PREPARING FOR THIS APPLICATION, IT'S COME TO THE APP DEVELOPER'S ATTENTION THAT THE AREA ONCE PLANNED FOR THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE DEDICATION HAS BEEN SOLD AND PLANNED FOR A DRILL SITE PER THE APPLICANT, THE DRILL SITE IS NOT CONTROLLED BY THE SURFACE OWNER AND BELONGS TO THE MINERAL RIGHTS OWNERS.
THIS STREET DEDICATION IS ROUGHLY 1,320 FEET AND THE LOCATION OF THE DRILL SITE WILL ALLOW FOR A 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION SPANNING ROUGHLY 400 FEET AND THE REMAINING DEDICATION WILL BE SUFFICIENT AT 100 FEET.
[01:00:01]
THE PORTION OF THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE REDUCED IN WIDTH IS ADJACENT TO A LARGE DRAINAGE RESERVE AND IS LOW DENSITY.THIS MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CANNOT BE SHIFTED FURTHER NORTH DUE TO THE RECENTLY RECORDED SUBDIVISION OF JASMINE HEIGHTS SECTION 25.
ALSO, THERE'S A NEARBY PIPELINE THAT LIMITS THE TURNING RADIUS OF THE MAJOR AIRFARE CROSSING THE PIPELINE LOCATION.
WHENEVER THE USE OF THE DRILL SITE CHANGES AND A SUBDIVISION PLAT IS, IS SUBMITTED, STAFF WOULD REQUIRE THE REMAINING DEDICATION AT THAT TIME.
STAFF WILL REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO COORDINATE WITH HARRIS COUNTY'S ENGINEERING OFFICE THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS AND TO PROVIDE A RELEASE LETTER FROM THE PIPELINE COMPANY AT THE TIME OF RECORDATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTED THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVING THE PLA SUBJECT TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 11.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE.
I NEED A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ALL IN FAVOR OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM ONE 12 IS ROSEDALE PLAZA.
UH, THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS IN THE MIDTOWN AREA AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROSEDALE AVENUE, FANNING STREET, SAN JACINTO STREET AND ARBOR STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A RE RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT TO NOT PROVIDE ANY RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO ARBOR STREET, WHICH IS A 25 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
ARBOR STREET IS PLOTTED AS A 25 FOOT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IN 1908.
THIS SITE IS ROUGHLY ONE ACRE IN SIZE AND IS PLANNED FOR COMMERCIAL USE.
THIS ROADWAY PROVIDES ACCESS TO THREE OTHER COMMERCIAL SITES ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE STRUCTURES BUILT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH COULD PREVENT THE STREET FROM BEING WIDENED TO ITS ULTIMATE WIDTH OF 60 FEET.
ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR, FOR, EXCUSE ME, ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPORTING THE REQUEST IS ARBOR STREET HAS A BARRICADE AT THE END OF THE BLOCK TO PREVENT VEHICULAR TRAFFIC FROM CROSSING THE RAIL LINE AT FAN STREET.
THIS HELPS REDUCE THROUGH TRAFFIC ON THIS BLOCK.
THE SITE PLAN SHOWS MULTIPLE EXISTING DRIVEWAYS ALONG SAN JACINTO, ROSEDALE AND ARBOR STREET TO HELP FURTHER REDUCE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.
STAFF HAS COORDINATE COORDINATED WITH HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS TO, TO CONDITION EXIT ONLY TRAFFIC ALONG ARBOR STREET.
THE APPLICANT HAS VOICED NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST AND STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTED THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IN I APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CCP C 1 0 1 4 CONDITIONS.
UH, STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE? I'LL SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION VIA PLAN SECOND MAREZ.
[Platting Activities g - j]
MOVING ON TO G EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL.CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS.
G-H-I-N-J AS ONE GROUP? YES MA'AM.
SECTION G EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEMS ONE 13 THROUGH ONE 30 SECTION H.
NAME CHANGES HAS NO ITEMS. SECTION I CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CONSISTS OF ITEM 1 31 AND SECTION J ADMINISTRATIVE HAS NO ITEMS. THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTIONS GHI AND J.
COMMISSIONER HUNCH MADAM CHAIR, I'M GONNA ABSTAIN FROM ITEM 1 25.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MY MOTION.
MOTION SIGLER SECOND EST PORTAL.
ALL IN FAVOR? A OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
[k. Development Plats with Variance Requests (Ed Buckley and Fabian Esqueda) ]
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.ITEM 1 32 IS 3 34 EAST 31ST STREET.
THE SITE IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST 31ST STREET AT THE CORNER OF ARLINGTON STREET NORTH OF THE SIX 10 LOOP.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A THREE FOOT BUILDING LINE WITH A ONE FOOT ROOF OVERHANG ALONG ARLINGTON STREET IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG A LOCAL STREET FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THE EXISTING 25 FOOT LOT, 25 FOOT WIDE LOT WAS CREATED PRIOR TO CITY ORDINANCE BUILDING LINES AND HAS NO PLATTED BUILDING LINES.
THE REQUESTED SETBACK WILL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED 15 BY 15 FOOT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.
THE DRIVEWAY PROVIDES SUFFICIENT SPACE TO PARK FULLY INSIDE THE PROPERTY AND THE GARAGE WILL TAKE ACCESS PARALLEL TO ARLINGTON STREET FURTHER REDUCING THE POTENTIAL FOR PARKED CARS TO BLOCK THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK.
[01:05:01]
FOOT BUILDING LINE WOULD LEAVE ROUGHLY 11 FEET BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THE HOUSE AND THE STREET CURB AND WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER HOMES IN THE AREA.STAFF FINDS THAT THE EXISTING LOCK CONFIGURATION LIMITS ITS BUILDABLE AREA THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT IT WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT PEDESTRIAN OR DRIVER SAFETY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
STAFF DID RECEIVE ADVANCED COMMENTS OBJECTING TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER MAREZ? YEAH, UM, UH, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE 'CAUSE IF THEY'RE WITHIN 10 FOOT OF THAT CENTER POINT ELECTRIC LINE, THEY'RE GONNA CREATE A CODE VIOLATION THAT THEY WILL THEN HAVE TO PAY TO GET RESOLVED WITH CENTER POINT.
SO, UM, ARE THEY, YOU MENTIONED 12 FOOT FROM THE BACK OF CURB? YES, UH, ROUGHLY.
SO THEY'RE CUTTING IT PRETTY CLOSE IS WHAT I'M GONNA SAY.
AND, AND IF THEY'RE WITHIN THAT 10 FOOT OSHA, IT'S AN OSHA THING, IT'S NOT A CENTER POINT THING.
THEY'RE CREATED A CODE CLEARANCE VIOLATION AND THAT'LL BE QUITE EXPENSIVE FOR THEM.
SO THEY NEED TO BE AWARE OF THAT.
OKAY, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, I HAVE ONE SPEAKER, UH, THE APPLICANT, JOYCE OWENS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS JOYCE OWENS AND I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT.
I WANTED TO COME BEFORE YOU TODAY BECAUSE I DID GET A CALL THIS AFTERNOON THAT THE SUPER NEIGHBORHOOD PRESIDENT HAD SOME CONCERNS.
UM, I, BEING ONE OF THE ORIGINAL SUPER NEIGHBORHOOD PRESIDENTS UNDER MAYOR BROWN, UH, ALWAYS WANNA HEAR FROM SUPER NEIGHBORHOOD PRESIDENTS.
UM, I DID ENSURE HER THAT THIS HOUSE IS BEING BUILT AS THE SAME VARIANCE THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2000 WITH THE SAME IDENTICAL HOUSE PLAN.
UH, I AM GOING TO BE MEETING WITH HER AS WELL AS PASTOR COLLINS WITH THE SOUTH MAIN CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST AND HIS BOARD.
I MET WITH THEM BEFORE, UM, AND THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, BETWEEN NOW AND THEIR MEETING IN JANUARY JUST TO KIND OF GIVE THEM MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT.
SO I JUST WANTED THAT TO GO ON THE RECORD.
AND WE DID CONTACT THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S OFFICE AS WELL AS THE, THERE'S AN INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS ORGANIZATION, BUT I FOUND OUT TODAY THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY AFFILIATED WITH THE SUPER NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, WE DID MAKE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND I WILL BE PERSONALLY MEETING WITH THEM.
I KIND OF LET THEM KNOW THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.
ANY QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER KOHL.
UM, JUST NOTICED THAT THERE WASN'T A RAMP THERE AT THE CROSSWALK.
AND SO OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD BE AS YOU'RE BUILDING, YOU WOULD NEED TO PUT WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBILITY, PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY IN AS WELL.
YEAH, IT WILL MEET ALL OF THE, UH, OF COURSE CITY CODE REGULATIONS.
AND THEN WITH THE OSHA, THE, UM, THE OSHA REGULATIONS, I DID MENTION THAT TO THEM WITH THE POWER POLE RIGHT THERE.
SO THEY'RE LOOKING AT THAT NOW.
UM, IF YOU GO TO CENTERPOINT'S WEBSITE, THEY HAVE A, YOU CAN CHECK, CLICK ON THE FOOTPRINT AND IT'LL GIVE YOU A NAME AND A NUMBER YES.
OF SOMEBODY TO CALL AND YOU CAN TALK TO THEM.
UM, THE, THE NURSE REQUIREMENT, AND THEN FROM THE, THE LOWEST FACILITY, THE, THE 12.5 FOOT REQUIREMENT.
SO YOU JUST SAVE YOURSELF A LOT OF HEADACHE AND MAKE SURE YOU DO THAT.
DUE DILIGENCE,
AND I CALL LISA ADAMS FOR EVERYTHING.
COMMISSIONERS, I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT ELSE, THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE? I'M SEEKING A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, VICTOR.
ALL IN FAVOR? A OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 69 NORTH OF RICE UNIVERSITY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GREENBRIAR DRIVE AND NORTH BOULEVARD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW 23 FOOT BUILDING LINE IN LIEU OF THE 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG GREENBRIAR DRIVE, A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE PROPERTY WAS PLATTED WITH THE CHEVY CHASE SUBDIVISION IN 1929.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THE SITE HAS FRONTED ALONG BOTH NORTH BOULEVARD, A LOCAL STREET, AND GREENBRIAR DRIVE A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
THE PROPOSED 23RD, 23 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG GREENBRIAR DRIVE IS KEEPING IN WITH THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS MANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE AREA ARE SET BACK CLOSER THAN THE 25 REQUIRED FOOT BUILDING LINE ON GREENBRIAR DRIVE.
GREENBRIAR DRIVE IS ALSO A ONE WAY NORTH STREET AT THIS LOCATION.
FURTHERMORE, THE APPLICANT HAS REVISED THE
[01:10:01]
ORIGINAL SITE PLAN AND IS NOW TAKING VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM THE LOCAL STREET.THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 37 FEET FROM THE BACK OF THE CURB ALONG GREENBRIAR DRIVE, WHICH WILL NOT HINDER ANY SITE VISIBILITY AND WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE 23 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG GREENBRIAR DRIVE A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THE CONDITIONS IS THAT THE APPLICANT COORDINATES WITH HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS TO PROVIDE US UNOBSTRUCTED SIX FOOT SIDEWALK THAT ENCLOSES THE EXISTING CURB ALONG GREENBRIER DRIVE.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION FOR ITEM 1 33.
MS. POOL IS HERE, THE APPLICANT FOR QUESTIONS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, WELL THANK YOU MS. POOLE.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION, NOT A MOTION.
I NEED A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM 1 33.
CAN WE CLARIFY THE SIDEWALK? IT SAYS FIVE AND YOU SAID SIX.
IS IT REALLY FIVE OR SIX? IT'S CURRENTLY FIVE.
IT'S GONNA BE EXPANDED TO SIX.
DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION BALDWIN ROBBINS SECOND ROBBINS.
SOUTHWEST FREEWAY SITE IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SOUTHWEST FREEWAY, NORTH OF WEST PARK DRIVE BETWEEN WESLEY STREET AND EDLO STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 12 FOOT BUILDING LINE WITH THREE FOOT ROOF OVERHANG ALONG SOUTHWEST FREEWAY.
IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES FOR A RESTAURANT CONVERSION AND REMODEL.
THE EXISTING OFFICE AND RETAIL BUILDING SITS AT A 12 FOOT BUILDING LINE AS PART OF THE REMODEL.
THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING TO FILL IN SMALL EXTERIOR PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT, WHICH IS ABOUT 28 AND A HALF FEET FROM THE BACK OF CURB.
AND TO BUILD A NEW EXTENDED ROOF THAT WOULD OVERHANG THE PLATTED BUILDING LINE BY ROUGHLY ONE FOOT AND ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENT BY ORDINANCES DUE TO THE CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY THE EXISTING BUILDING LOCATION, THE EXISTING SETBACK FROM TRAVEL LANES AND THE RELATIVELY MINOR NEW ENCROACHMENTS PROPOSED STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1 34.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE.
COMMISSIONERS, UH, ANY QUESTIONS? AND I'M GONNA SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
MOTION BALDWIN SECOND COLLEAGUE.
[II. Establish a public hearing date of January 23, 2025 ]
ON TO TWO ROMAN TWO.ITEM TWO IS ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 23RD, 2025 FOR IVAN DALE SQUARE, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER THREE.
BA BUCK B ACRES BEND LANDING ESTATES SECTION SEVEN PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE, DREYFUS GREEN ENGLAND GROVE MILBY TOWN SITES REPL NUMBER ONE, OMAN TRAILS RIDGECREST ADDITION.
[III. Consideration of a Landscape Variance at 1905 Brittmore Road (Ed Buckley)]
ONTO, UH, ROMAN NUMERAL THREE.ROMAN NUMERAL THREE IS 1905 BRIMORE ROAD.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ON BRIMORE ROAD NORTH OF FULLERTON DRIVE WEST OF BELTWAY EIGHT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO PROVIDE SCREENING TREES AND SHRUBS BETWEEN THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO THE SOUTH IN LIEU OF A 15 FOOT WIDE EVERGREEN LANDSCAPING BUFFER OR SIX FOOT TALL MA WOOD MASONRY OR CONCRETE FENCE.
THE EXISTING USE OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE IS FOR LIFE FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING LIMITS THE FEASIBILITY OF FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE.
SO THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING IS INTENDED TO COMPLY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
THE APPLICANT HAS REACHED OUT TO THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH OF THE SITE AND HAS RECEIVED SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSAL.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE USE OF THE SITE IS A REASONABLE LIMITATION AND THAT THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING MEETS THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
I HAVE SEVERAL SPEAKERS SIGNED.
NO, I DO NOT HAVE SEVERAL SPEAKERS SIGN ON THIS.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY.
I NEED A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION.
[IV. Consideration of an Off-Street Parking Variance at 3200 S. Shepherd Drive (Ed Buckley)]
NUMERAL FOUR, ROMAN NUMERAL FOUR 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 SHEPPARD AND SILVER ROSS STREET.
[01:15:01]
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN INTERIOR MODEL 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 AN 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 THE MARIS BARBECUE.
RECOMMENDATION IS DUE DEFER TO APPLICANT'S REQUEST UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 20TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
UH, I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ROOM NUMERAL FOUR.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, I NEED A RECOMMEND, UH, MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER TO 2 20 25 THAT ASK YOU YES.
WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF DEFERRING UNTIL LATE FEBRUARY? SO THE ISSUE THAT'S BEEN HOLDING UP THIS VARIANCE IS A, A QUESTION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THE PROPERTY IS RESTRICTED TO SINGLE FAMILY USE EVEN THOUGH IT HAS AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
SO WE CAN'T RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE CURRENTLY.
AND THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TIME TO RESOLVE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ISSUE, BUT THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN THE NEXT THREE WEEKS.
SO, UM, MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
[V. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Special Minimum Lot Size Block Re-Establishment for Ordinance 2011-867 (Misty Staunton)]
ON TO ROMAN NUMERAL FIVE.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS MISTY STANTON WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
THIS ITEM IS A REQUEST FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 2041 NORFOLK FOR A PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION TO THE ORDINANCE THAT DESIGNATES A SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE BLOCK FOR THE 1900 2000 BLOCK OF NORFOLK STREET.
THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 2041 NORFOLK IS SEEKING TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM THE LOT FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT LEGAL HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY DE RESTRICTIONS IN 2004, THE FIRST RECORDED ACTIVITY FOR 2041 NORFOLK WAS THE ISSUANCE OF A RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING PERMIT IN 2011.
ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING PERMIT WAS OBTAINED BY APRIL, 2011.
A MINIMUM LOT SIZE BLOCK APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE 1900 2000 BLOCK OF NORFOLK.
THE 2011 MINIMUM LOT SIZE ANALYSIS INDICATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS IN USE AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
AND AT THE TIME, THREE PROTESTS WERE FILED.
ON JULY 7TH, 2011, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE APPLICATION.
AND LATER THAT YEAR IN OCTOBER, THE PROPERTY AT 2041 NORFOLK WAS ISSUED A SIGNED VIOLATION.
AND AT THAT SAME MONTH, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE MINIMUM LAW SIZE BLOCK APPLICATION OVER A DECADE LATER, WE SEEN RENEWED ACTIVITY IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, A SUBDIVISION REPL FOR 2041 NORFOLK WAS SUBMITTED, HOWEVER, IT WAS DEEMED INCOMPLETE.
IN SEPTEMBER, ANOTHER SUBDIVISION REPL FOR THE SAME PROPERTY WAS RESUBMITTED, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY DISAPPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION.
MOST RECENTLY, IN OCTOBER, THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 2041 NORFOLK SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR A PARTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE MINIMUM BLOCK SIZE, WHICH BRINGS US TODAY FOR THIS PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION.
PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE HEARING WAS SENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS ON OCTOBER 22ND TWO, UH, 2024, UM, WITHIN THE 1900 2000 SPECIAL 2000 BLOCK, WITH A SPECIAL MINIMUM BLOCK SIZE, UM, DESIGNATION.
THE DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED FIVE PROTESTS FOR THE PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION.
ONE FROM THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE RICHWOOD PLACE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, ONE FROM THE APPLICANT OF THE 2011 SPECIAL, SPECIAL MINIMUM LOTS SIZE BLOCK APPLICATION, AND THREE FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE BOUNDARY.
AND FIVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR, UM, FROM TWO PATRONS THAT ATTENDED, UM, EVENTS AT 2041 NORFOLK, TWO CURATORS FROM THE MANIL AND THE MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS AND THE 2011 TO 2014 2041 NORFOLK RESIDENT, THE DIRECTOR HAS REFERRED THIS PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION REQUEST TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, WE'RE READY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN FOR ITEM FIVE.
I HAVE SPEAKERS, COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I CALL SPEAKERS? OKAY.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK? COULD THEY GO FIRST IF, UM, YES, THEY'RE HERE.
YOU WANNA HEAR THEM FIRST? THAT'S FINE.
DID YOU LET ME KNOW IF YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK SO I CAN PULL YOUR I DID, I DID.
COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? YEAH, IT'S JUST A SECOND.
UM, MY NAME IS CAMERON ARMSTRONG.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK FOR THE OWNERS OF 2041 NORFOLK.
UM, IT'S A PROPERTY THAT IS SITUATED JUST A FEW BLOCKS NORTH OF, UH, THE SOUTHWEST FREEWAY ON SHEPHERD DRIVE.
IT SEES 25,000 CARS PER DAY ALONG SHEPHERD AND SITS ACROSS FROM A RETAIL STRIP ACROSS FROM STAR PIZZA, A WHATABURGER, AND A LARGE PARKING LOT
[01:20:01]
THE FAMILY WANTS TO SELL.BUT IN TWO YEARS, THERE'S BEEN NO RESIDENTIAL INTEREST.
A FULL PRICE COMMERCIAL OFFER WAS WITHDRAWN BECAUSE THE REPL WAS REFUSED IN EARLY 2024.
2041 IS IN THE BUSINESS ZONE OF THE RICHWOOD PLACE.
DEED RESTRICTIONS OUR RELATIVES DURING THE NINETIES ALSO EXEMPTED IT FROM RESTRICTION, PROTECTS HIS CODE SECTION 2 0 1 PER CHAPTER 42.
IT'S UNRESTRICTED UNDER THE 2011 SMLS ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT WAS NON-RESIDENTIAL IN USE WHEN THE SMLS WAS APPLIED FOR THE RICHMOND, UH, THE RICHWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, THE 2011 ARTIST OCCUPANTS AND THE TOP CURATORS FROM THE MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS AND THE MANIL COLLECTION ARE UNANIMOUS.
THAT 2041 NORFOLK WAS THEN IN USE BY A WELL-KNOWN ARTS ORGANIZATION.
THE SKYDIVE, HOWEVER, THE CITY OBJECTED TO RE PLATING BASED ON HCAD RECORDS LISTING ITS USE AS RESIDENTIAL FOR ITS PART.
HCA HAS STATED THAT A LISTING IS RESIDENTIAL, MEANS THERE IS AN IMPROVEMENT ON THE ACCOUNT.
BUT HCAD DOES NOT DECIDE USE AND THERE IS NO ZONING IN HARRIS COUNTY.
HCA DOES NOT CLASSIFY AN IMPROVEMENTS, USE AND PLANNING STAFF CONCURS THAT THE QUOTE, THE TAXING CODE IS VARIABLE AND IS NOT DEFINITIVE AS TO CLASSIFICATION RECONSIDERING.
THE SMLS MOTION IS COMPLEX BECAUSE ITS PETITIONS AND APPLICATION, UH, AS, UH, AS WHICH WERE REQUIRED BY LAW TO LIST ALL PROPERTIES DID NOT INCLUDE OUR PROPERTY IN ANY LISTING.
THE OWNER'S REQUEST THAT THE ORIGINAL MOTION FOR THE SMLS BE, UH, RENEWED, REFRESHED, AND REVISED.
FIRST BY INSERTING OUR LEGAL DESCRIPTION INTO THE DOCUMENTATION.
AND SECOND, BY CORRECTING THE ORDINANCE TO ACCURATELY SHOW PROPERTY USES IN 2011.
UH, PLEASE, WE'VE DELIVERED YOU SOME DOCUMENTS, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE CONSULT THEM.
THERE'S, UH, BASICALLY THIS IS A TIP OF THE ICEBERG MATTER.
THERE ARE STACKS OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION ABOUT SKYDIVE AND IT'S WELL KNOWN NATIONALLY KNOWN AND INTERNATIONALLY KNOWN ART ACTIVITIES IN THE FACILITY AT THAT TIME.
WE'VE ALSO ATTACHED TWO PAGES THAT ADDRESS THE PARTICULAR APPROACH TO MAKING THESE CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE.
NOW, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO REPLACE ANY LEGAL ADVICE FROM ANYBODY, BUT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, I, WE FELT THAT MAYBE JUST TO, YOU KNOW, OPEN UP THE IMAGINATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN? CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE RESIDENTIAL USE? I MEAN, THERE WAS SOME RESIDENTIAL USE AT THIS TIME.
THE, THE, UH, NO, ACTUALLY NO.
THERE, THERE'S ARTISTS STUDIOS.
THEY HAD ART RESIDENCIES, SO THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING LIKE A CONFUSION ABOUT THAT.
PEOPLE TRAVELED FROM BERLIN AND PORTLAND, OREGON AND OTHER PLACES FAR AFIELD TO, UH, SHOW THEIR WORK.
AND THERE WAS ALSO, FOR A PERIOD, KIND OF A RADICAL IDEA, THEY STAGED WHAT THEY CALLED, UH, M MINI MAXIS.
THEY HAD 24 HOUR RESIDENCIES FOR ANY ARTIST THAT WANTED TO SIGN UP.
THEY HAD ULTIMATELY 49 OF THESE ARTISTS OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE WEEKS.
AND DURING THOSE 24 HOUR PERIODS, YOU COULD SHOW UP AND SEE THEM MAKE THEIR ART, OR YOU COULD ARGUE WITH THEM OR ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO DO.
BUT THERE ARE, THERE'S A LOT OF MATERIAL LIKE THAT.
AND THAT WAS IN 2011? THAT WAS IN 2011.
AND, AND, UM, I MEAN, I MIGHT ADD, I MIGHT, IF I MAY SAY, UM, THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY, UH, BUILT OUT BY THE ORIGINAL OWNER, MEREDITH JAMES, WHO WAS OUR, OUR RELATIVE.
HE WAS THE DEVELOPER OF RIVERSIDE TERRACE, AND HE BUILT TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY FROM WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT SUBDIVISION WAS MANAGED.
UH, WHEN HE DIED, THE BILLING FELL VACANT FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND BECAME SO MOLDY AND MILDEWY THAT IT WAS UNINHABITABLE.
LITERALLY, WE LEASED IT TO A GENERAL CONTRACTOR IN 2004 WHO PROMISED, UH, FOR A REDUCED RENT TO MITIGATE AND REMEDIATE THAT IT NEVER BECAME INHABITABLE AS A PERSONAL RESIDENCE BY ANYONE.
THE ARTISTS OF SKYDIVE HAD BEEN OCCUPYING AN OFFICE BUILDING ON MONTROSE BOULEVARD, WHICH WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED IN HURRICANE IKE, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET IT OTHER THAN THAT.
THEY THOUGHT THE NORFOLK BUILDING WAS SOMEHOW LESS MOLDY THAN THE OFFICE BUILDING.
UH, IT WAS NOT A PLACE THAT ANYBODY WOULD LIVE, FRANKLY.
AND OUR REAL JOB IS TO DETERMINE IF IT WAS MISCLASSIFIED IN 2011.
I MEAN, YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND AND NO ONE RESPONDED.
I SUPPOSE WE WERE TRUSTING TO THE APPARATUS OF THE LAW, FRANKLY.
WE HAD A, THE, OUR RELATIVES HAD A BELT AND SUSPENDERS APPROACH TO REGULATION.
[01:25:01]
WE WERE IN THE BUSINESS SECTION OF RICHWOOD UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS.BUT THEY ALSO, UH, TOOK AVAILED THEMSELVES OF THIS, THE PROPERTY STATUTES, SO THE STATE OF TEXAS TO ALSO EXEMPT THEMSELVES EVEN FROM DEED RESTRICTIONS.
SO IT'S NOT RESTRICTED IN EITHER OF THOSE WAYS.
THE ONLY RESTRICTION THAT WOULD APPLY HAS TO DO WITH THE 2011 SMLS ORDINANCE.
AND IT'S VERY SPECIFIC UNDER THE CHAPTER 42 TERMS OF THAT TIME THAT IF A PROPERTY WAS IN USE IN A OTHER THAN A RESIDENTIAL WAY AT THE TIME THAT THE APPLICATION WAS ACCEPTED, THEN IT MAY NOT BE RESTRICTED TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
AND THAT IS CERTAINLY THE CASE.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE STACK OF MATERIALS THERE, AS I'VE MENTIONED THERE, THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.
WE CAN VERY DEFINITELY SHOW, AND WE HAVE SHOWN THAT IT WAS FOR USE IN OTHER WAYS, BUT WE'RE GONNA HEAR FROM OTHER PEOPLE THAT SAY IT WAS A RESIDENT.
I MEAN, OUR JOB IS TO, WE DON'T LIKE TO BE THE JURY.
WE'RE HAVING TO MAKE A, A, YOU KNOW, DETERMINATION HERE.
WAS IT MISCLASSIFIED OR NOT? YES, SIR.
THAT'S WE'RE HAVING TO DO, RIGHT? NO, NO.
WELL, LET ME SAY THIS, LET ME SAY THIS.
OUR PROPERTY, UH, THE PROCESS FOR THE SMLS, UH, INVOLVED PETITIONS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND FROM INTERESTED PARTIES.
IT INVOLVED AN APPLICATION THAT HAD TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE, THE CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR.
AND THERE WERE 37 SIGNATURES ON AT LEAST TWO DOZEN PETITIONS HERE.
AND THE APPLICATION THAT VERY SPECIFICALLY POINT TO EVERY LOT IN THE SMLS, IT DOESN'T MENTION OUR PROPERTY.
IT TALKS ABOUT, UM, BLOCK F TRACKS 2 3 3 A AND LOT FOUR IN ALMAR PLACE.
OUR PROPERTY IS TRACKED ONE AND TWO A, IT DOESN'T APPEAR IN ANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS.
SUDDENLY BETWEEN THE TIME THE APPLICATION IS ACCEPTED FOR THOSE DESCRIPTIONS, OUR PROPERTY APPEARS IN THE ORDINANCE.
WE DIDN'T SEE THIS AND IT WAS PASSED.
SO IT WAS, UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW PLANNING STAFF WOULD'VE EXPANDED THE SMLS UNDER WHAT BASIS, HOW THEY COULD SOMEHOW THESE PETITIONS NOT MENTION OUR PROPERTY.
THEN SUDDENLY IT'S INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE.
I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE ANY, I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT.
MS. MICKELSON, DO YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS PLEASE? YEAH, I, I MAY BE ABLE TO, TO CUT THIS TO THE CHASE BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, YOU, YOU ALL ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE MLS PRO PROCESS.
YOU SEE THOSE FAIRLY FREQUENTLY.
UM, I CAN'T THINK OF HOW MANY WE'VE SEEN IN MY SEVEN YEARS, BUT, UM, A NUMBER OF THEM, SO YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY AND THE, WITH THE PROCESS AND THE, THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE PETITION GO OUT.
THE PETITION DOES NOT NEED TO INCLUDE A SIGNATURE OR A BLOCK LINE FOR A SIGNATURE FOR EVERY PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, THE MAP MUST SHOW IT.
AND THE, UM, UH, ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT WE GO FROM BLOCK FACE TO BLOCK, FACE AS DETERMINED BY THE STREETS.
THAT'S WHY THE PROPERTY WAS INCLUDED, BECAUSE THAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE.
IT WAS IN THE ORDINANCE IN 2011.
BUT LET ME REALLY CUT IT TO THE CHASE HERE.
SO EVEN I, IN OUR REVIEW OF THE, OF THE APPLICATION AND THE RECORD BEFORE IT APPEARS THAT STAFF DID EVERYTHING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE, EVEN IF THERE WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.
TEXAS HAS WHAT IS AN EFFECT OF A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL ACTIONS.
AND THAT IS THAT IF THERE'S NOT CHALLENGED WITHIN THREE YEARS, THEY ARE DEEMED VALIDATED.
GREAT ORDINANCE ORDINANCES IN PLACE, WHATEVER HAPPENED, HAPPENED.
REALLY, THE QUESTION HERE, I THINK IS THAT THE, THIS PROPERTY OWNER IS ASKING FOR YOU ALL TO RECONSIDER JUST THE DESIGNATION OF THIS.
IF YOU ALL HEAR FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU AGREE WITH THAT, THAT WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED, YOU MAY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL THAT THEY AMEND ORDINANCE TO A 2011, I'M BLANKING ON THE LAST THREE NUMBERS, BUT YOU MAY ASK THAT THEY, UM, AMEND THAT ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO RECLASSIFY THIS LOT AS COMMERCIAL.
IF YOU AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT'S INFORMATION, UM, AND FEEL THAT THAT WAS DONE.
I, I THINK THERE'S NOT A CHALLENGE LEFT ABOUT, WAS EVERYTHING DONE RIGHT? NO.
THE FOCUS, I THINK IS, I'M JUST COMPLAINING, KIM.
IT IT, AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM WHAT WE'VE ATTACHED TO THE BACK OF OUR STACK OF PAPERS, THERE IS A PAGE EXHIBIT B FROM THE ORDINANCE THAT WE THINK CAN BE CHANGED.
AND IT'S JUST ONE LITTLE CHANGE.
SO IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER, THANK YOU, IT WOULD BE A SIMPLE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
THIS, THIS IS NOT IF, IF IT GOES FORWARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM YOU ALL, FRANKLY, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
[01:30:01]
HAS THE FINAL ACTION, UM, ON THIS ITEM.SO I I, I HAVE, AS WE, AS THE ORDINANCE HAS CHANGED, BEEN VERY COGNIZANT OF THESE CORNER PROPERTIES ON BUSY STREETS LIKE 11TH STREET AND WHITE OAK.
AND I MEAN, I PAID OVERLY ATTENTION TO THEM.
I WASN'T HERE IN 2011, BUT I MEAN, IT IS A VERY SENSITIVE DEAL IF YOU GET MISCLASSIFIED, IT GREATLY IMPACTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE USE OF THAT PROPERTY.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, COMMISSIONER ROBBINS, UH, MS. MICKELSON, THE SPEAKER SAID IF IT WAS, UH, IN USE AS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN 2011, AT THE TIME THE ORDINANCE PASSED THAT THEN IT SHOULD REMAIN A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
IS THERE, IS THAT THE QUESTION WE SHOULD BE TRYING TO ANSWER? OR IS IT, WAS IT AFTER THAT TIME, WAS IT EVER USED RESIDENTIAL AND NOW THEY HOPE TO CONVERT IT BACK TO COMMERCIAL? UH, I THINK THE, THE QUESTION IS WHAT WAS THE USE AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED IN 2011 AND THEY COULD EASILY RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL EVEN THAT THEN, CORRECT.
THEY COULD HAVE COM CONVERTED IT TO RESIDENTIAL, BUT AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION WAS, WAS SUBMITTED, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN THE ANALYSIS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OR WAS DONE.
BUT HE'S ARGUING IS INCORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, THANK YOU.
AND ONE NOTE, WE HAVE AN EXTENSIVE TEXT THAT REFLECTS MY STATEMENT, A MORE EXTENSIVE STA FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OR REVIEW.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JUAN CANTILLA.
UH, BRUCE ADAMS. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME'S BRUCE ADAMS AND MY WIFE AND I, KATHY HAVE RESIDED AT, UH, 2034 NORFOLK SINCE 2006.
NORTH FORK IS LOCATED DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET AND TWO HOUSES DOWN FROM THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION 2041.
DURING THE TIME THAT I'VE LIVED THERE, I'VE NEVER OBSERVED COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AT THAT PROPERTY.
I DO KNOW THAT FROM 2010 TO 2011, THE, UH, ART COLLECTIVE WAS THERE, BUT I'VE NEVER SAW ACTIVITY THAT I WOULD CONSIDER COMMERCIAL.
AND THERE WAS CARS PARKING THERE, UH, PEOPLE GOING IN AND OUT.
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, DURING THE TIME I'VE LIVED THERE, IT'S BEEN A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
AND WHAT YEAR DID YOU? 20, UH, 2006.
I ALSO NOTICED THAT, UH, WHEN THIS QUESTION CAME UP, THERE WAS SOME QUESTION AS TO WHAT THE PROPERTY WAS GOING TO BE USED FOR.
UH, FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.
THERE WAS A LARGE SIGN ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT PROPERTY WHEN THE SENT FENCE WAS UP, SHOWING A LARGE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT WAS COMING SOON.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD THE COM UH, COMMISSION.
I DO KNOW THAT THAT SIGN WAS TAKEN DOWN SURPRISINGLY LAST WEEK.
THERE WAS ALSO SOME DISCUSSION WITH ONE OF THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS SAYING IT WAS GONNA BE USED FOR TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, WHICH ALSO IS NOT ALLOWED BY THE MLS.
UH, AGAIN, THE MAIN THING, UH, I'M HERE TO SAY TODAY IS I'VE LIVED ACROSS THE STREET FOR ALMOST 18 YEARS NOW.
AND, UH, TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION AND WHAT I'VE SEEN TALKING TO PROPERTY OWNERS THERE, IT HAS BEEN A RESIDENTIAL, UH, PROPERTY.
AND SPECIFICALLY IN 2000, PARDON? COULD WE CARE MUCH ABOUT 2011? WE'RE NOT ALLOWED AGAIN, ALL I KNOW IN 2011, THERE WAS SOMETHING CALLED THE SKYDIVE ART COLLECTIVE THAT WAS IN THERE, BUT IT WAS NOT SOMETHING WHERE PEOPLE GO IN BOUGHT PROP BOUGHT, UH, UH, ART OR ANYTHING ELSE.
I MEAN, YOU WOULDN'T NOTICE IT ANY DIFFERENT FROM A RESIDENTIAL UNIT, AND IT WAS NEVER CLASSIFIED AS COMMERCIAL AT THAT TIME.
BUT YOU SAW THE ART DIVE THING.
THAT'S JUST WHAT I HEARD IN THE, IN THE THING.
I NEVER SAW ANYTHING GOING ON THERE.
I WOULD'VE NEVER KNOWN IT WAS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
OKAY, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER MARAZ? WHAT'S, IT'S NOT A QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER, BUT LEGAL, LIKE, I MEAN, EVEN IF THEY USED IT FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL, IF IT'S NOT LEGALLY CLASSIFIED AS COMMERCIAL, I MEAN, I CAN PUT ART IN MY HOUSE AND HAVE PEOPLE WALK THROUGH, LIKE, I GUESS I, I, I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THE LEGALITY OF, OF THAT AND IF THERE'S ANY CLARIFICATION THERE.
I MEAN, I CAN UNDERSTAND IF IT'S AN EXHIBIT THAT YOU KIND OF HAVE UP AND THE PUBLIC'S WELCOME TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH, BUT WAS IT CLASSIFIED AS A COMMERCIAL USE? AND THAT'S THE PART THAT I'M CONFUSED.
IN 2011, I, I'D DEFER TO STAFF, TO MS. STANTON WHO CAN EXPLAIN WHAT RESEARCH, THE STAFF WENT BACK AND DID IT THAT TIME.
BUT AS SHE'S NOTED, UM, PERMITS AND THINGS ON HCA WERE, WERE ALL INDICATING RESIDENTIAL.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT STAFF DID FOR LUCKY FOR YOU ACTUALLY WORKED WITH THE PLANNER THAT, THAT PROCESSED THIS AND THAT WAS IN THAT, UH, DIVISION.
[01:35:01]
GOT A MINIMUM LOTS SIZE APPLICATION IS WE HAD TO GO PHYSICALLY SEE THE PROPERTY.AND SO THAT WAS THE FIRST THING THAT WE DID.
THAT'S WHY YOU SAW THE APRIL, 2011 PICTURE.
THE SECOND THING WE DO, UH, WE LOOK FOR IS THE HCA.
THE HCA LABELED IT AS RESIDENTIAL.
THEN AFTER THAT WE WENT TO ILMS TO SEE THE PERMITS.
AND THOSE PERMITS JUST SHOWED RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING PERMITS.
SO THERE WAS NOTHING THAT INDICATED THAT THERE WAS COMMERCIAL PROP, THAT THAT WAS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
WHAT IF IT HAD BEEN A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WOULD IT HAVE REQUIRED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FIRE AND ALL THAT? YES.
NO THERE, UM, YEAH, IT, THERE WAS NO PERMITS PULLED FOR THAT PROPERTY AND IT WOULD'VE REQUIRED THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RONNIE MOORE.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
UH, MADAM SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UH, UM, I MEANT TO SPEAK ABOUT, UM, THE, UH, WHAT MS. KIM HAD ALREADY ADDRESSED.
SO I'M NOT GONNA REPEAT MYSELF, BUT, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO KIND OF PRESENT, UH, A VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED, UM, THAT CAUSED THIS, UM, UH, LISTING.
UH, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE REPORT, TO THE STAFF REPORT, UM, THE PRESIDENT OF RICHWOOD AS EARLY AS 2000, AS EARLY AS DECEMBER, 2010, WROTE EMAILS, UH, ADDRESSING THE, UH, PLANNING, UH, UH, I'M SORRY, ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL AND COMPLAINING OF COMMERCIAL USE ON THE PROPERTY.
UH, IN HER EMAIL SHE STATED THAT PROPERTY WAS, UH, BEING USED FOR COMMERCIAL AND SHE STATED WHY SHE BELIEVED SO.
UM, AND SHE WAS THE PRESIDENT OF RICHWOOD.
I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION, THE PROPERTY WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO, UM, COMMERCIAL USE.
AND ALSO, UM, THE, UM, RICHWOOD, UH, PLACE, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS SPECIFICALLY, UH, UH, APPROVED THE USE, UH, THE COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE LOCATED ON SHEPHERD DRIVE.
SO THIS, UH, PARTICULAR LOT IS LOCATED ON SHEPHERD DRIVE AND IT'S SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED TO BE, UH, USED AS COMMERCIAL.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE A OA PRESENT OF THE SUBDIVISION CORRECT.
WROTE EMAILS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMPLAINING OF THE USE.
DO WE HAVE COPIES OF THESE EMAILS? YES.
SO SOMEONE IS CLEARLY COMPLAINING THAT IT HAD A COMMERCIAL USE IN 2010.
AND THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED IN 2011.
I, UM, JUST GIVE ME ONE SECOND.
I WOULD LIKE TO, I'M SORRY, YOU'RE ANSWERING MY QUESTION? YEAH, YOU CAN HAND THAT TO STAFF FOR THE RECORD.
SO, UM, I BELIEVE THE, THE, THE, UH, CONFUSION CAME WHERE, UM, WHENEVER THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED, UM, THE APPLICATION DID NOT HAVE THE SLOT LISTED ON IT, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE AT THAT TIME.
THAT THE APPLICATION THAT THE BOUNDARY BE LISTED SPECIFICALLY, IT STATES THAT THE BOUNDARY HAD TO BE LISTED.
UM, THE, UH, APPLICATION, UH, THE APPLICATION PROVIDED FOR A FORM TO FILL OUT THE APPLICATION.
THAT FORM REQUIRED THE LOT NUMBER, THE BLOCK NUMBER, IT REQUIRED DETAILED LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
I DO HAVE A COPY OF THAT IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IT.
SO, UH, THE, THE APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED DID NOT HAVE THAT LOT IN THE BOUNDARY, EVEN THOUGH IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY TWO LOTS.
AND ALSO THE PETITION THAT WAS SUBMITTED, UH, THE, THE PETITION THAT THAT WAS CIRCULATED DID NOT HAVE THIS PROPERTY ON IT.
SO ANY PROOF OF SUPPORT FOR THAT APPLICATION IS INVALID BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO SIGNED THAT, THAT PETITION, UH, TO, TO SUPPORT THAT APPLICATION DID NOT ACTUALLY SIGN ON THAT VOUCHER.
BUT OUR LEGAL COUNSELOR IS SAYING THAT IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.
I'M JUST CLARIFYING THE PROCESS.
NO, NO, BUT I'M ASKING YOU A VALID QUESTION.
DO YOU THINK THOSE NEIGHBORS THOUGHT IT WAS COMMERCIAL AND THAT'S GONNA STAY COMMERCIAL? DO YOU THINK THE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED THE APPLICATION THOUGHT IT WAS RESIDENTIAL? UH, NO.
THE PEOPLE WHO SAW THE APPLICATION KNEW IT WAS COMMERCIAL BECAUSE IF YOU READ THE, THE EMAILS, IT WAS WELL KNOWN BY MORE THAN ONE PERSON.
THAT'S THE PRESIDENT OF RICHWOOD PLACE.
AND, AND THEY HAVE, THEY HOLD MEETINGS AND IN THEIR MEETINGS THEY DISCUSS THE USE OF PROPERTY.
[01:40:01]
THERE WAS SEVERAL PEOPLE GOING BACK AND FORTH INTO EMAILS.THERE ARE MINUTES THAT REFLECT THAT PEOPLE WERE DISCUSSING THAT IT WAS COMMERCIAL.
I DID NOT HAVE A COPY OF THAT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK THE PRESIDENT IS HERE.
UH, BUT I, I WANNA POINT OUT THAT THIS HERE, THIS FORM THAT HAD, UH, THE PROPERTY LISTED WITHOUT COMMERCIAL ON IT, WHICH IS THE ONLY PLACE WHERE OUR PROPERTY IS LISTED, IT'S UH, IT'S UH, IT'S MARKED AS RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE IT WAS RECYCLED FROM PRIOR APPLICATION IN 2010, UH, THEY HAD APPLIED FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZE GOT DENIED.
BUT THIS FORM, THAT THAT, THAT, THE DATE OF THAT WAS SIX MONTHS EARLIER.
AND WAS IT COMMERCIAL ON THAT APPLICATION IN 2010? NO, IT WAS, IT WAS LISTED RESIDENTIAL.
EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY, IT WAS JUST THE HOUSE.
SO YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU'RE GONNA THINK IT'S RESIDENTIAL.
BUT THEN IN 2010, SKYDIVE MOVED INTO THE PROPERTY AND UH, THEY NEVER HAD TO PUT A NEW MAP.
AND THAT'S WHY THE SAME THING, THE SAME LISTING.
DID THEY REMOVE THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION? THAT WAS IN 2010 FOR THE 2011 APPLICATION IN MAY? NO, THEY RECYCLED THE SAME FORM.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JOHN GEIS.
MY NAME IS JOHN GEIS, THE PRESIDENT, CURRENT PRESIDENT OF RICHMOND PACIFIC ASSOCIATION.
THE LETTER THAT WAS THE PREVIOUS BROKER SPEAKER REFERRED TO WAS FROM THE CURRENT PRESIDENT THEN REBECCA L OCKHAM, WHO HAD READ STUFF IN THE NEWSPAPER ABOUT SKYDIVE ARCHIVE MOVING IN.
AND SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT ACTIVITY, PARKING AND ALL THE TRAFFIC AND EVERYTHING TO MICHAEL LONG WITH THAT.
SO SHE ASKED CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE, AND IN YOUR PACKET, THERE ARE THE RESULTS OF THOSE VISITS AND THE CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT FILED, NO LICENSING, NO PERMITS AND ANYTHING THAT WOULD'VE ESTABLISH IT AS A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
AND WHEN THIS MINIMUM ALLOT SIZE, YOU GUYS ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO POST LARGE SIGNS, NOTIFICATIONS ARE LAID OUT OF THE MAIL.
THERE WERE NO PROTESTS FROM THAT PROPERTY.
THE SIGN PROBABLY WOULD'VE BEEN ON THAT CORNER.
RIGHT? I MEAN, WOULDN'T IT HAVE HAVE BEEN FROM CORNER TO CORNER? YES.
THE SIGNAGE ITSELF WOULD'VE PROBABLY EVEN BEEN ON THE PROPERTY.
THEY WERE ALL THE WAY RIGHT THERE ON THE CORNER OF RICHMOND AND NORFOLK STREET.
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER, WE SHOWED THAT PICTURE OF THE BANNER HANGING ON THE FENCE OF A NICE FANCY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.
WHY, WHY IS THAT HANGING ON THE FENCE SAYING COMING SOON IF THIS IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY? I NEVER BELIEVE YEAH, YEAH.
SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, TO THE COMMISSIONER'S POINT OVER HERE, YES THERE WAS ARTISTS IN THERE, BUT IT WAS NEVER CONSIDERED LEGALLY A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
YOU KNOW, AND THEY VERY SETTLED.
THEY WEREN'T OPEN LIKE 24 HOURS OR I MEAN SEVEN DAYS A WEEK FOR, FOR LIKE A NORMAL GALLERY FOR PEOPLE TO COME IN ALL THE TIME.
LET ME SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
WE WERE, UM, PICKING IT MR. BALDWIN BECAUSE HE IS A BROKER.
YEAH, I HAD A, A QUESTION MR. GEIST.
UM, SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS THE, YOUR, THE ORGANIZATION DOESN'T NECESSARILY OBJECT TO WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THAT SPACE NOW.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE SPACE.
YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU JUST WANNA KEEP IT IN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
THEY WANT IT TO BE CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL AND THEN THEY HANG A BAER OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, WHICH WOULD MAYBE ALLOW THEM IN WELL, IN THE FUTURE IT COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE COULD GO THERE.
BUT IT'S NOT YOUR OBJECTION TO WHAT IS HAPPENING THERE NOW.
YOU WANT IT TO STAY AS IT IS SINGLE FAMILY.
UM, CAN I ASK THAT THE, YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS A PICTURE FROM WHEN THE INVESTIGATION FOR THE MINIMUM UPSIDE IN APRIL, I GUESS 2011.
SO THAT, I'M GONNA, LET ME CLARIFY THAT, THAT PICTURE IS FROM GOOGLE.
IT'S NOT, THE STAFF DID NOT HAVE A PICTURE IN THEIR FILE, NOT IN NOT INTERIOR.
TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THE, WE DON'T GO INSIDE HOMES.
THERE, I MEAN YOU GOT PLENTY OF PEOPLE SAYING IT'S THERE.
IT'S, THE QUESTION IS WAS IT COMMERCIAL OR NOT? JUST BECAUSE IT WAS SKYDIVE DOESN'T MAKE IT COMMERCIAL LEGALLY.
SAY THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS BANNERS ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THAT WERE PART OF AN ART INSTALLATION IN THE BUILDING.
YOU AT THE END AS THE APPLICANT, YOU CAN COME BACK UP AND SPEAK, BUT YES.
UH, JUAN QUINTIN QUINTA VILLA.
IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE MATERIALS THAT WERE PROVIDED, THAT
[01:45:01]
IT BASICALLY SEEMED LIKE A BED AND BREAKFAST FOR ARTISTS TO COME STAY.IS THAT COMMERCIAL OR NOT COMMERCIAL.
AND IT, DOES IT MATTER IF THEY STAYED FOR FREE OR IF THEY HAD TO PAY? I, I THINK IF IT'S COMMERCIAL, THEN THE QUESTION YOU ASKED ABOUT THE OTHER BUILDING REQUIREMENTS, CODE REQUIREMENTS AND SO FORTH WOULD'VE KICKED IN.
UM, I'VE NOT SEEN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT RECORDS, UM, THAT HAVE JUST RECENTLY BEEN DISCUSSED.
BUT, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT MATTERS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT NECESSARILY MEANS IT'S COMMERCIAL OR NOT.
MR. QUINTON, QUINAN, ILLA, ILLA.
I'M ALSO A RESIDENT OF RICHWOOD.
I PURCHASED A PROPERTY IN 2011 ON LEXINGTON SITE.
I CONVERTED THAT PROPERTY TO A OC UH, COMMERCIAL OCCUPANCY.
SO I FOLLOW ALL THE PROCEDURES.
I'M ALSO ARRESTED IN ON THE NORFOLK SIDE, WHICH IS LITERALLY FEW HOUSES DOWN FROM THE CURRENT PROPERTY.
AND IT'S AS TO MY RECOLLECTION, UH, AS FAR BEFORE THEY DEMOLISHED.
'CAUSE THE PROPERTY'S VACANT RIGHT NOW IT'S, IT WAS DEMOLISHED MAYBE FEW MONTHS AGO.
IT WAS STILL BEING OCCUPIED AS A RESIDENCE.
AND THE REASON I KNOW THIS IS 'CAUSE HE WOULD ALWAYS LEAVE HIS VEHICLE APART FOR DAYS OR WEEKS AND WE WOULD HAVE TO ASK HIM TO MOVE IT.
SO I KNOW IT'S BEEN ALWAYS, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN OCCUPIED AS A RESIDENTIAL HOME.
AND I'VE BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR MULTIPLE YEARS.
I'VE OWNED MULTIPLE PROPERTIES IN BRIDGEWOOD AND I'VE NEVER, I'VE WALKED THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING TO LETTING ME STATE THAT IT'S BEEN A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
UH, SIGNS PARKING, UH, BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS.
UM, SO I DON'T SEE HOW THEY KEEP MENTIONING THAT IT'S BEEN A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
IT WAS BEING USED AS A COMMERCIAL USE.
'CAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN USED AS COMMERCIAL USE BESIDES THAT.
UM, LIKE I SAID, I I, I FOLLOW THE CITY, UH, REQUIREMENTS AND, AND SEE NOW THE MOVEMENT.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY IT'S COMMERCIAL NOW, RESIDENTIAL BACK TO COMMERCIAL, THEN THE RESIDENTIAL, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
THAT'S MY THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU SO MUCH.
OKAY, MR. UH, CAMERON ARMSTRONG.
UM, I WANT TO ANSWER A NUMBER OF THESE POINTS.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT A COMMERCIAL USE MIGHT BE, WHAT A RESIDENTIAL USE MIGHT BE.
A, A RESIDENTIAL USE IS A PREMISES THAT'S DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR LIVING, SLEEPING, COOKING, AND EATING WILL BE DEEMED TO BE RESIDENTIAL UNLESS IT'S ACTUALLY OCCUPIED AND USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
HOTELS, SUITES, HOTELS, MOTELS, BOARDING HOUSES AND DAYCARE CENTERS SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL.
THAT'S FROM DEFINITION SECTION OF CHAPTER 42.
UM, WE DON'T WANT TO BE RELYING ON TECHNICALITIES, BUT IF TECHNICALITIES ARE IMPORTANT, UH, AND ARTIST RESIDENCIES COULD BE CONSIDERED BED AND BREAKFAST.
WELL, MAYBE AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE OPERATION OF A NON NOT-FOR-PROFIT ART COOPERATIVE IS BY ANY DEFINITION A COMMERCIAL USE AND DOES NOT INVOLVE PEOPLE LIVING THERE ON A, ON A PERSONAL RESIDENTIAL BASIS.
UM, AND SO I WANT TO COMMENT ON WHAT AN ART GALLERY IS OR IS NOT.
UM, YOU CAN SEE IN THE PACKAGE THAT WE'VE DELIVERED TO YOU MANY PICTURES OF THE INSIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHEN IT WAS, UH, IN USE FOR EXHIBITIONS FOR PERFORMANCES.
THERE WAS A ONCE A WEEK ART SCHOOL THAT MET ON SATURDAYS CALLED THE SATURDAY FREE SCHOOL.
THERE WERE, UH, FUNDRAISERS STAGED IN COLLABORATION WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS LIKE THE LAWNDALE ARDEN PERFORMANCE CENTER.
UM, AND FURTHERMORE, THIS WAS ALL RECOGNIZED BY THE HEAD AT THAT TIME OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
AND ALSO IT'S BEEN RECOGNIZED BY MR. GEIS IN HIS, UH, IN HIS CORRESPONDENCE WITH CITY PLANNING.
TODAY, IN THE PRESENT DAY, I REFER YOU TO PAGES 14 AND 20 OF YOUR ATTACHMENTS.
UM, THERE WERE INSPECTIONS OF THE PROPERTY OCCUPANCY DID A FULL INSPECTION.
THERE WERE TWO INSPECTIONS BY THE FIRE MARSHAL.
I FOUND MYSELF HUSTLING AROUND FOR A REASON I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND FOR FIRE EXTINGUISHERS.
[01:50:01]
THE FIRE MARSHAL APPARENTLY DECIDED THAT THE SPACE WAS TOO SMALL TO APPLY THEIR SEVERE, UH, STANDARDS OF PUBLIC, UM, ASSEMBLY CODES.THERE WAS VERY GOOD ACCESS TO THE OUTSIDE.
SIGNS WERE PUT UP ON HOW TO GET OUTSIDE.
UH, SO ALL THOSE MATTERS JUST WENT AWAY.
UM, THERE WERE NEVER ANY, UH, CITATIONS OR VIOLATIONS TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
ALL OF THAT WAS IN THE HANDS OF SKYDIVE ANYWAY, WE NEVER KNEW ABOUT THAT KIND OF THING, AND THEY WERE EXPERTS AT IT.
UM, IF, UH, IF THE FIRE MARSHAL AND OCCUPANCY DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING ILLEGAL THERE, THEN HOW ILLEGAL COULD IT HAVE BEEN, IS MY QUESTION.
UM, AS FOR BANNERS RECENTLY, WE WANT TO SELL THE PROPERTY AND WE'LL SELL IT TO ANYBODY, FRANKLY.
UM, BRING YOUR PILE OF GREEN BACKS AND WE'LL HAVE A CONVERSATION.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY OTHER THAN AGAIN, OKAY.
IT SAYS YOU HAD A LEASE WITH THIS SKYDIVE COOPERATIVE.
DID YOU HAVE A COMMERCIAL LEASE OR, I HAVE NO IDEA.
WE, THEY SIGNED IT AND I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF IT EITHER.
I MEAN, I JUST, WE THREW A LOT OF THEM MATERIAL AWAY.
WE HAD A LETTER FROM MS HA AL HAKUM COMPLAINING OF OUR COMMERCIAL USE AND STATING THAT IT WAS AGAINST THE DEED RESTRICTION IN 2011.
AND I JUST THREW IT AWAY AND DISCUSSED, FRANKLY, BECAUSE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS SAID THAT AT THAT TIME WE WERE PERFECTLY ENTITLED TO HAVE A BUSINESS USE.
DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE OBJECTIONS, HONESTLY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, YES, YES.
COMMISSIONER MORRIS, I, I MEAN, I, I KNOW YOU KEEP ARGUING THE COMMERCIAL ASPECT, BUT THE REALITY IS PERMITS AND EVERYTHING ELSE DONE FOR THE PROPERTY AND POOLED WERE DONE IS RESIDENTIAL.
SO I WAS NOT THE PLUMBER
I, I, I REALIZE THAT WE ARE KIND OF ARGUING BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN RIGHT NOW.
AND, AND, UH, I MEAN, I I, I'LL SAY THIS FOR THE COMMISSION, IT'S, UH, I I MEAN THE, EVERYTHING THAT WAS DONE AT THE RESIDENTIAL, UH, PROPERTY, IT DOESN'T APPEAR, UH, WHETHER PURPOSELY OR ON PURPOSELY THEN THE LAST 14 YEARS, YOU KNOW, ORDINANCE CODE OR PERMANENCE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
SO I'M NOT INCLINED TO REWARD, UM, REWARD THAT IN ANY MEANS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
THERE WAS A COMMENT FROM ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS SAYING THAT THEY WISH THEY COULD HAVE SEEN THE COMMENTS FROM, UM, THE INSPECTOR.
UM, THAT'S THE COMMENT THAT I PICKED UP FROM ILMS. THERE'S ONE FROM 2010 AND THEN ANOTHER ONE FROM 2011 BASED ON SOME OF THE, UH, UH, COMPLAINTS THAT CAME FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
PAGE FOUR, IF IT LOOKS LIKE THIS.
YEAH, IT'S IN YOUR PACKET IN THE IPAD.
AND, OH, SORRY, I APOLOGIZE ABOUT THAT.
AND THESE WERE, YEAH, I DON'T HAVE THE WHOLE PACKET.
AND THESE WERE COMPLAINTS THAT THE NEIGHBORS MADE THAT THERE WAS A, THEY NEED THIS ACTIVITY HAPPENING, CORRECT? SOME ACTS.
SO THIS IS THE INSPECTOR THAT WENT OUT TO INSPECT, AND THAT'S THE COMMENTS THAT THEY, UM, PUT IN ILMS BIT MORE.
SO, I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY, CHAIR.
IF, IF I'M CLEAR, THIS IS COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORS ABOUT A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OPERATING THERE.
AND THE CITY WENT TO INSPECT IN WHATEVER MANNER, FAILED TO ENFORCE THE RULE THAT THE NEIGHBORS THOUGHT SHOULD BE ENFORCED PROHIBITING THE COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL USE.
IS THAT ACCURATE? SO THE INSPECTOR WENT OUT TO, TO SEE IF IT WAS OPERATING AS COMMERCIAL.
AND IN THEIR COMMENTS THEY'RE SAYING THAT NO ONE'S RESPONDED AND THEY DON'T SEE ANYTHING AS IT BEING COMMERCIAL.
THERE'S ONE, THERE'S ONE, UM, THING THAT DID HAPPEN, THERE WAS A SIGN POSTED FOR A YARD SALE AND THEY DID GET A SIGNED VIOLATION FOR THAT.
BUT THEY, THIS IS JUST THE RESULTS OF THE COMPLAINTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
AND SO THERE, THERE'S COMPLAINTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS THAT THERE'S COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.
[01:55:01]
GOES OUT AND SEES NO EVIDENCE OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY, SO NO ACTION IS TAKEN.AND SO RATHER THAN THE CITY SHUTTING DOWN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AS THE NEIGHBORS WANTED THE CITY TO DO, THE CITY SAID, WE DON'T SEE ANY, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON.
AND SO NOW THE FACT THAT THERE WAS COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY THERE IS SORT OF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS HOPING WE ENFORCE SO THAT THEY CAN SELL IT AS EITHER COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL.
HAVE I SUMMARIZED EVERYTHING ACCURATELY? YES, I BELIEVE SO.
I DO THINK THE BUSINESSES HAPPEN AT NIGHT AND THE INSPECTIONS ARE ALL DURING THE DAY WHEN THERE ISN'T ACTIVITY FOR, I MEAN, RED BUD HAS EVENTS EVERY TUESDAY NIGHT AT SEVEN.
THEY'RE A BUSINESS ON 11TH READ, BUT THEY'RE NOT THERE AT 10 IN THE MORNING.
AND OUR INSTALLATION WILL BE WEEKLY OR MONTHLY OR AS NEEDED.
IT DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T PERFECT ACTIVITY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE, MS. MICKELSON? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS OR TO GUIDE A MOTION IF YOU'D YES.
I MEAN, I WOULD PUT FORTH THE MOTION TO, TO NOT ADJUST THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT ON THE BLOCK FACE.
I'M SORRY, CAN YOU RESTATE THAT? I PROBABLY WORDED IT INCORRECTLY, BUT TO NOT APPROVE AN ADJUSTMENT ON THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE ON THE BLOCK.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO NOT MAKE THE REVISION.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND TO HEAR? I'M GONNA ASK FOR A VOTE BY SHOW OF HANDS.
DO I NEED TO NAME THEM OUT OR DO YOU HAVE 'EM? YES, YOU WANT ME TO NAME THEM? OKAY.
WHEN I CALL YOUR NAMES, PLEASE SAY, UM, FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER OMAN AGAINST COMMISSIONER BALDWIN.
COMMISSIONER HY COMMISSIONER HINES FOUR.
COMMISSIONER JONES IS NOT HERE.
COMMISSIONER MAR FOUR, COMMISSIONER POS BURLE AGAINST COMMISSIONER ROBBINS AGAINST COMMISSIONER SIEGLER AGAINST COMMISSIONER STEIN FOR COMMISSIONER TAHIR FOUR, COMMISSIONER VICTOR FOUR, COMMISSIONER LIBBY, VERA, BLAND AGAINST.
OKAY, SO THAT'S, LET'S SEE, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.
SO EIGHT AGAINST, AND SIX, FOUR.
UH, I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT FIRST.
I MEAN, I AM SO IN TUNE TO THESE APPLICATIONS AND HOW IT'S WORKED FOR, FOR TWO DECADES.
AND LOOK, I WAS NEVER A FAN OF CONVERTING THE ORDINANCE WHERE IT LIMITED THE USE OF PROPERTY BECAUSE I THINK IT IS A CITY WITH NO ZONING.
AND IT'S A FINE LINE HOW THAT WORKS.
THE COUNCIL ADOPTED THAT AND THAT, THAT THAT IS THE RULE.
BUT BECAUSE OF THAT, I'M OVERLY SENSITIVE TO THESE CORONERS THAT HAVE TYPICALLY BEEN COMMERCIAL.
THEIR HIGHEST AND BEST USE FROM A REAL ESTATE PERSPECTIVE AS A PROFESSIONAL IS PROBABLY COMMERCIAL.
AND THEY DECLINE THE PROPERTY VALUES WHEN THEY'RE USED AS RESIDENTIAL ON THESE BUSY STREETS.
AND SO I'M, I'M OVERLY COGNIZANT OF AND AWARE OF IT, AND I KNOW THAT THESE NEIGHBORS WE'RE TRAINED IN THESE MEETINGS TO GO OUT AND DO THESE APPLICATIONS TO STOP COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES.
THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE DESIGNED TO DO.
STOP THE CREEP, STOP THE ADDITIONAL APPROACH OF IT.
AND I THINK EVEN THIS APPLICATION COULD HAVE BEEN BECAUSE THERE WAS COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY HAPPENING ON THAT, ON THAT ADDRESS, THEY WERE LIKELY TO GO MAKE THAT APPLICATION YEAR AFTER YEAR UNTIL THEY COULD GET IT.
THAT THAT IS THE REASON MANY OF THESE BLOCKS WENT AND DID IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND THAT, WHICH IS COMPELLING TO ME THAT THERE PROBABLY WAS A BUSINESS GOING ON THERE.
I MEAN, I MEAN THEY FOLLOWED SOME RULES, BUT NOT OTHER RULES.
AND, AND THAT'S NOT MY JOB TO BE IN CHARGE OF ENFORCEMENT.
THAT'S THE CITY'S IN JOB TO BE IN ENFORCEMENT.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS LIKELY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY GOING ON THERE AND IT WAS IN COMMERCIAL USE IN 2011.
AND THAT'S WHY I VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION.
AND THAT'S WHY I'LL VOTE TO SUPPORT, UH, THE, HOWEVER THE WORDING NEEDS TO BE.
I THINK THE MOTION MIGHT BE, UM, TO RECOMMEND TO COUNSEL THAT THEY CH THEY AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THIS PROPERTY TO COMMERCIAL.
[02:00:01]
STILL BE IN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE BLOCK AREA.IT'S JUST IT DOES NOT REMOVE IT.
YOU'RE JUST CORRECTING WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUGGESTED IS AN ERROR AND LEAVE IT UP FOR CITY COUNCIL TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO OR NOT.
DO I HAVE A SECOND ROBBINS COMMISSIONER.
ALL IN FAVOR BY SHOW OF HANDS.
[VI. Establish a public hearing date of January 23, 2025 for the Hotel at Hillcroft located at 6200 Hillcroft Avenue]
MOVING ON TO ITEM SIX, NUMERAL SIX.ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 23RD, 2025 FOR THE HOTEL AT HILLCROFT, LOCATED AT 6,200 HILLCROFT AVENUE.
DO I HAVE A MOTION STEIN? MOTION STEIN SECOND ALLMAN.
ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
ROMAN NUMERAL SEVEN IS PUBLIC COMMENT.
DO I HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WANTS TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS? HEARING NONE.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ADJOURNED AT 4:31 PM AND I HOPE YOU GUYS ALL HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY AND A HAPPY, HAPPY NEW YEAR.
BUT WHAT I SAID IT WAS FOUR AND THEN THIS NEW.