* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:05] EVERYONE. MY NAME IS LISA CLARK. I'M THE CHAIR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION. I'M CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 2:36 PM ON JANUARY, UH, JANUARY 9TH, 2025. THIS IS AN IN-PERSON MEETING TAKING PLACE IN CITY HALL ANNEX AT 900 BAGBY. YOU MAY ALSO MONITOR THE MEETING BY VIEWING VIA HTV SPEAKERS. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AN ITEM, PLEASE FILL OUT THE SPEAKER'S FORM BEFORE THE ITEM IS CALLED AND TURN IT INTO THE STAFF NEAR THE FRONT DOOR. CONSENT AND REPEAT SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED. ONE MINUTE. NEW SPEAKERS ARE TIME FOR TWO MINUTES. UH, TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM OF 11, I'M GOING TO CALL THE ROLE COMMISSIONERS. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE STATE YOUR, UH, LAST NAME AND HERE, UH, COMMISSIONER GARZA GARZA. HERE. COMMISSIONER ALLMAN ALLMAN. HERE. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN BALDWIN. HERE. COMMISSIONER VAR IS OUT. COMMISSIONER HE A HERE. COMMISSIONER HINES HINES. HERE. COMMISSIONER JONES JONES. HERE. COMMISSIONER KLI KLI. HERE. COMMISSIONER MAREZ MADDI. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER PERLE IS NOT HERE. COMMISSIONER ROBBINS ROBINS HERE. COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER SIEGLER SEGLER. HERE. UH, COMMISSIONER STEIN IS NOT HERE TO HEAR IS OUT. COMMISSIONER VICTOR VICTOR HERE. COMMISSIONER LI LIBBY. VERA BLAND. VIRA BLAND. HERE. COMMISSIONER MANKA AKAKA HERE AND OUT. DIPTY MA SITTING IN FOR THE DIRECTOR AND MYSELF, CHAIR CLARK. WE'RE SO WHAT DOES THAT BRING US TO? WE HAD 17 CHAIR. OH, POR TURTLE. OH. AND PLEASE NOTE THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER POROUS PERLE HAS JOINED US. 13 14 15. 16, 17. 18, 17. SO WE HAVE A QUORUM OF 17 COMMISSIONERS. I WANNA MAKE A NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE WITHDRAWN AND WE WILL NOT CONSIDER THEM TODAY. ITEM 77, MELBOURNE DUPLEX AND NUMBER 97 BARON CYPRESS BEND. AND NOW I'LL [Director’s Report] CALL FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. MS. MATHER. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. MY NAME IS DIPTI MATHER. I'M IN SIT. I'M SITTING HERE FOR, UH, DIRECTOR JUAN TRAN, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT. WELCOME. HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE. UM, THE 10 TO 2025 SCHEDULE FOR COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE MEETINGS IS POSTED ONLINE ON THE PLAN DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE. YOU CAN GO TO HOUSTON PLANNING.COM HOMEPAGE, AND, UM, TO REACH THE DEPARTMENT, PLEASE CALL US AT (832) 393-6600 AND, UH, PLANNER OF THE DAY FOR, UM, TO CALL PLANNER OF THE DAY. (832) 393-6624. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS [Consideration of the December 19, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes] IN YOUR PACKET. WERE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 19TH, 2024. UH, THEY WERE POSTED WITH THE AGENDA. MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THESE MINUTES? MOTION MATTERS. MOTION MATTERS. SECOND. SECOND, VICTOR. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. MOVING ON [Platting Activities a & b] TO PLATTING ACTIVITY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS KEN CALHOUN. 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 91 SECTION A CONSENT ITEM ARE NUMBER ONE THROUGH 51 AND SECTION B REPL ITEMS ARE NUMBERED 50 THROUGH THROUGH 91. NO ITEMS NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND THERE ARE NO CHANCE OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. MADAM CHAIR, IF THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS SIGNED TO SPEAK FOR THESE ITEMS TO PLAYING A DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTED APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSENT AND REPLAY ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION. THANK YOU. I DO HAVE SPEAKERS ON ITEM 9 39 AND 79, SO WE'LL PULL THOSE OUT OF ORDER. UM, COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY ABSTENTIONS? COMMISSIONER HYS? YES, MADAM CHAIR. I WILL ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS FOUR THROUGH SEVEN 16 THROUGH 1923 THROUGH 26 AND 47. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER ABSTENTIONS? OKAY, SO I NEED A MOTION, UH, AND A SECOND FOR ALL ITEMS UNDER, UM, A AND B, CONSENT AND RELAS, SAVE AND ACCEPT ITEMS FOUR THROUGH SEVEN, 16 THROUGH 1923 THROUGH 26, 39, 47 AND 79. MOTION GARZA. MOTION GARZA. SECOND VERA. BLAND, SECOND VERA. BLAND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. OKAY, SO NOW WE'LL VOTE ON THE ITEMS THAT WE TOOK OUT OF ORDER ITEMS FOUR THROUGH SEVEN, 16 THROUGH 1923 THROUGH 26. AND ITEM 47, [00:05:02] MAY I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION FOR PER SECOND HINES? SECOND HINES. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. AND NOW I'LL CALL SPEAKERS FOR THE FIRST ITEM NUMBER 39. UH, JOHN WYNN. MR. WYNN, GOOD AFTERNOON. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. HI, MY NAME IS JOHN WYNN. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. ON THE, WAS IT WYNN HIGHLAND PLACE ON THE DEBRIS PLAT? IT WAS, UH, KIND OF VERY DIFFICULT DURING THE HOLIDAYS. I WAS TRYING TO RUSH EVERYONE IN. UH, RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS, EVERYONE, ALL MY, UH, ENGINEER, CIVIL ENGINEER AND THE ARCHITECT WAS, UH, ALREADY OUT OF TOWN TO SUBMIT FOR THE DRAINAGE. WE WERE SO CLOSE TO BE, UH, FINISHED. I WAS JUST ASKING ANYWAY, CAN I GET A LITTLE BIT MORE EXTENSION ON IT? OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, MR. CRIDDLE, CAN YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT AND GIVE US A LITTLE INPUT ON THIS? SURE. THIS WAS A 30 DAY EXTENSION PREVIOUSLY, IS THAT CORRECT OR WAS THIS JUST A DEFERRAL? IT IT WAS A 30 DAY EXTENSION. IT PREVIOUSLY WAS A 30 DAY EXTENSION. OKAY. UH, A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROJECT. THIS IS A, UH, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE, OH, EXCUSE ME. MY NAME IS DEVIN KRE. UM, GOOD, A GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE. UH, THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, UH, LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMITS. UH, THEY'RE PROPOSING ROUGHLY SEVEN LOTS AND A HANDFUL OF RESERVES AND, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DISAPPROVE THE PLAN. OKAY. UM, SO DID WE DEFER IT TWICE BEFORE WE WENT FOR THE 30 DAY SO THAT IT'S NOT UP FOR CAN'T HAVE A DEFERRAL, CORRECT? I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG, IS THERE A REASON BESIDES THE TIME LIMIT EXPIRATION THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING, UM, TO YES. UH, WE REQUIRED A DRAINAGE PLAN, AN APPROVED DRAINAGE PLAN, UH, FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS IN THE FLOOD PLAIN. AND HAS HE KNOWN THAT SINCE THE BEGINNING OF HIS DEFERRALS? UH, YES. IN THE BEGINNING, UH, WE DO. OKAY. SO THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST DEFERRAL. OKAY. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG? IT DID. I JUST, UM, TIMING IT TAKES FOUR TO SIX WEEKS TO GET A DRAINAGE PLAN IF TIMING IN THE HOLIDAYS. I KNOW I WAS GONE THREE WEEKS. ALL OF OUR CONSULTANTS WERE GONE. I KNOW THE PERIODS HAVE EXPIRED, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT LEGALLY WE CAN DO. UM, BUT KIND OF ONE OF THOSE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO SUPPORTING. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? I'LL REFER TO LEGAL IN JUST A SECOND. OKAY. MY ONLY QUESTION IS, WHAT WOULD NEXT STEPS BE? WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS FOR LEGAL IF, IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST AN, AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAY DEFERRAL FROM YOU ALL? THE STATE LAW DOES NOT LIMIT THE NUMBER TO ONE. SO HE CAN, HE CAN REQUEST A SECOND. WE MUST GET THAT IN WRITING. SO AT LEAST VIA EMAIL TODAY. UM, AND THEN IT'S UP TO COMMISSION. UM, AGAIN, AS ALWAYS, YOU MAY CONSIDER THAT AND YOU MAY GRANT IT OR YOU COULD DENY IT. THANK YOU. YES. COMMISSIONER ZIEGLER. UM, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. IS REQUIRING THE DRAINAGE PLANE, WAS THAT SPECIAL JUST TO THIS PLAT OR IS IT EVERY PLAT? EVERY PLAT IN THE CITY LIMITS? IT'S WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN. THAT'S IN THE FLOOD PLAIN. AND THAT'S IN THE, I MEAN THAT YOU, WHEN YOU HAND IT IN, THAT'S IN THE GUIDELINES. PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THAT. YES MA'AM. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY. SO STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED, UM, DISAPPROVAL. YES. COMMISSIONER ROBBINS MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. MARRE ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? OKAY, SO PLEASE NOTE YEAH, WE HAVE ABSTENTIONS FROM, I MEAN NAYS FROM COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, COMMISSIONER HINES AND COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. OKAY, MR. CRITTER, ARE YOU ALSO ON ITEM 79? YES. OKAY. YES MA'AM. ITEM 79 IS PARK PROPERTIES. THIS IS, UH, UNRESTRICTED RESERVE TAKING ACCESS FROM A PUBLIC, PUBLIC STREET. UH, THE PLAT HAS MINOR MARKUPS AND A STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE A SPEAKER SIGNED. ALEX F PHONES. FONS. UH, PHONES. OKAY, THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. I DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE THAT PLAT THERE IN MY RECORD, HOWEVER, I'M HERE TODAY AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE STATE OF EVELYN PARKER HERE. UH, [00:10:01] SPECIFICALLY, UH, A STATE OF EVELYN PARKER OWNS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1730 FELLOWS. UH, THEY'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN A PROPERTY SALE TRANSACTION FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW WITH, UH, PARK BROTHERS HOLDING. AND WE'RE ACTUALLY JUST FINISHING THE FEASIBILITY PERIOD OF THAT CONTRACT AND WAITING FOR A CLOSING DATE. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF STALLING HERE NOW AND A LOT OF PLATS BEING FILED AFFECTING A 50 FOOT PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT BETWEEN 1730 AND THEN THE ADJOINING TRACK TO THE EAST. THIS IS A RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AND WHERE EACH TRACK IS THE DOMINANT ESTATE, UH, THAT HAS 25 FEET OF THE OTHER ONE FOR A PRIVATE ROADWAY EASEMENT. WE'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE OTHER PARTY WITH PART BROTHERS HOLDINGS PRIOR TO THIS SALE CLOSING AND THEY SAID THEY WERE GONNA PULL THE VARIANCE SIGN THAT WAS PUT IN FRONT OF MY CLIENT'S PROPERTIES. AND TURNS OUT THEY, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY REMOVED THE SIGN, BUT THEY THEN SAID THAT IT WASN'T NEEDED. A VARIANCE REQUEST WAS NO LONGER NEEDED WITH THIS AGENDA ITEM AND NOW THAT THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THIS PLAT APPROVED, BUT THE PLAT HERE, AT LEAST THE ONE I HAVE I BELIEVE WAS INCLUDED WITH THE ATTACHMENT EFFECTS 1730 FELLOWS, 1726 FELLOWS, WHICH THEY'RE NOT THE OWNERS OF, THAT THEY'RE FOLLOWING THESE PLATS AFFECTING PROPERTIES. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO EFFECT AT THIS TIME, WHICH IS WHY I'M HERE TODAY ONLY TO ASK THAT YOU AT LEAST TABLE THIS APPROVAL TILL THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING SO THAT WE CAN REQUEST THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION AND ALSO HOPEFULLY GET TO CLOSING ON THIS PROPERTY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. KLE. WE'LL PROBABLY NEED SOME EXPLANATION FROM. YES, GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JOHN PHILLIPS CILLO. I'M THE REVIEWING PLANNER FOR THE APPLICATION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND FOLLOW UP. WELL, I THINK MAYBE JUST HELP THE COMMISSION UNDERSTAND LIKE I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHICH OTHER PROPERTY HE'S TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT HE'S NOT EITHER. OKAY. THE UH, IF YOU GO TO THE, UH, SITE PLANT PLEASE THIS. YEAH. WHAT THIS PLAT IS AFFECTING ON THE OTHER PERSON'S PROPERTY, THE SITE IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST WAS PLATTED AND RECORDED LAST YEAR. IT DID REQUEST A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BETWEEN, UH, THE HIGHWAY AND FELLOW STREET. WITH THAT GRANTING IT WAS INCORPORATED THAT THAT FULL SPAN WOULD BE GRANTED TO NOT, UH, TO PROCEED WITHOUT PROVIDING THAT NORTH SOUTH STREET, WHICH THIS PLAT IS REQUESTED THE SAME VARIANCE, BUT IT WAS NOT DE NECESSARY AS THE PREVIOUS OR THE PLAT TO THE EAST WAS GRANTED. THAT SAME ASPECT WITH THAT CONSIDERATION, THERE IS AN EXISTING ROADWAY EASEMENT THAT'S SHOWN WITH THE RED STRIPE THERE, SPLIT OVER THE TWO PROPERTIES. WITH THAT, UH, WE REQUIRE THAT OF COURSE ANY EASEMENT BE SHOWN ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT. THE APPLICANT, UH, TO THE EAST STATED THAT THEY HAD ABANDONED THEIR PORTION OF IT AND WERE MOVING FORWARD AHEAD, MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THAT, THAT PORTION OF IT. THIS PLAT COULD ALSO DO THE SAME, BUT THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO REFLECT ANY EASEMENT THAT WOULD BE SHOWN IN THEIR CPL OR TITLE. UM, WITH THAT WE WERE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. OKAY. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, WELL YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH CORRECT ME, MR. CILLO I BELIEVE WAS TO APPROVE THE PLOT. CORRECT. OKAY. YES. COMMISSIONER GARZA, UM, UH, THE GENTLEMAN YOU JUST SPOKE YES. UH, DID YOU WANNA COME AND MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY REFUTE, BUT CLARIFY FOR US WHAT THE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION MIGHT BE. UH, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON WHO THE APPLICANT WAS THAT ABANDONED THIS, UH, PRIVATE EASEMENT. I'LL CONFIRM THE ACTUAL APPLICANT NAME. I DON'T HAVE IT ON. OKAY. UH, AND SO YOUR CONCERN AGAIN IS THAT SOMEONE IS ASKING FOR CHANGES TO PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T BELONG TO THEM. CORRECT? NOT AT THIS MOMENT. IT IS A BUYER OF PROPERTY THAT IS TRYING TO REMOVE AN EASEMENT FOR WHICH THEY DO NOT YET HAVE. AND A BIG PART OF THE TRANSACTION IS THE EXISTENCE OF THIS EASEMENT BECAUSE THE UTILITY POLES ON THE EASTERN TRACK WHERE THE SHOCK AWARE LOCATION IS, ARE INTENDED TO BE MOVED TO THE WEST ON TOP OF THE PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT FOR WHICH MY CLIENT STILL OWNS. IF IT'S MOVED AHEAD OF TIME, THE TRANSACTION MAY FALL THROUGH BECAUSE OF THIS, UH, IT'S BEEN GOING FOR A YEAR. I'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF JUDGES GETTING, UH, DEPOSITIONS ORDERED TO DEPOSE THE MAIN PERSON FOR UH, UH, STEVE ATKINSON ON THIS. WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR DOCUMENTS FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND NEVER BEEN PROVIDED ANYTHING. WE'VE SPOKEN WITH THEM REGARDING THE VARIANCE REQUEST HERE. NEVER RECEIVED ANYTHING. I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT DOCUMENT ON THE SCREEN ONCE UNFORTUNATELY. BUT AS FAR AS THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE SHOCKWARE LOCATION IS ON FELLOWS ROAD, THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY ABILITY TO ABANDON THAT EASEMENT 'CAUSE THEY'RE NOT THE ONES THAT HAVE THE RIGHT TO THAT EASEMENT. SO MY NEXT QUESTION TO YOU WOULD BE, UM, IF WE GIVE YOU TWO WEEKS DEFERENCE, DO YOU THINK YOU CAN GET YOUR PROBLEM SOLVED AND GET CLARIFICATION FOR ALL OF US HERE IN TWO WEEKS? I BELIEVE SO, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 50 I WILL INTERJECT, UH, WITH TWO ASPECTS. ONE IS THAT THIS WAS DEFERRED LAST CYCLE. OH. AND SO IT CANNOT BE DEFERRED AGAIN DUE THE THREE WEEK. OH. UH, SECOND ASPECT OF IT IS THAT WHILE THIS IS PROPOSED TO BE PLAT, IT DOES OFTEN HAPPEN WHERE PLATS ARE SUBMITTED WITHOUT THE ACTUAL OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBMITTING PARTY BECAUSE THEY INTEND TO TAKE OWNERSHIP LATER. THEY [00:15:01] CANNOT RECORD IT WITHOUT OWNING IT. MM-HMM . BUT THE, THE PLAT CAN MOVE FORWARD. OKAY. M WILL YOU HELP PUT SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT PLEASE? SURE. SO I THINK, I THINK JOHN, UH, ISN'T THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS THAT THE PLAT, THE EASEMENT HAS TO BE ABANDONED PRIOR TO RECOGNITION? NO, THE CURRENT IS, UH, SINCE IT IS LISTED ON THE TITLE REPORT AS AN EXISTING EASEMENT, THE MARKUP IS TO SHOW IT ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT AS IT IS LISTED IN THE TITLE. IF THEY DO NOT HAVE IT ON THE TITLE IE THEY HAVE ABANDONED IT, THEN IT WOULD NOT NEED TO BE SHOWN WHEN IT COMES IN FOR RECORDATION. AND IS THAT A LOCATION FOR A PUBLIC STREET? SO IT WAS A PRIVATE ROADWAY EASEMENT AND IT'LL REMAIN AS SUCH? YES MA'AM. SO THE APPLICANT IS INDICATING THAT IT IS TO BE ABANDONED, THE INTENT? YES. SO IF THE, FOR THE SPEAKER, IF IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ABANDONED, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO ABANDON IT PRIOR TO RECOGNITION? CORRECT. AND THEY WILL SHOW THAT EASEMENT THAT IS ON THE GROUND. CORRECT. THEY CANNOT ABANDON IT IF THEY DON'T OF COURSE OWN IT, SO, RIGHT. YEAH. SO THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RECORD IT INTO THE FINAL, FINAL DOCUMENT IF THEY CAN'T ABANDON IT AND IF THEY CAN ABANDON IT AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHTS, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT. SO APPROVAL OF THIS PLAT IS NOT GOING TO EITHER ALLOW THEM TO ABANDON OR NOT ALLOW THEM TO ABANDON EITHER WAYS. THEY EITHER WAY IT HAS NO BEARINGS ON THE EASEMENT. CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. YEAH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL ADD THIS AS A PRELIMINARY STEP SO IT'S NOT A LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT. THIS DOCUMENT ACTUALLY CAN EXPIRE. SO WE'LL NOTE THIS IN THE CPC 1 0 1 TO BE SURE TO CATCH IT AT. OKAY. FINAL AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S VERIFIED. YEAH, JUST, UH, THIS IS A CLASS TWO. SO THIS IS THE FINAL . THIS IS A C TWO. I'M SORRY, IS IT? THIS IS A C TWO R. OH, OKAY. I'M SORRY. SO BEFORE REATION, BEFORE REACCREDITATION, WE WILL MAKE SURE, EXCUSE ME? YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE SURE THE SPEAKER UNDERSTOOD WHAT, UH, STAFF JUST SAID. THANK YOU. UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, I MEAN, THIS ISN'T PERMANENT. THIS WON'T COUNT AS AN ABANDONMENT OF THE EASEMENT, ASSUMING IT'S APPROVED HERE TODAY. PART OF THIS TRANSACTION IS THE HEIRS OF EVELYN PARKER WILL FOLLOW A RELEASE OF THIS EASEMENT ALTOGETHER THAT'LL BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE BUYERS. UH, ONLY AT THAT TIME. WE WOULD WANT THAT TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN EFFECTIVE ABANDONMENT OR RELEASE OF THE EASEMENT WHERE THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD AS AND DO WHAT THEY WANT AS OWNERS OF IT. WELL, WHAT WE DO TODAY HERE WILL NOT REMOVE THAT EASEMENT. THEN I, UH, BELIEVE, UH, WE'LL BE FINE WITH THAT. THEN WE WON'T BE OPPOSED, ASSUMING IT IS NOT GOING TO EFFECTIVELY REMOVE THE EASEMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY STAFF TO HAVE A MOTION. MOTION HINES. MOTION HINES. SECOND ROBBINS. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO ROMAN NUMERAL TWO. OH, NO. DID I? YEAH. OKAY. C RE REQUEST. YES, I WAS GONNA SAY I THINK I'VE SKIPPED DOWN TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. I'M READY TO GO HOME. I THINK . OKAY. [c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Dorianne Powe-Phlegm and John Cedillo)] WE'RE MOVING ALONG TO SEE RELAS. HAPPY NEW YEAR. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS DORIAN FLM. ITEM 92 IS LOZIER MANOR. THE SITE IS LOCATED EAST ALONG LOZIER STREET, NORTH OF LUCA STREET, SOUTH OF OLD SPANISH TRAIL AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS. THE REASON FOR REFL IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS OFF A 16 FOOT SHARE. DRIVEWAY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAID PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM. MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU MS. FLM AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU . UM, WE'RE OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 96 I 92. I AM JUST, I'M GUESS I'M JUST REALLY IN A RUSH. I'M SO SORRY. SO 92. UM, SO WE'RE OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE. MEMBERS OF COMMISSION. I NEED A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION. MOTION SIGLER ALLMAN SECOND ALLMAN. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES NUMBER 9 93. ITEM 93 IS PARK PLACE FIELD WOOD, THE SIZE LOCATED NORTH ALONG FIELD WOOD DRIVE, EAST OF SAGE ROAD, WEST OF SOUTH POST OAK AND HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS. THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO PROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS, THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. REVIEW [00:20:01] BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS PLAT. MADAM CHAIR, IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM ITEM 93 IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS. DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION JONES. SECOND VERA BLAND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 94. HI, JOHN IS PRESENTED. ITEM 94. HE'S COMING. OKAY. YEAH, HERE IT COMES. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. WAIT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. ITEM 94 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 MARKET ROAD 1960 AND SPRING BRIDGE DRIVE WEST OF HARDY TOLL ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A TYPE TWO PAE, UH, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPOSED OF 25 LOTS AND SIX RESERVES AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG FM 1960 IN LIEU OF THE 25 OF BILLY LINE REQUIRED ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUESTED VARIANCE. THE APPLICATION WAS DEFERRED LAST CYCLE DUE TO CONCERNS FROM THE MUD AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT REGARDING EASEMENTS. THE APPLICANT HAS COORDINATED WITH SAID ENGINEER THAT BROUGHT UP THOSE CONCERNS AND THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED DURING THE DEFERRAL PERIOD. SPRING BRIDGE DRIVE INTERSECTS FM 1960, UH, FEEDER ROAD AS A RIDE IN RIDE OUT ONLY CONNECTION AND ON RAMP. THE PROPERTY IS SEPARATED, UH, FROM 1960 BY NEARLY 15 FOOT TALL CONCRETE SOUND WALL. AND THE SOUND WALL ITSELF RANGES FROM 30 TO 25 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT. STAFF FINDS THE EXISTING SOUND WALL AND GREEN SPACE TO BE SUFFICIENT BUFFER BETWEEN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND FM 1960 TRAFFIC. AND DO NOT BELIEVE GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. THE APPLICATION IS A RE PLAT OF THE REMAINDER OF INVERNESS FOREST TOWN HOMES. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. CYBER RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. MADAM CHAIR IT PLEASE THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 94 4 IS CONTINUED COMMISSION. I HAVE A, A RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO HAVE A MOTION. UH, WAIT. A I DIDN'T ASK FOR SPEAKERS. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY. HEARING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE, UH, PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR A MOTION. MOTION FORES PER SECOND MAN. SECOND MANKA. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 95. ITEM 95 IS THREE STONE VILLAS. THE SUBJECT SIDE IS NEARLY 6,500 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS WEST ALONG LOESER STREET, SOUTH OF OLD SPANISH TRAIL AND EAST OF STATE HIGHWAY 2 88. THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE THREE LOTS AND FOUR INTENDED DRILLING UNITS ALONG A SHARED DRIVEWAY. THERE ARE NO VARIS OF REQUEST WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. REVIEW. BILINGUAL INDICATES THAT THE APPLICATION DOES NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICATION. S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCPC ONE, ONE FORM CONDITIONS. MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM THIS TIME. ITEM 95 IS OPEN FOR PUBLIC HEARING. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION. THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION JONES. SECOND. SECOND HA. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, YES. CAN I JUST GET A, I GOT THE COMMENT FOR THE RECORD. UM, JUST BECAUSE IT COULD IMPACT THE LAYOUT OF THE PLAT. LIKE THERE'S A, A BACK, UH, AERIAL EASEMENT FROM CENTER POINT THAT THEY'RE NOT SHOWING AND IT COULD IMPACT THAT THIRD LOT. SO DID YOU HEAR THAT? IT'S ON, IT'S NOTED ON THE CCP C 1 0 1. I JUST WANNA POINT OUT BUT JUST NOT ON THE PLAT. OKAY. THAT IS PART OF THE MARKUP FOR THE PLAT. IT'S PART OF CONDITIONS. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT. OKAY. [d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests (Petra Hsia, Aracely Rodriguez, John Cedillo, Devin Crittle, and Tammi Williamson)] MOVING ALONG TO D VARIANCES. GOOD AFTERNOON MA'AM. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS PETRA SHAW. ITEM 96 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 IN NORTH OF FM 1960. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES. THE FIRST VARIANCE IS TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT EXTENDING BARELY LANE, BUT TERMINATING IT IN A CUL-DE-SAC. AND THE SECOND VARIANCE IS TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG LOCAL STREETS BY NOT PROVIDING A NORTH SOUTH STREET THROUGH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. STAFF IS IN [00:25:01] SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT UTILIZE BARELY LANE TO THE NORTH AND TOWER OAKS BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTH TO EXIT ONTO JONES ROAD. A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PROVIDING A NORTH SOUTH STREET THROUGH THE SUBJECT SITE WOULD NOT IMPROVE TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC CIRCULATION WITHIN THIS AREA. IN ADDITION, THE SUBJECT SITE IS ADJACENT TO TWO RECORDED SUBDIVISIONS TO THE EAST THAT PROVIDE, UM, THAT PREVENT THE F FUTURE EXTENSION OF BARELY LANE TO THE EAST. LOCATED JUST EAST OF THE SITE IS THE RECORDED SUBDIVISION OF TOWER OAKS COMMERCIAL PARK. ADJACENT TO THAT IS, UM, THE RECORDED SUBDIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL AT FM 1960. SECTION ONE, WHICH WAS GRANTED A VARIANCE BACK IN 2019 TO NOT TERMINATE, UM, OR EXTEND THE SUB STREET OF TOWER OAKS BOULEVARD LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE. THE APPLICANT WILL BE TERMINATING THE SUB STREET OF BARELY LANE IN A CUL-DE-SAC PROVIDING A TURNAROUND FOR TRAFFIC COMING DOWN BARELY LANE. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS NO OBJECTIONS. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE, UM, AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 96. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? YES, PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND THEN IF YOU'LL FILL OUT A FORM BEFORE YOU LEAVE TODAY, THAT'D BE GREAT. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON AND HAPPY NEW YEAR. UH, MY NAME IS THOMAS JOSEPH FORNER. I'M WITH WISER ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING. I'M THE SURVEYOR AND PLANNER FOR THIS PLAT. UM, I JUST WANTED TO COME AND INTRODUCE MYSELF AND SEE IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. GREAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK Y'ALL. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION MAN. MOTION MANCA SECOND MAD. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 97 IS WITHDRAWN AND I SAID THAT. YEP. OKAY. 98 MADAM CHAIR, I'M GONNA RECUSE FROM THE NEXT TWO ITEMS 98 AND 99. PLEASE NOTE COMMISSIONER HEISEN IS GOING TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM 98 AND 99. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS ELLI RODRIGUEZ, ITEM 98, LIN CLAND VILLAGE GP. THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY WEST OF GRAND PARKWAY AND NORTH OF LIN LAKE PARKWAY AND CYPRESS CREEK. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A VARI TO EXCEED THE MINIMUM 1400 FEET INTERSECTION FACING ALONG THE PROPOSED TYPE ONE PRIVATE STREET PROPOSING TWO INTERSECTION PACING OF 1,990 FEET AND 2,440 FEET. AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN STEP IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST, THIS GP PROPOSES A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER USES SUPPORTED BY A NETWORK OF INTERNAL STREET WITHIN A GRID. AMELIA THOROUGHFARE ABOUT HALF OF THE G LIVES WITHIN THE FLOODWAY AND THE FLOODPLAINS. SO THE NORTHERN SECTION OF THE GP PROPOSES A PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY CONSISTING OF RESIDENTIAL CELLS WITH ACCESS TO PRIVATE STREET THAT CONNECT WITH TWO MAJOR, THIRD, FIFTH, AND ONE COLLECTOR STREET. DUE TO THE PROXIMITY OF CYPRESS CREEK AND THE ASSOCIATED DRAINAGE NEED, THE APPLICANT HAD INCORPORATED A LARGE CENTRAL DRAINAGE AND DETENTION AREA AS A MITIGATION MEASURE, WHICH REQUIRE EXCEEDING THE MINIMUM MINIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, A VARIANT WAS GRANTED IN 2024 ALONG THE NORTHERN, WESTERN AND SOUTH SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPOSED PRIG GATED COMMUNITY TO EXCEED INTERSECTION S FACING TO GRANTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. I MEAN THE VERY REQUEST WOULD NOT GREATLY AFFECT INTERNAL TRAFFIC. CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION WILL BE MAINLY ADDRESSED BY THE ADJACENT MAJOR AFFAIRS HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION. AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE DP SUBSTITUTE, THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE SOMEONE SIGNED TO SPEAK KATIE HARRIS IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. HARRIS? THE APPLICANT? OKAY, SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT APPROVAL. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION MAN. MOTION MANKA SECOND SIGLER. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 99, ITEM 99 BUS TRACK GP. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY, EAST OF GRAND PARKWAY AND SOUTH OF FREEMAN ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TRUE VARIANCES TO NOT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST WEST PUBLIC STREET THROUGH [00:30:01] THE SITE AND A SPECIAL RECEPTION TO ALLOW A CENTRAL LINE RADIUS OF 1,800 800 FEET INSTEAD OF 2000 ALONG PROPOSED MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. WEST GREEN BOULEVARD STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST WITH THE TRACK. GP PROPOSES MULTIPLE LAND USES AND RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION IS PROVIDED FOR ALL MAJOR THOROUGHFARE WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE GP, WHICH IS IN COMPLIANT WITH THE ORDINANCE. THE APPLICANT REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES TO NOT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST WEST STREET THROUGH THE SITE. THE NORTH SOUTH IS UNLIKELY TO BE EXTENDED NORTH BECAUSE OF THE BEAR CREEK AND THESE NORTH SOUTH AND EAST WEST STREET ARE NOT REALLY NEEDED FOR IMPROVING THE OVER OVERALL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION. THE SITE IS SITUATED ALONG GRAND PARKWAY AND PROPOSED MAY 3RD PARISH, WHICH WILL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT ASSETS AND CONNECTIVITY. THE SPECIAL RECEPTION REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THE CENTRALIZED RADIUS OF WEST GREEN BOULEVARD, UM, TO BE 1,800 FEET. THIS MODIFICATION IS NEEDED TO IN ORDER TO MAKE A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ASSISTING PORTION OF WEST WING BOULEVARD TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH. THE PROPOSED REDUCTION IS ONLY A 10% DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD AND IS NOT DISPROPORTIONATE. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF ALL THESE REQUESTS. ALSO TO ADDRESS THE SPEAKER CON FROM THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REALIGN A PORTION OF FUTURE MASON ROAD BETWEEN THE NORTHERN GP BOUNDARY AND THE APPROVED OF GRAND MASON GP WITH THE ESTABLISHED RIGHTWAY TO THE NORTH AND SIDE OF THE GP CONNECTING MASON ROAD THROUGH THE PROPERTY. WHILE MEETING THE ORDINANCE IN HARRIS COUNTY. DESIGN STANDARD IS NOT FEASIBLE WITHOUT ASKING FOR A SUBSTANDARD CENTER LINE RADIO THAT WILL NOT MEET HARRIS COUNTY DESIGN STANDARDS. AFTER FURTHER REVIEW AND COORDINATION WITH HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND HARRIS COUNTY PRISON FOUR, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT WILL HAVE THAT THIS PROPOSED REALIGNMENT WILL HAVE THE LEAST IMPACT ON ALL AFFECTED PROPERTIES. THIS MODIFICATION IS MAINLY AFFECTING, UM, UNDEVELOPED AREAS, WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE FLOODLINE AREA SOUTH OF THE APPROVED CUL-DE-SAC, MINIMIZING DISRUPTION TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. SO HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEER IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST AND THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERCEPTION AND APPROVE THE GP SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS. UH, OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS JENNIFER CURTIS. GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JENNIFER CURTIS WITH META PLANNING AND DESIGN. UM, WE'RE THE APPLICANT ON THE BUSTAMONTE TRACT GENERAL PLAN. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND VERY MUCH APPRECIATE, UM, THEIR EFFORTS AS WELL AS THE EFFORTS OF HARRIS COUNTY AND BGE WORKING WITH US OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. UM, SINCE THIS PROJECT WAS CONTENTIOUS, I JUST WANTED TO COME UP AND GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF HOW WE GOT WHERE WE ARE AND APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT EVERYBODY HAS DONE TO DATE. SO, UM, PREVIOUSLY BGE ASKED US TO DEFER THIS GENERAL PLAN BECAUSE THEIR PROJECT TO THE NORTH HAD A DIFFERENT ALIGNMENT OF MASON ROAD. UM, TOTALLY UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THEIR POSITION THAT THEY HAD AN APPROVED GENERAL PLAN. UM, HOWEVER, UM, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE WERE A FEW MISTAKES THAT HAD BEEN MADE IN THE PAST, UM, WITH SOME OF THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO COME IN AND DO IS JUST FIX THOSE MISTAKES. UM, THE ALIGNMENT TO THE NORTH, UM, IS ABOUT 400 FEET TO THE EAST OF WHERE THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN SHOWS MASON ROAD TO GO. UM, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, THAT ALIGNMENT WOULD NOT QUITE HAVE WORKED. IT WOULD'VE REQUIRED A SUBSTANDARD RADIUS, UM, EVEN AT THE TIME WHEN IT WAS CLOSER TO THE ONE TO THE SOUTH. UM, SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH HAS MOVED THEIR ALIGNMENT OF MASON ROAD FURTHER TO THE WEST, WHICH EXACERBATED THE GAP BETWEEN THOSE TWO SEGMENTS OF MASON ROAD. UM, SO WE IDENTIFIED THIS AS AN ISSUE IN AUGUST, UM, OF LAST YEAR. UM, REACHED OUT TO THE DEVELOPERS TO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH TO TRY TO COME UP WITH AN ALIGNMENT, UM, THAT WOULD WORK FOR EVERYBODY. UM, I DON'T THINK WE'VE QUITE COME TO AN AGREEMENT THAT EVERYBODY IS HAPPY WITH, BUT I MEAN, I'M CERTAINLY NOT HAPPY WITH EXACTLY WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN TODAY. IT'S, IT'S A COMPROMISE. IT'S NOT WHAT WE WOULD PREFER, BUT I THINK IT MEETS IN THE MIDDLE. UM, AND SO WE'RE HAPPY THAT STAFF IS [00:35:01] RECOMMENDING SUPPORT OF THAT ALIGNMENT. UM, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS PROPERTY CAN BE ENTITLED. YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH ARE ALSO ENTITLED TO THEIR APPROVALS, BUT THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW DOESN'T WORK. SO WE HAVE TO FIND A COMPROMISE AND WE CAN'T LET THIS PROPERTY BE HELD HOSTAGE TO, YOU KNOW, AN INDETERMINATE TIMEFRAME TO GET SOMETHING ELSE WORKED OUT. SO, UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND UM, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU MS. CURTIS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS TRACY YOUNGBLOOD. GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS TRACY YOUNGBLOOD WITH BGE. WE REPRESENT THE DEVELOPER TO THE NORTH OF THIS GENERAL PLAN, UH, WHICH IS GRAND MASON TO THE NORTH. THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GRAND MASON GENERAL PLAN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ORIGINAL CROSSING AT GRAND MASON GENERAL PLAN ESTABLISHED THE ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT OF MASON ROAD IN THIS LOCATION BACK IN 2019. THE REASON I'M SPEAKING BEFORE YOU TODAY IS TO GENUINELY ASK FOR YOUR HELP AND UNDERSTANDING. I THINK WE'RE IN UNPRECEDENTED, UNPRECEDENTED TERRITORY. UM, HELP AND UNDERSTANDING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF MASON ROAD WITHIN THE BOOST OF MONTE TRACK GENERAL PLAN. AND QUITE FRANKLY, SINCE I'M SITTING HERE AND SEEING THAT, UM, THERE'S BEEN DECISIONS MADE ON AN ALIGNMENT BEYOND THE BOOST DE MONTE GENERAL PLAN, THAT'S, UH, WHERE MY UNPRECEDENTED COMMENT COMES FROM. ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 42, SECTION 24, THE CITY OF HOUSTON CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE GENERAL PLAN SHALL SHOW THE ALIGNMENT OF ANY MAJOR THOROUGHFARES WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND FREEWAY PLAN AND ALL COLLECTOR STREETS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE AN OVERALL CIRCULATION SYSTEM FOR THE PROPERTY THAT WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER, CHAPTER 42. AND AS LONG AS THE GENERAL PLAN REMAINS IN EFFECT, THE STREET SYSTEM APPROVED IN THE GENERAL PLAN SHALL FORM THE BASIS FOR THE STREET SYSTEM EXTENSIONS INTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO BE PLATTED. UNLESS THE SUBDIVIDED DEMONSTRATES THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER CAN BE MET WITHOUT THE STREET EXTENSIONS. GIVEN THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THE GRAND MASON GENERAL PLAN, WE ARE ASSERTING THAT THE ALIGNMENT OF MASON ROAD WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE GRAND MASON GENERAL PLAN AND THE CROSSING AT GRAND MASON GENERAL PLAN IN 2019 APPROVING THE BOOSTER MONTE TRACK GENERAL PLAN AND OUR OPINION WILL NULLIFY THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL OF THE GRAND MASON GENERAL PLAN, OR AT LEAST THE ALIGNMENT OF MASON ROAD FROM OCTOBER OF 2019, WHICH CHALLENGES WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE OUR CLIENT'S VESTED RIGHTS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION, BUT THIS SITUATION WAS NOT CREATED AS A RESULT OF ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY OUR CLIENT. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COMMISSION DISAPPROVE THE BUSTA MONTE GENERAL PLAN AS THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GRAND MASON GENERAL PLAN APPROVED OCTOBER 13TH, 2019 DEPICTING THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF MASON ROAD TO THE SOUTHERN SHARED BOUNDARY WITH THE BOOSTA MONTE GENERAL PLAN. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. YEAH. DO YOU WANNA CLARIFY SOME OF THAT FOR US? YES. SO IT IS TRUE THAT THE GP WAS APPROVED MULTIPLE TIMES. HOWEVER, EACH GP THAT WAS SUBMITTED, UM, HARRIS COUNTY ALWAYS MADE A COMMENT THAT TO PROVIDE THE ALIGNMENT OF MASON VOTE WITH THE CENTRAL LINE RADIUS AND TAN FROM THEIR GP THROUGH BOOST CHESTER GP AND ALL THE WAY TO BACKEND DOOR TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WOULD BE IN COMPLIANT WITH CHAPTER 42 WITH THE 2000 FOOT FEET, UM, RADIO, THAT ALIGNMENT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT FOR REVIEW. UM, AND SECONDLY, UM, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER AND COORDINATING TO MAKE SURE TO COME UP WITH THE BEST SOLUTION. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT THAT WAS SHOWN IS, UM, THE BEST OPTION BECAUSE OF THE AREA WHERE IT'S GONNA BE MODIFIED IS ONLY ON THE FLOODPLAIN SOUTH OF THE COOLER STACK AND NO DEVELOPMENT HAS HAPPENED THERE YET. SO IT'S NOT LIKE, UM, IT'S GONNA BE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. IT'S A MINOR CHANGE THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR ALL PROPERTIES WHICH ALIGNMENT ON THE SCREEN. SO IT COMES FROM THE, THE NORTH PROPERTY AND THEN GOES DOWN THROUGH THE AREA WHERE, WHICH WILL PROBABLY NEVER BE DEVELOPED. WHICH ONE OF THOSE ON THAT LAST EXHIBIT YOU HAD TWO ALIGNMENTS. OKAY. SO THE ALIGNMENT WILL BE THE ONE THAT IS LIKE IN DIAGONAL, UM, MADAM CHAIR, THE ALIGNMENT ON THE SCREEN IS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. RIGHT. THE ALIGNMENT IS THE ONE THAT HAD, UM, AN ORANGE. THE ONE THAT IS STRAIGHT IS THE APPROVED ALIGNMENT FROM THE GRAM MASON GP. [00:40:01] IF YOU CAN SEE THE ALIGNMENT. SO I I, EXCUSE ME MADAM CHAIR IF I MAY I, I'M CONFUSED. THAT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE WHAT WE JUST SAW. NO, THIS IS THE ALIGNMENT. SO IF YOU SEE FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC HIGHLIGHTED IN RED CIRCLE AND THEN IF YOU SEE IT GOES STRAIGHT THAT THE ALIGNMENT SHOWN ON GREEN MASON, THE PREVIOUS ALIGNMENT, BUT THAT ALIGNMENT TO CONNECTED TO THE UM, WEST, I MEAN TO THE STEM MASON WHERE ALL THE WAY TO THE SOUTH WOULD NOT MEET, UM, S CENTER LINE RADIS OF 2000 FEET, IT WOULD NEED LIKE 750. SO THE APPLICANT PROPOSED TO SHAPE THE ALIGNMENT FROM THE PROPOSED CUL-DE-SAC IN A S CENTERLINE RADIUS OF 2000 FEET, CURVING SLIGHTLY TO THE WET I, YOU CAN SEE THAT'S AN ORANGE LINE. MM-HMM . THAT IS THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT. OKAY. MS. MARTHA, DID YOU WANNA PUT A LITTLE LIGHT ON IT AS WELL? UH, SURE KEN, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT EXHIBIT IN WHICH BOTH THE ALIGNMENTS PROPOSED BY BUSANTE GP WAS SHOWN. YES. AND IF YOU CAN ZOOM IN HERE, THIS PARTICULAR ALIGNMENT COMMISSION DOES NOT SHOW THE GRAND MASON GP APPROVED ALIGNMENT. BUT IF YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT WOULD BE FARTHER TO THE RIGHT OF THE LAST EAST, UM, ALIGNMENT. SO THERE ARE TWO ALIGNMENTS FOR MAJOR THOROUGHFARE SHOWN NORTH SOUTH AFTER THAT CUL-DE-SAC AND THE GRAND MASON GPS ALIGNMENT WOULD BE FURTHER EAST OF THAT. YEAH. TODAY IF, UH, THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE EASTERN ALIGNMENT THAT IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. NOW, UM, THE PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL FROM THIS GP, THE SITES, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT'S GP WAS ON THE WEST SIDE AND THE COMPROMISE THAT WAS MADE BY, UH, THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT WAS TO BRING IT TO THE CENTER, WHICH IS THE ALIGNMENT THAT YOU SHOULD SEE RIGHT NOW TO THE, UH, RIGHT SIDE. AND THEN KEN, IF YOU'LL GO BACK NOW TO THE PREVIOUS EXHIBIT, THE WITH GRAND MASONS, UM, NO, THE OTHER ONE. THIS ONE AND ZOOM IN INTO THAT AREA. SO ZOOM AND THEN GO DOWN PLEASE. SO THIS SHOWS GRAND MASON GPS APPROVED ALIGNMENT OF GRAND MASON, OH SORRY, MASON ROAD IN THE DASH LINE EAST OF THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT THAT YOU WOULD APPROVE IF YOU OR THAT YOU THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING. SO THERE IS A GAP STILL AND THE ARGUMENT BEING PRESENTED TO YOU IS THAT GRAND MASON GP WAS APPROVED WITH AN ALIGNMENT TO THE RIGHT HERE AND TODAY YOU ARE LOOKING AT AN ALIGNMENT THAT WOULD MOVE GRAND MASON, UH, GPS APPROVAL OF MASON ROAD TO THE WEST. YEAH. DOES THAT CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT? YEAH, YEAH. COMMISSIONERS ARE THERE FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER JONES? THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. UM, MORE OF A COMMENT STATEMENTS HERE. UH, I'M LOOKING AT THIS AS THOUGH THE TWO PARTIES HAVEN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT AND WE'RE BEING ASKED TO BASICALLY MAKE THE DETERMINATION FOR THEM AND QUITE FRANKLY, I'M OPPOSED TO THAT. I THINK THE TWO LANDOWNERS AND THEIR LAND PLANNERS NEED TO COME TOGETHER AND COME UP TO A COMPROMISE AND BRING IT TO US IN THAT FORM RATHER THAN US MAKING A DECISION. YES OR NO. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS? UH, ONLY THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT THESE CHANGES MIGHT MEAN TO BOTH PARTIES. I MEAN THAT HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED AND THAT I WOULD THINK IS A MAJOR PART OF WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE. SO AGAIN, TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER JONES, I THINK THIS NEEDS TO COME BACK TO US LATER AFTER SOME HARD DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE TWO PARTIES INVOLVED, NOT BY US. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ALLMAN. I JUST WANTED SOME CLARIFICATION OR, OR MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT YOU HAD SAID THAT THE, THE PLATS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR THE GRAND MASON, THEY INCLUDED A NOTE THAT THEY NEEDED TO SHOW ADDITIONAL ALIGNMENT OF MASON ROAD ON EITHER SIDE OF THEIR PLAT OR NO. SO WHAT HAP EXPLAIN, SO MASON ROAD IS A STRAIGHT LINE, RIGHT? UHHUH PER THE MAJOR THIRD FREEWAY PLAN, THEY SHIPPED LIKE 470 FEET EAST FROM THE ALIGNMENT. SO WITH THE APPROVAL THERE WAS A CONDITION THAT HARRIS COUNTY REQUESTED LIKE AN EXHIBIT OR A PLAN SHOWING THE ALIGNMENT FROM THEIR SOUTHERN GP, THIS IS GRAND MASON GP, ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE BECKON DOOR OR WEST GEORGE TO THE SOUTH TO SEE HOW IT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH THEIR TRACK? YES. OKAY. AND THEN THEY NEVER PROVIDED IT WASN'T PROVIDED. OKAY. AND HERE I WANTED TO SHOW IT THAT THIS IS THE APPROVED GP OF GRAND MASON GP AND THE ONE, THE RED LINE HIGHLIGHTED IN DASH LINE THAT THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT. SO YOU CAN SEE THIS IS LIKE [00:45:01] A MINOR MODIFICATION. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HEINZ? UH, YES AND THE REP FROM UH, BGE. I'M SORRY. DO YOU WANT MR. YOUNGBLOOD TO COME UP AND ANSWER QUESTIONS? YES. MR. YOUNGBLOOD, UH, QUESTION FOR YOU. UM, UH, YOU REPRESENT THE GRAND GRAND MASON YES SIR. PORTION, RIGHT? YES SIR. THIS DEVIATION HERE, WHAT IS YOUR SPECIFIC CONCERN BEYOND UM, IT, IT WAS A SURPRISE HERE OR WHAT, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S YOUR ISSUE? WELL, WE'RE TAKING ACTION ON AN ALIGNMENT OF A GENERAL PLAN THAT'S NOT BEFORE YOU TODAY. THAT'S HOW I CAN BOIL IT DOWN, BUT I WANT TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHAT'S BEING SHOWN HERE. JUST FOR, TO GET YOUR 2 CENTS. IT REMAINS UNDER CONSIDERATION WITH OUR CLIENT IN HARRIS COUNTY. OKAY. THAT'S, THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE. ALRIGHT COMMISSIONER. SO, UM, I THINK I HEARD SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN YOU JUST SAID. SO IT STILL IS UNDER CONSIDERATION WITH HARRIS COUNTY OR HARRIS COUNTY HAS APPROVED IT AND THIS IS THE ALIGNMENT THAT THEY PREFER. WE HAVE DRAFTED AN AGREEMENT AND PUT IT BEFORE HARRIS COUNTY, UH, AND WE'RE AWAITING THEIR CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION AND OUTCOME OF THAT REQUEST ON OUR BEHALF AND OUR CLIENT'S BEHALF. HOW ABOUT MR. MATHIS? WOULD YOU LIKE TO? SURE, YES. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. I WAS GONNA ASK FOR THE COUNTY TO STEP UP. UH, THE ADDRESS TO ADDRESS MR. YOUNG LEWIS'S QUESTION. THE, UH, AGREEMENT OR MOU THAT WAS CALLED, IT WAS SENT TO, UH, THE COUNTY AND IT'S UNDER LEGAL REVIEW RIGHT NOW. UM, WHEN WE HAD OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE, UH, APPLICANT AND WITH BGE, WE WERE BASICALLY, WE WERE BASICALLY UNDER IMPRESSION THAT WE NEEDED TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE, UM, WITH THE APPLICANTS, WITH THE DEVELOPERS, THE APPLICANTS UPON AN ALIGNMENT. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, COME TO AN AGREEMENT. WE DID NOT WANT TO COME TO THE COMPLIANT COMMISSION FOR YOU GUYS TO MAKE A DECISION. WE WANT TO MAKE AN AGREEMENT, BUT THAT WE HAVE NOT, NOT ALL PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO AN ALIGNMENT. I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT, UM, ONE OF THE GPS FOR GRAND MASON IN JUNE, WE DID MAKE A COMMENT TO, UH, MAKE THE, UH, ALIGNMENT CONNECT OR LOOK AT THE ALIGNMENT TO THE SOUTH, MAKE IT THE CONNECTION WITH CROSS GANT GRAND MASON. SO WE DID MAKE THAT COMMENT ON ONE OF THE GPS IN, UH, LAST YEAR. I, NO, IT'S 2023. UM, ALSO WHEN WE MET WITH THE APPLICANT, CITY AND COUNTY, WE PREFERRED THE ALIGNMENT. C IT'S THE BEST FIT ALIGNMENT TO TRY TO CONNECT THE TWO, UM, TWO ALIGNMENTS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. IT'S NOT THE PERFECT SOLUTION, BUT I THINK IT'S A VIABLE SOLUTION. AND IS THAT THE SOLUTION? IT'S ON THE SCREEN NOW. UH, NO. WHERE'S ALIGNMENT? THIS THE ALIGNMENT SEAT, BUT DIFFERENT GP? YEAH, THAT'S IT RIGHT THERE. YES, IT HAS, UM, 2000 FOOT RADIUS WITH A LONG TANGENT, WHICH MEETS OUR GEOMETRIC REGULATIONS. OKAY. SO WE'RE HAPPY WITH THAT. OKAY. FROM, FROM HARRIS AND, AND WHAT'S OUTSTANDING IS YEAH, UH, YOUR LEGAL REVIEW, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO COMPLETE. UH, THAT'S UNDER LEGAL REVIEW. THAT'S STILL UNDER PROCESS RIGHT NOW. AND HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU NEED TO COMPLETE THAT PROCESS? THAT'S HARD TO SAY. YEAH, THAT, THAT'S HARD TO SAY. THAT'S KIND OF SEPARATE FROM, FROM THIS, YEAH. , BUT YES. COMMISSIONER ROBERT, YOU'RE IN SUPPORT OF WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN. HMM? YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ROBBINS, AND JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THE LEGAL REVIEW BY HARRIS COUNTY IS NOT THE MOU IS NOT THIS ALIGNMENT THAT THEY'VE PROPOSED, CORRECT? NO, IT'S A SEPARATE ALIGNMENT THAT IT'S SEPARATE ALIGNMENT, YEAH. OKAY. SO YOU, HARRIS COUNTY HAS SIGNED OFF ON THIS ALIGNMENT. YES. BG HAS ASKED FOR YOU TO CONSIDER ANOTHER ALIGNMENT IN A DIFFERENT MOU AS I'M SAYING, THAT'S PENDING REVIEW? YES. OKAY. BUT THIS ONE HARRIS COUNTY SUPPORTS? YES. OKAY. CAN I CLARIFY? SURE. MS. CURTIS. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, SO WE ARE OPEN TO ANY ALIGNMENT THAT IS APPROVABLE. UM, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE MOU THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO HARRIS COUNTY WAS SUBMITTED TO HARRIS COUNTY PRECINCT FOR, BECAUSE IT IS RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE BRIDGE OVER MASON ROAD. THERE IS NO DEVELOPABLE AREA DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH. SO THE QUESTION IS NOT, YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN BE DEVELOPED HERE OR IF THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT PLANES THAT ARE BEING DISRUPTED. IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE COST OF THAT BRIDGE AND AN AGREEMENT ABOUT THE COST OF THAT BRIDGE, NOT NECESSARILY WHERE THAT BRIDGE GOES. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. UM, SO WE ARE [00:50:01] HAPPY TO CONTINUE COORDINATING WITH, WITH BGE ABOUT WHERE THAT BRIDGE GOES. BUT THE PROBLEM IS IF THE BOOSTA MONTE TRACT IS TOLD, HEY, YOU'RE DENIED, YOU CAN'T DEVELOP, WHEN CAN WE DEVELOP, YOU KNOW, IS THIS PROPERTY OWNER BEING DENIED THE DEVELOPABILITY OF THEIR PROPERTY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO WAIT ON AN AGREEMENT FROM COUNTY LEGAL ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BRIDGE THAT'S NOT EVEN ON OUR PROPERTY. THAT'S, THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT I'M GRAPPLING WITH RIGHT NOW, THAT, UH, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO. YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR AN ALIGNMENT FROM BGE SINCE AUGUST. I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS. I JUST WANT MY CLIENT TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REST OF THEIR PROJECT EVEN IF WE CONTINUE WORKING WITH BGE ON WHERE MASON ROAD GOES. THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER JONES. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. UH, MY ONLY, UH, RESPONSE TO THAT WOULD BE, I DON'T SEE THIS AS BEING A DISCUSSION OR A COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE APPLICANTS BUT THEIR RESPECTIVE CLIENTS AND THAT THEIR CLIENTS HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND COME TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES. THEY'RE THE LANDOWNERS. OTHER OTHERS INVOLVED ARE SIMPLY THE, UH, THE EXPERTS IF YOU WILL. UH, AND THE CON CONSULTING, UH, PARTIES THAT UNDERSTAND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, THE PLATTING RULES AND REGULATIONS AND ALIGNMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS. THANK YOU. MAD CHAIR. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND, AND STAFF, UM, RELATIVE TO ALL THE OPTIONS YOU'VE SEEN, IS THIS THE MOST VIABLE OPTION YOU'VE SEEN? YES. OKAY. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT, THANKS EVERYONE. SO YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION ROBINS SECOND HINES. SECOND HINES. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? AYE. OKAY, RAISE YOUR HAND SO I CAN CALL YOU OFF. OPPOSED. COMMISSIONER JONES. COMMISSIONER POS, PERLE, COMMISSIONER MAREZ AND COMMISSIONER KALIK. OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S IT. OKAY. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 100, ITEM 100 IS CG 7,600 LP GENERAL PLAN. THE SUBJECT SITE IS AN OVER 117 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF BELTWAY EIGHT AND FM 5 21 ALAMEDA AND IS TO INCLUDE THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF MAJOR COLLECTOR ABOVE FLOW SPEEDWAY SHOWN IN BLUE. THE GENERAL PLAN IS PROPOSING AN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION DEVELOPMENT AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING A NORTH SOUTH NOR AN EAST, WEST STREET. BY NOT EXTENDING NOR DETERMINING WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC, ESTES BROOKS WEST, ESTES BROOK STREET TO THE WEST NOR FOX SHIRE LANE TO THE EAST STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. THE SITE INCLUDES THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF MTFP MAJOR COLLECTOR BUFFALO SPEEDWAY AND WOULD HAVE EXCESSIVE AND, AND WOULD HAVE EXCESSIVE INTERSECTION SPACING OF 3,300 FEET BETWEEN ANDERSON ROAD AND BUT EIGHT AND A SPACING OF 3,800 FEET BETWEEN RUM CLARK AND FUTURE BUFFALO SPEEDWAY IN 2020. A PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL GENERAL PLAN WAS ANNEXED BY HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL SHOWN IN WHITE AND HAS EFFECTIVELY CUT OFF ANY POTENTIAL FOR A CONNECTING EAST WEST STREET TO FOX SHIRE LANE TO THE EAST, SHOWN IN ORANGE. THE SITE IS INTENDED AS AN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION DEVELOPMENT AND WILL EXTEND ITS SUMMERLAND DRIVE TO CONNECT TO THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF BUFFALO SPEEDWAY. THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT WILL ALLOW THE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC TO CIRCUMVENT THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND WOULD NOT PROVE INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEER HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK FOR ITEM 100. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION ALLMAN. MOTION ALLMAN. SECOND. SECOND AKAKA. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM 1 0 1, ITEM 1 0 1 HARDY AT GIO DEVELOPMENT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMIT AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF HARDY STREET AND HARRINGTON STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THREE VARIANCES. ONE TO ALLOW THE LOT TO BE LEFT THAN 3,500 SQUARE FOOTAGE IN SIZE TWO TO ALLOW REDUCED DUAL BUILDER LINE FOUR 16 STRUCTURES AND THREE TO ALLOW AN ASSISTING HOME TO ENCROACH INTO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. TWO RESIDENTIAL HOME HAD BEEN IN A SYSTEM ON THIS PROPERTY. ATIS 19 EARLY 1900 TOOK FOR MORE THAN A [00:55:01] HUNDRED YEARS PREDATING THE CURRENT ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. THIS HOME WILL BUILT CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE ENCLOSING INTO THE CURRENT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE EASEMENT AND THE BUILDER LINE REQUIREMENTS. THIS HOME WERE RENOVATED AND NOW THE PROPERTY OWNER WISHES TO SUBDIVIDE THE TRACK INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOT WITH ONE BUILDING PER LOT. GIVEN THE SMALL SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE HOMES, THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ARE NEEDED TO ALLOW THE LOT SIZES TO REMAIN SMALLER THAN THE REQUIRED 3,500 SQUARE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND TO KEEP THE HOME IN THEIR CURRENT POSITIONS. GRANTED, THE THE VARIANCES WILL ONLY APPLY TO THE LIFE OF THE STRUCTURES. ANY NEAR CONSTRUCTION OR ON THE PROPERTY WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE CURRENT BORDERLINE REQUIREMENT AND THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. ALSO, AS PART OF THE CONDITION, THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PUT ANY FENCE ALONG THE PUBLIC STREET BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE EXISTING HOME AT THE INTERSECTION TO AVOID ADDING MORE OBSTRUCTION TO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. THE HOME IN QUESTION HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS AND THE REQUESTED VARI ARE INTENDED TO APPLY FOR THE LIFE OF THE STRUCTURES ONLY. SO THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO GO THE REQUESTED VARIANCE VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLANS SUBJECT TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION AND STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE. THANK YOU. I HAVE UH, THE APPLICANT SIGNED TO SPEAK WITH QUESTIONS ONLY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS COMMISSIONERS JUST FOR STAFF? OKAY. YES, GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER MARTIN, ARE THESE STRUCTURES CONNECTED? IS IT ONE HOUSE TODAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE TWO HOUSES OR IS IT TWO HOUSES TODAY? LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE CONNECTED. TWO HOME SEPARATED. THEY ARE. THEY ARE SEPARATED. THE ONE IN THE CORNER IS A DUPLEX. OKAY, BUT THEY'RE NOT CONNECTED? THEY'RE NOT CONNECTED IN BOTH HOUSE? NO. OKAY. SURE. LOOKS CONNECTED. SURE LOOKS CONNECTED EACH THEY'RE CLOSE TO EACH. VERY CLOSE. THAT'S VERY CLOSE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GETTING OLD COMMISSIONER MAR. SO YOU SAID THEIR EXISTING STRUCTURES BUT IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE IT WAS ORIGINALLY A ONE STORY AND THEN THEY PROCEEDED WITH TWO STORIES. THIS STORY, I'M CONFUSED. THE ONE IN THE CORNER HAD ALWAYS BEEN TWO STORIES. THEY JUST REMODEL IT LIKE BECAUSE THEY WERE FALLING DOWN AND THEY WERE BEING HOSFORD SO THEY RENOVATED TO MAKE IT STANDING UP TODAY AND PRETTY THAT DEFINITELY SHOWS A BETTER PICTURE OF IT. YEAH. SO IT DOES SHOW A, A BETTER PICTURE OF IT BUT LIKE WHAT THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE THAT KIND OF ENCROACHED IN THE INVISIBILITY TRIANGLE LIKE A PORCH AND THEN, OKAY, SO AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE PORCH, UM, YOU MEAN THAT ORIGINALLY IT WAS LIKE A DIAGONAL BUT WHEN THEY ADDED FOR, WHEN THEY REQUESTED A REMODEL PERMIT, SOMEHOW IT ENDED UP WITH WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE CURRENT SITE, WHICH IS THE 2022. BUT THAT WAS APPROVED BY AT THE PERMITTING CENTER. OKAY. I JUST, 'CAUSE I PERSONALLY AM NOT A FAN OF EVER ENCROACHING ON THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. I THINK THAT'S NEVER GOOD. UM, AND IT LOOKED LIKE ORIGINALLY IT HAD A PORCH THAT YOU COULD KIND OF SEE THROUGH. YEAH, THAT IS, BUT THEN THEY ENCLOSED THAT IN AND TOOK AWAY A LOT OF THAT VISIBILITY. YEAH, SO I, I'M CERTAINLY NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT, BUT MM-HMM MR. UH, COMMISSIONER, JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, LIA FROM THE STAFF IS CORRECT IN THAT WE ARE HAVING FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ON THIS BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL HOME DID HAVE A CAMPFORD CORNER ON THERE, WHICH ALLOWED BETTER VISIBILITY. I'M NOT GONNA SAY THAT IT DIDN'T ENCROACH INTO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, BUT IT DID ALLOW A LITTLE BIT BETTER VISIBILITY. HOWEVER, WHEN IT WENT THROUGH THE PERMITTING CENTER, THE PERMITTING STAFF APPROVED AND IT WENT THROUGH INSPECTIONS AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND GOT APPROVED AS IT IS NOW CONSTRUCTED. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE HAVING ONGOING DISCUSSIONS ON AS TO HOW IT WAS ABLE TO MAKE IT THROUGH AND MOVE THROUGH THOSE KIND OF ITEMS. AND THAT AS A REMODEL THAT IT CHANGED THE, OR AS A RENOVATION IT CHANGED THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING AND THINGS. HAD IT JUST BEEN THE SECOND FLOOR, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'D HAVE ANY ISSUE BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT WOULD OUT BE OUTSIDE OF THE VISIBILITY BECAUSE IT'D BE ABOVE IT. BUT WE HAVE STARTED HAVING THOSE DISCUSSIONS TO TRY TO BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN CATCH OR MODIFY OUR STANDARDS AND OUR, THE WAY WE DO THINGS TO TRY TO KEEP SOMETHING FROM LIKE THIS MOVING FORWARD. AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER ALLMAN. UH, I GUESS THIS QUESTION IS FOR MR. SMITH. HAS STAFF GONE OUT AND LOOKED AT THE VISIBILITY AT THE INTERSECTION AND WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? WE HAVE, THE ONE GRATIFYING PIECE OF THIS IS THAT THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF ROOM BETWEEN THE EXISTING PROPERTY [01:00:01] LINE AND THE ROADWAY TO THE SOUTH ALSO. THIS IS, EVEN THOUGH THIS FACES HARDY, IT FACES HARDY SEPARATE FROM WHERE WE WOULD THINK OF, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU THINK OF HARDY, YOU THINK OF THE MAJOR PORTION COMING FROM SIX 10 IN TOWARDS DOWNTOWN IN THE ELEVATED SECTION. THIS IS ACTUALLY SEPARATE FROM THAT. THIS IS WHERE HARDY ACTUALLY SPLITS OFF AND THE ELEVATED SECTION GOES A LITTLE BIT TO THE EAST AND THEN GOES UP ELEVATED. AND THIS IS HARDY AS IT BASICALLY COMES TO A DEAD END, JUST BEYOND A COUPLE OF STREETS DOWN. SO IT'S MORE OF A MINOR ROADWAY IN THIS AREA, THEN IT WOULD BE, AS YOU THINK OF THE MAIN ONE-WAY, FOUR SEC, FOUR LANE SEGMENT OF HARDY. THIS IS SEPARATE FROM THAT. IT'S MORE OF A TWO LANE, TWO WAY. BUT YOU CAN STILL, WHEN YOU'RE AT THE INTERSECTION, YOU CAN STILL SEE WHEN YOU ARE, YOU HAVE RELATIVELY DECENT VISIBILITY. IT'S NOT THE, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT IT IS NOT, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, BECAUSE OF IT, IT'S A LOWER VOLUME ROADWAY. I'M NOT HAVING A LOT OF HIGH VOLUME, HIGH SPEED IN THIS AREA. SO WE ARE, IT'S NOT SOMETHING I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE, BUT IT'S, I CAN LIVE WITH OR WORK WITH. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION, UH, BY STAFF FOR APPROVAL. DO I HAVE A MOTION ALLMAN? MOTION ALLMAN. SECOND GARZA. SECOND GARZA. ALL IN FAVOR? A OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES ITEM 1 0 2. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS TAMMY WILLIAMSON. ITEM 1 0 2 IS NEW FAITH VILLAGE SENIOR LIVING. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS IN SOUTHERN HARRIS COUNTY, SOUTH OF WEST FUCO STREET BETWEEN HIRAM CLARK ROAD AND BUFFALO SPEEDWAY. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE NOT TO EXTEND NOR TERMINATE SMOOTH OAK LANE WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. SMOOTH OAK LANE WAS DEDICATED WITHIN THE RECORDED SUBDIVISION WILD HEATHER EDITION, SECTION ONE AND EXTENDED TO THE EDGE OF AN EXISTING FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DITCH BY ORDINANCE IN 1959. THE CURRENT SITE IS A REPL OF A PORTION OF A RESERVE RESTRICTED TO CHURCH AND RELATED USES THAT WAS GRANTED THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED TODAY, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN 2008. NOW THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SENIOR LIVING FACILITY, SO THE VARIANCE IS BEING READDRESSED. PART OF THE REMAINING RESERVE FROM THE PREVIOUS PLAT IS THE EASTERN 60 FEET AND SOUTHERN PORTION BELOW THE CURRENT PLAT BOUNDARY, WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY HARRIS COUNTY FOR DRAINAGE AND DETENTION FACILITY, WHICH IS SHOWN IN ORANGE. STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE THE EXTENSION OF SMOOTH OAK LANE ACROSS THE 100 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE AREA AND CONNECT TO MONRAD DRIVE, WHICH WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 580 FEET SOUTH OF WEST FUQUA STREET. THE TOTAL INTERSECTION SPACING BETWEEN FUQUA AND ANDERSON ROAD ALONG MONRAD DRIVE IS APPROXIMATELY 2,550 FEET WITHOUT ANY STREET CONNECTIONS WEST OF MONRAD DRIVE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT TAKES ACCESS FROM HYRON CLARK ROAD TRAFFIC CIRCULATION WOULD NOT BE GREATLY IMPROVED BY EXTENDING SMOOTH OAK LANE. HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST. THEREFORE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE, AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU MS. WILLIAMSON. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY. COMMISSIONERS YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION VE LAND MOTION VERA BLAND. SECOND. SECOND, VICTOR. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 0 3. ITEM 1 0 3 IS RED OAKS RED OAK ESTATES GP. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN NORTHERN HARRIS COUNTY WEST OF IH 45, SOUTH OF FM 1960, WHICH IS CYPRESS CREEK PARKWAY AND EAST OF ELLA BOULEVARD. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A GENERAL PLAN OF APPROXIMATELY 11 AND A HALF ACRES AS A PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A PERMANENT ACCESS EASEMENT SUBDIVISION, AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED MAXIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG BUTTERFIELD ROAD. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST ALONG BUTTERFIELD ROAD, BETWEEN FER ROAD AND NAN DRIVE. THE CURRENT INTERSECTION SPACING IS APPROXIMATELY 2,400 FEET. MANY PROPERTIES SOUTH OF THE GP ARE WITHIN RECORDED SUBDIVISIONS AND ONLY ONE APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET OF THE SOUTHERN GP [01:05:01] BOUNDARY IS ADJACENT TO A NON PLATTED VACANT LAND PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC STREET CONNECTION. SO EASTWARD HAS FEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE CONNECTIONS. THERE IS ONE SUB STREET FROM THE ELLA CROSSING SECTION ONE SUBDIVISION EAST THAT STUBS INTO AGRI AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE OTHER TWO STU STREETS TO THE SOUTH ABUT MEYER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH ACCESS TO FER ROAD WITH THE NANS DRIVE CONNECTION. RECENTLY ESTABLISHED INTERNAL CONNECTIVITY IS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED FOR THE AREA ALSO OF THE NON PLATTED PROPERTIES ALL HAVE FRONTAGE ON FER ROAD EXCEPT FOR THE SCHOOL WHICH USES THE TWO STUB STREETS IN, INTO THE NORTH FOREST NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST. THEREFORE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE GP SUBJECT TO 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE. THANK YOU. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE. COMMISSIONERS. I NEED A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION. MOTION MAN. PACA. SECOND. SECOND MAREZ. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 0 4, MADAM CHAIR. ITEM 1 0 4 IS SEATED GAS COMPLEX. UH, MADAM CHAIR, THIS ITEM WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED AT THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. UH, DURING THE DEFERRAL PERIOD, THE APPLICANT WITHDREW THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND PROVIDED A REVISED SUBDIVISION PLAT THAT MEETS CHAPTER 42. SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT, UH, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. THANK YOU. SO IT'S A SHALL APPROVE? CORRECT. OKAY. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON, UH, 1 0 4. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE. I NEED A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION. MOTION BALDWIN. A SECOND. ROBBINS. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ITEM. UH, WE'RE IN THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION YES. PORTION. UH, MADAM CHAIR, I'M GONNA EXCUSE FROM MS. ISLAND. OKAY. PLEASE NOTE COMMISSIONER. HE IS ACCUSING HIMSELF. PLEASE GO AHEAD MR. KREEL. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, ITEM 1 0 5 IS NORTHFIELD ESTATES. UH, THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN, UH, SOUTHWEST HOUSTON WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, UH, EAST OF SOUTH NER ROAD AND SOUTH OF WEST BELFORD ROAD. UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO NOT EXTEND, UH, BRICK MEAD HAVEN DRIVE OR, UH, YEAH. UH, REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO NOT EXTEND, UH, A PUBLIC STREET. UH, STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. UH, THE SITE IS A VACANT 19 ACRE TRACT OF LAND PLANNED FOR PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE SITE FRONTS MAJOR AIRFARE, SOUTH GASNER ROAD TO THE WEST AND THE FONDANT SOUTHWEST NORTHFIELD SUBDIVISION TO THE EAST. THE SUBDIVISION CON CONTAINS AUB STREET THAT ABUTS THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDRESSED. THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING A PUBLIC PUBLIC STREET CUL-DE-SAC, WHICH PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE SITE. THE ADJACENT SUBDIVISION PROVIDES MULTIPLE ACCESS POINTS TO THE MAJOR AIRFARES AND IS SUFFICIENT FOR TRAFFIC CIRCULATION. ALSO, THERE ARE TWO NEARBY STUB STREETS THAT ALLOW FOR FUTURE OPPORTUNITY TO FURTHER IMPROVE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN THE AREA. IF AND WHEN THE UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH IS DEVELOPED. HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS HAS VOICED NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED SIGNATURES FROM THE, FROM RESIDENTS OF THE FRAN SOUTHWEST NORTHFIELD SUBDIVISION IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST, AND WE'VE ALSO RECEIVED OPPOSITION FROM PROPERTY OWNERS, UH, TO THE SOUTH. STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE REQUEST IS SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. UH, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I BELIEVE YOU MAY HAVE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM. YES, I DO. MR. K CREDLE? I HAVE HAVE QUITE A FEW. UH, MY FIRST SPEAKER HAS BEN MET MAKI. IF IN IF I MISPRONOUNCE ANYONE'S NAME, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OUR NE NEXT SPEAKER. I KNOW I'M GONNA MESS YOUR NAME UP. ME, ME, WIZZ. EEE. OKAY. I WILL LET YOU DO THAT. PUT IT ON THE RECORD FOR US SO I DON'T CONTINUE TO BUTCHER YOUR NAME. I'M SORRY. NO PROBLEM. ATON ME. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, THINGS TO PASS OUT. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS? YEAH. NO. OKAY. STAFF CAN HELP YOU OUT. WELL, AND HERE'S, I GUESS I DIDN'T, WHAT I, WHAT I'M HANDING OUT HAS ATTACHMENTS. I DIDN'T MAKE ENOUGH COPIES, BUT HERE'S ONE SET OF THE ATTACHMENTS. OKAY. THEY CAN SHARE THAT. GO WITH THE LETTER THAT IS BEING CIRCULATED. GOOD AFTERNOON. [01:10:01] MY NAME IS ATON MEIS, AND, UH, I'M HERE TO OBJECT TO THE NORTHFIELD ESTATE'S REPL AND VARIANCE REQUEST. THIS IS ACTUALLY MY FIRST TIME STANDING ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM. I SERVED AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER FROM 2005 TO 2007. I'VE BEEN A HOMEOWNER IN NORTHFIELD FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS. MY WIFE AND I RAISED OUR SEVEN CHILDREN IN THE COMMUNITY, TWO OF OUR MARRIED CHILDREN AND SEVEN GRANDCHILDREN NOW LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I HAVE SERVED ON THE BOARD OF OUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR 25 YEARS. I HAVE INVESTED IN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. IN 2005, I FOUNDED HCID NUMBER FIVE OR THE BRAZE OAKS MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. I WAS ITS FIRST BOARD CHAIR FOR 10 YEARS AND I CURRENTLY CHAIR THE INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE. DARE SAY, I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED REPL. FOR 30 YEARS, I HAVE LIVED, INVESTED, AND VOLUNTEERED MY TIME FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE AREA. DAVID HAWES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BRAY OAKS MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SUBMITTED A COMPREHENSIVE PRESENTATION WITH BACKUP, EXPLAINING THE REASONS WHY THE REPL SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED WITH ITS LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES. IT DENIES POTENTIAL FUTURE STREET CONNECTIVITY AND UTILITY ACCESS. IT LAND LOCKS UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES. IT WILL WORSEN THE CURRENT FLOODING ON MCGEE LANE. IT WILL ADD TRAFFIC TO NEIGHBORING STREETS THAT ARE ALREADY UNSAFE. THE DEVELOPER SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TIA THAT THE BRAYS OAKS MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERFORMED. CAN I FINISH? YOU CAN FINISH UP QUICKLY. SURE. WHICH REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT STREET MODIFICATIONS TO THE INTERSECTION OF WEST BELFORD AND PEMBRIDGE. I'M THRILLED THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS ALMOST SOLD OUT 150 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND IS THE EXCLUSIVE BUILDER OF MILLION DOLLAR HOMES. THIS THIRD PHASE EXACERBATES PREVIOUSLY UNADDRESSED ISSUES AND DISREGARDS THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO REJECT THE, REJECT THE PLAT AND REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO INCORPORATE THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A MODIFIED PLAN BEFORE THE COMMISSION RECONSIDERS IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GUY FELTON. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, I AM A BUSINESS OWNER AND HAVE BEEN, UH, HAD A BUSINESS ON MCGEE LANE FOR APPROXIMATELY 22 YEARS. UH, THE NORTHFIELD ESTATES PLAN, I'M OPPOSED TO IT, UH, FOR TWO REASONS. ONE, IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR UTILITY EASEMENTS AND SECONDLY, UH, THE TRAFFIC FLOW, UH, DOES NOT ALLOW CONNECTIVITY AND DOES NOT CONSIDER FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS AREA. UH, BOTH OF THESE ARE VERY SERIOUS CONSIDERATIONS, UH, REGARDING THE UTILITIES. UH, NORTHFIELD ESTATES HAS BEEN, UM, I'LL USE A NICE WORD, UH, DERELICT IN RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY'RE ON RIGHT NOW, AND, UH, WOULD LIKE TO STOP THEM FROM CONTINUING, IGNORING THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. UH, GOING FORWARD. UH, OUR PROPERTY HAS BEEN FLOODED. OUR STREET HAS BEEN FLOODED, UH, OVER THE PAST, UH, DURING THE YEAR OF 2024. AND, UM, IT'S A LONG STORY, BUT, UM, THERE NEEDS TO BE A UTILITY EASEMENT TO HANDLE STORM WATER AND THE FUTURE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT ADDRESS UTILITY NEEDS GOING FORWARD. AND THEN THE TRAFFIC FLOW DOES NOT ALLOW FOR CONNECTIVITY AND WILL, UH, INHIBIT OR, OR, OR, OR PORN ALLOW FEATURE DEVELOPMENT, UH, IN A PRACTICAL, UH, MANNER. AND THE CITY HAS RULES IN PLACE. WE WOULD LIKE FOR NORTHFIELD ESTATE TO ABIDE BY THOSE RULES AND NOT SEEK AN EXCEPTION WITHOUT A REAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT EXCEPTION. UH, THE CITY HAS RULES. WE WANT NORTHFIELD ESTATES TO FOLLOW THEM, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME IN LISTENING TO MY CONCERNS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YES, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN. CAN, CAN I BE CLEAR WHAT YOU WANT? YOU WANT THE CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN WEST BELFORT? MR. FELTON, CAN YOU COME BACK UP PLEASE? JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU WANT OTHER THAN A FEW THINGS. BUT DO YOU WANT A FUTURE ROAD FROM BELFORT DOWN TO FRAN MEADOW THROUGH BRAYS PARK AND BRAYS LAUNCH? IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? SOME [01:15:01] CONNECTIVITY? IS THAT THE CONNECTIVITY YOU WANT IS YES. I WOULD LIKE, YOU WANT A STREET TO BISECT THE PROPERTIES SO THAT YOU HAVE MORE TRAFFIC. I'M JUST, IT'S ODD THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD WANT, NOW LET ME, LET ME ANSWER. SORRY. OKAY. SO MCGEE LANE. MM-HMM . IS A PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY 33 SEPARATE PROPERTY OWNERS. THAT WAS A FREEMAN PROPERTY. THE CITY NEVER GAVE UTILITIES TO IT. THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO WATER, THERE'S NO SEWER, THERE'S NO STORM WATER. AND YOU HAVE 33 SEPARATE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN NOW BEING LANDLOCKED ON THE SOUTH, ON THE EAST, AND NOW ON THE NORTH. AND THE ONLY WAY TO ACCESS UTILITIES WOULD BE FROM BRAY PARK DRIVE, WHICH IS STUBBED OUT ON THE SOUTH OR FROM GESNER TO THE WEST. THE PROBLEM IS THAT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE'S NO PRACTICAL WAY DESPITE WHAT HAS BEEN ARTICULATED OF PROVIDING ANY UTILITIES FOR MCGEE LANE. WHERE ARE THEY NOW? THEY DON'T HAVE ANY. IT'S, THEY HAVE SEPTIC TANK. I HAVE A SEPTIC TANK AND, UH, A WATER WELL, AND YOU GET POWER FROM CENTERPOINT ACTUALLY HAS PROVIDED POWER THROUGH THAT EASEMENT ROAD ON THE PRIVATE RIGHT. RIGHT OF WAY THAT IS MAINTAINED BY THE OWNERS ON THE COMMUNITY. AND THIS IS A HUNDRED YEAR OLD STREET THAT PREDATED ALL OF FONDANT SOUTHWEST AND THE CITY HAS NEVER TAKEN ON. THERE ARE PRIVATE DITCHES. IN, IN, IN ONE OF THE EXHIBITS THAT I DISTRIBUTED, THE DITCHES GO FROM WEST TO EAST. AND WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST WAS DEVELOPED, THEY CUT OFF ALL THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE WATER TO DRAIN OUT. AND SO EVERY TIME IT RAINS AND THERE'S PICTURES IN THERE, I'VE PROVIDED THEM THIS ENTIRE STREET FLOODS. MCGEE STREET. MCGEE STREET. CORRECT. 'CAUSE THERE ARE DITCHES AND THE CITY WILL NOT CLEAN OUT THE DITCHES 'CAUSE IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE CITY WILL NOT CONNECT TO THOSE STORM, TO THAT STORM DRAIN. AND THE SAME DEVELOPER THAT IS BUILT TO THE EAST THAT ESSENTIALLY DAMMED UP MCGEE LANE'S. NOW THEY'RE THE SAME, IT'S THE SAME GROUP THAT IS DOING, THAT IS BUILDING TO THE NORTH. AND IN THEORY, THEY COULD HAVE PROVIDED A UTILITY ACCESS OR SOME TYPE OF STREET CONNECTIVITY INSTEAD OF THIS PRIVATE STREET TO GO DOWN TO CONNECT SOMEWHERE TO THE SOUTH. BUT THERE, BUT THEY, BUT THERE'S A FOUR FOOT GAP BETWEEN THEIR PROPERTY LINE AND THE PROPERTY LINES TO THE NORTH OF MCGEE SO THAT, THAT THEY CAN NEVER HAVE UTILITIES. THEY CAN NEVER CREATE A UTILITY EASEMENT AND THEY CAN NEVER PUT A STREET OR CONNECT TO ANYTHING. NOW, THE, THE, THE, THE, YOUR THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS TALKED ABOUT POTENTIAL LUDINGTON DRIVE SOMEHOW EXTENDING TO THE WEST TO SOUTH GESNER THROUGH 33 SEPARATE PROPERTY OWNERS NEVER GONNA HAPPEN. RIGHT? BRAISE PARK DRIVE IS ON THE SOUTH. IT'S NOT ON THIS MAP, IT'S RIGHT HERE. BUT, BUT WHO OWNS MCGEE ROAD? DO YOU EACH HAVE A RIGHT, A RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH THAT TO GET TO YOUR PROPERTY? YES. YES. 33 SEPARATE PROPERTY OWNERS WITH ANYWHERE FROM FRONTAGE OF, AND IF YOU JUST GLANCE AT THE GOOGLE MAP, IT LOOKS LIKE MAGEE'S PRETTY WIDE. I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S 25, 30 FEET WIDE. IT'S, YES. IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A, YOU KNOW, IT WAS A DIRT ROAD AND NOW IT'S BASICALLY PRETTY MUCH A DIRT ROAD. AND THE 33 PROPERTY OWNERS COULDN'T GO IN TOGETHER AND CREATE SOMETHING THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE UTILITIES. I HAVE TRIED FOR THE 22 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN THERE, UH, I WAS IN FRONT OF BILL WHITE, WAS THE MAYOR WHEN I FIRST APPROACHED THIS ZOOM IN. CAN YOU ZOOM INTO THE SITE OF MCGEE LANE AND THAT SHOWS THE SEPARATE PROPERTIES. DO YOU SEE THERE ARE SOME PROP THERE'S SOME PROPERTY. NO, TAKE, TAKE OFF THE DOTS. THE ONE PRIOR ONE. GO TO THE ONE THAT WAS BEFORE THAT WE, WE CAN SEE THE PROPERTIES. YEAH, WE CAN SEE IT CLEARLY. OKAY. I DON'T THINK YOU COULD, WE CAN SEE IT. NO, BUT DO YOU SEE, THERE'S SOME, SOME PROPERTY WAS OWNED RIGHT THERE. IF YOU SEE TO THE RIGHT OF MCGEE LANE, THERE'S SOME, THERE'S SOME PROPERTIES THAT ARE JUST THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. LOOK, LOOK, LOOK AT THE WAY, BECAUSE THESE WERE, THESE WERE, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, THESE WERE ORIGINALLY GIFTED PROPERTIES FOR THOSE IN, YOU KNOW, UH, FONDER AND SOUTHWEST WAS RICE. RICE WAS A RICE, UH, PLANTATION. AND I BELIEVE THAT THOSE, UH, WE CALL IT FTA, YOU KNOW, LIKE, YOU KNOW, PIECES WERE, BECAUSE I GUESS DIFFERENT FAMILIES WERE, YOU KNOW, I ASSUME SLAVES AT SOME POINT IN TIME WERE GIFTED DIFFERENT PIECES [01:20:03] AND EVERYTHING IS BUILT UP. JUST TO GET PUT IN PERSPECTIVE, THE, THE AVERAGE VALUE OF THOSE UNDEVELOPED PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT ARE NOW ON MCGEE ARE ABOUT HCA HAS THEM ABOUT $2 PER SQUARE FOOT, WHICH YOU CAN IMAGINE THERE'S NO UTILITIES THAT HOW DOES DEVELOP THE, THE PROPERTIES THAT THE, THE HOMES THAT ARE BEING BUILT TO THE EAST, THESE ARE MILLION DOLLAR HOMES AND EVERYTHING'S BEING BUILT AROUND IT, BUT NO ONE IS TAKING OWNERSHIP. AND THERE WERE LITERALLY HUN, I MEAN, I, IN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA SEE THE, I MEAN, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, HAS YOUR ANSWER QUESTION BEEN ANSWERED? IT HAS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. THIS IS, THANK YOU. WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON. WE'VE GOT OTHER SPEAKERS, PLEASE. YES. COMMISSIONER SIEGLER. UM, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF IS, IS THIS INFORMATION THAT YOU ALL KNEW ABOUT THIS STREET AND KNOW UTILITIES? MAYBE NOT AS DEEP AS THE UTILITIES, BUT WE'VE, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH AND, UM, WE UNDERSTOOD THAT IT, MCGEE LANE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME TYPE OF ROADWAY OR EASEMENT THAT ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS SORT OF SHARED, UH, ESSENTIALLY. SO, UM, AS FAR AS THEY'RE NOT LANDLOCKED FROM, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, MCGEE LANE IS THERE, IS IS IS HOW THEY ACCESS. SO NOTHING THAT YOU HEARD WOULD'VE CHANGED YOUR RECOMMENDATION? UM, I MEAN, THE UTILITIES, THAT'S AN INTERESTING, YOU KNOW, COMMENT HOW TO, HOW WOULD THAT BE ADDRESSED JUST IN GENERAL. BUT OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD STILL BE THE SAME. OKAY. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? ROSEBERG? UH, YES. COMMISSIONER ROSENBERG, IF, IF AS A RESULT OF THIS WE WANTED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OR I WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT IN FUTURE PLANNING EFFORTS, WE GET SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS, YOU KNOW, RICHARD, LIKE WE'VE DONE IN OTHER PARTS OF TOWN THAT LUDINGTON EXTEND ACROSS. 'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE BETWEEN THE TWO PARCELS SHOULD PROBABLY MAKE SOME SENSE THAT THERE'S AT LEAST A PLAN IF MCGEE REDEVELOPS OR SOMETHING FOR CONNECTIVITY. UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE'VE DONE IN FOX STREET AND EAST END AND STUFF. COULD WE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ASKING TO PUT LUDINGTON BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MCGEE AND THE SECTION THAT TRACK THAT BRA BETWEEN BRAISE PARK AND THE DEAD END OF LUDINGTON. YEAH, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY LUDINGTON DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE THESE NEW HOMES WERE BUILT AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOME SEMBLANCE OF GRID, BRAISE PARK DRIVE. EVEN IF YOU EXTENDED IT NORTH, YOU CAN'T GET THROUGH THAT OTHER PROPERTY THAT HAS A, UM, VARIANCE THAT THIS PLANNING COMMISSION, RIGHT. THAT, THAT, THAT WAS DONE DEAL. WE CAN'T GO BACKWARDS. SO, UM, BEFORE MY TIME, BUT AT LEAST WE COULD BE PROACTIVE AND AT LEAST GET SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, IN THE CITIES. SO AS THIS COMES UP IN THE FUTURE AND MCGEE STREET, THOSE PROPERTIES REDEVELOP IN THE ONE SOUTH, WE CAN GET THAT ACCESS LATER. AND THEN TECHNICALLY LUDINGTON CAN EVEN GO TO GESNER. I GUESS. SO ONE OF THE PIECES HERE, BUT KEEPS TALKING ABOUT MCGEE AND WE HAVE NOT, AS WAS THE APP, UM, THE GENTLEMAN BEFORE SPOKE TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, MCGEE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PRIVATE STREET. IT HAS NEVER BEEN A PUBLIC STREET. AND SO THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES OR ANYTHING THERE. IF THEY, YOU KNOW, THERE IS WHAT APPEARS TO BE MAYBE SOME DEDICATION AT SOME POINT, BUT NONE OF IT CONNECTS AND IT'S REALLY FURTHER INTO THE SITE ALONG, NOT THE SITE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT THE MCGEE SITE. SO, OR WHERE THE MCGEE ROADWAY IS. SO, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, WE TYPICALLY DON'T GO AND JUST BUILD THE ROADWAYS ON, YOU KNOW, WHERE THERE'S NO DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE FOUND THAT THERE'S EVEN A DEDICATION OF EASEMENT. IT MAY BE ONE OF THOSE WHERE IT HAS BEEN OVER TIME A HANDSHAKE EASEMENT WHERE, HEY, YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, YOU GET ACCESS DOWN THIS, THIS SEC, YOU KNOW, HERE'S A GRAVEL OR HERE IS A SECTION OF DRIVABLE AREA AND EVERYBODY JUST TAKES ACCESS DOWN IT. AND EVERYBODY'S JUST SORT OF OVER TIME AS ASSUME, ASSUMED OR SAID, YEP, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE ALL, YOU KNOW, TO GET FURTHER INTO THE WEST OR TO THE EAST. THAT'S HOW WE GET THERE. AND EVERYBODY THAT IS ON THE WEST SIDE IS JUST ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO COME ACROSS THE NORTH AND SOUTHERN EDGE OF THEIR PROPERTIES TO GET ACCESS TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES. OKAY. YES. COMMISSIONER MORRIS, EVEN IF WE, WE FISH IT ON CONNECTIVITY TO NER THOUGH THROUGH THE PROPERTY, DOESN'T REALLY SOLVE THE ISSUE OF THOSE PROPERTIES [01:25:01] ON THAT THAT GET OFF MCGEE. I MEAN, THERE'S THE BIGGER PROBLEM AT HAND FOR THOSE PROPERTIES FOR WHEN THEY WANNA MOVE FORWARD WITH REDEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE. LIKE, IT NOT LIKE WE'RE GONNA GIVE THEM, BE ABLE TO GIVE 'EM A UTILITY EASEMENT OFF OF THAT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. RIGHT. SO LIKE THEY'RE THE BIGGER LANDLOCK OR DEVELOPMENT ISSUE FOR ALL THOSE PROPERTIES THAT COME OFF OF MCGEE RIGHT NOW, THAT REGARDLESS OF THE CONNECTIVITY TO GUESS, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ADDRESSED. CORRECT? WE WOULDN'T, I MEAN, THERE WOULD NOT BE UTIL THERE MCGEE IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO TAKE UTILITIES FROM THIS PIECE WITHOUT COMING THROUGH PEOPLE'S PROPERTIES. AND I KNOW THAT THERE WAS THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE STORM DRAINAGE. I HAVE SEEN THE PHOTOS AND STUFF. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PUT FORTH A PROPOSAL, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT STANDS, WHICH WAS TO CONNECT THE EAST SIDE OF MCGEE INTO THE PROPERTY THAT IS BEING, OR THAT EITHER HAS OR IS BEING DEVELOPED IN YELLOW RIGHT THERE. AND THEN TAKE A LINE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THEIR DETENTION IN HARRIS COUNTY DETEN, UH, HARRIS COUNTY'S DRAINAGE DITCH AND THE APPLICANT STILL WILL BE SPEAKING. SO, UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT MR. SMITH. OKAY. SO I'M GONNA MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SPEAKER IN DALE ABIBI. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. HAPPY NEW YEAR. UH, I'M, I'M SHARING THE IDEAS OF MY NEIGHBORS. UH, WHENEVER IT IS RAIN, IT IS FLOODED BECAUSE THE, THE, THE WATER HAS NO WAY TO GO OUT. AND AS IT SAID, WE DON'T HAVE WATER AND UTILITY CONNECTIVITY AND WE APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPER TO GIVE US THOSE ACCESSES TO THE, THE PEOPLE LIVING OVER THERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY, OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RABBI GARFIELD. HELLO. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS RABBI YEL GARFIELD. I'M THE HEAD OF SCHOOL OF THE LARGEST JEWISH PRIVATE SCHOOL IN TEXAS, THE STATE OF TEXAS, WHICH IS GROWING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE'VE JUST RUN OUTTA SPACE AND THIS PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE, THE DEVELOPERS ARE WORKING WITH OUR SCHOOL TO ENABLE US TO BUILD A SCHOOL ON THAT PROPERTY. SO THEREFORE, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO US THAT THIS, UH, PROJECT GO FORWARD. UH, I DO WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MR. MEUS IS A GREAT GUY AND WORKED REALLY HARD FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND WE'RE ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF THIS ISSUE, BUT HE, HE IS A, A SPECIAL PERSON. BUT, UH, THE REALITY IS THAT AS OUR COMMUNITY GROWS, UM, OUR SCHOOL NEEDS SPACE. AND MANY OF OUR PARENTS LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WALK TO SCHOOL. AND THERE'S A REAL SYNERGISTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEVELOPERS AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE, THE STUDENTS AND PARENTS WHO I REPRESENT. AND WE'RE ALL WORKING TOGETHER TO BUILD THE COMMUNITY AND THE SCHOOL IN A WAY THAT'S ATTRACTIVE TO PEOPLE FROM OUTTA STATE AND DEVELOPS THE COMMUNITY FORWARD. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, OUR NEXT SPEAKER, UH, BEN MEKI. DID MR. YOUNGBLOOD WANNA GO BEFORE YOU? WAS THAT WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS? HI, MY NAME IS BEN MEKI AND I AM, UH, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT HERE. I'M MORE TRYING TO MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. HAPPY TO DO SO. UH, THE ONE COMMENT I DO WANNA MAKE IS I JUST FEEL IT'S, UH, A LITTLE CONCERNING THE MISNOMER THAT WAS PUT FORWARD OF CALLING THE LOTS ON MCGEE LANDLOCKED. UM, I MEAN, SPECIFICALLY MR. MUR HAS PURCHASED THESE PROPERTIES ON, UH, ALL THESE PROPERTIES SINCE MCGEE EXISTED. HE BOUGHT THEM KNOWING, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE CONDITION OF THOSE LOTS WERE, WHAT THE UTILITIES WERE, AND THE SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT OF THE EXPECTATION THAT HE WAS JUST GONNA WAIT FOR US TO DEVELOP AND PIGGYBACK OFF THE DEVELOPMENT AND DEMAND UTILITIES FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. A LITTLE BIT, UH, CONCERNING TO ME. AND, YOU KNOW, JUST COMING UP HERE USING THE WORD LANDLOCKED AS IF WE'RE LAND LOCKING HIM WHEN HE'S STILL JUST AS AVAILABLE TO MICKEY AS HE WAS BEFORE. HE NEVER HAD UTILITIES. THIS WAS A FOREST BEHIND HIM. AND TO SAY THAT BY DEVELOPING THAT FOREST FOR THE COMMUNITY GOOD. IT'S CALLED LAND LOCKING, YOU KNOW, THE MC LOTS. I, I, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S EXACTLY FAIR. UM, AS FAR AS THE DRAINAGE IS CONCERNED, UM, YOU KNOW, IN, AS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE EVER HEARD ABOUT THAT, UM, I'VE NEVER HEARD FROM MR. FELTON. UM, UH, OR THE OTHER GENTLEMAN WHO CAME OVER HERE. THE FIRST TIME I HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THE DRAINAGE OCCURRING, YOU KNOW, ISSUES OCCURRING ON MCGEE WAS WHEN, UH, ETAN CONTACTED US, UH, IN, IN RESPONSE TO THE VARIANCE NOTICE, UH, THAT WAS SENT OUT. UM, I SAT DOWN AND SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING WITH HIM ABOUT IT. IT'S THE FIRST TIME THAT, UH, WE EVER HEARD ANY ISSUES. UH, HE SEEMED TO THINK IT WAS BECAUSE OF OUR DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND [01:30:01] TO THE EAST. I MENTIONED TO HIM THAT WE WOULD, FIRST TIME WE'RE HEARING ABOUT THIS, WE WISH HE WOULD'VE COME TO US. WE WOULD'VE BEEN HAPPY TO TRY TO CONSIDER VARIOUS WAYS THAT WE CAN OFFER HIM, UH, ACCESS TO, UH, TO DRAINAGE OF HIS LOTS. UM, ACCESS TO, UH, UTILITIES, UH, ELECTRIC OR WATER. WE OFFERED HIM, UH, TO CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS AND FULLY GRANT HIM AND HIS LOTS, UH, WHICH ARE RIGHT NEXT TO, AT THE VERY END OF MCGEE RIGHT NEXT TO US. UM, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO GRANT HIM, UH, ACCESS AS LONG AS IT, YOU KNOW, HE WAS DOING AT HIS EXPENSE, BUT HE WANTED TO TAP INTO OUR UTILITIES, UH, ELECTRIC WATER, SEWER. WE'D BE MORE THAN THRILLED AND AVAILABLE TO, UH, OFFER THAT TO HIM. UM, AND, UM, AND I'M HAPPY TO DO SO. UH, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GRANTING HIM, UH, UH, STREET ACCESS, WHICH IS, UH, WHAT I THINK HE'S, UM, UH, OPPOSING THIS, UH, THIS APPLICATION FOR. AND, UM, BUT HAPPY TO TAKE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER S UM, CLARIFY FOR ME IF THAT'S TRUE, YOU'RE GONNA BE PRIVATE WITH GATED? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. MY NEXT SPEAKER AND LAST SPEAKER THAT I HAVE SIGNED IS TRACY YOUNGBLOOD. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. TRACY YOUNGBLOOD ONCE AGAIN WITH PGE. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WE DID HAVE SOME COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ON THE APPLICATION. UH, PRIOR TO TODAY WE DID REACH OUT TO COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, AND MAYOR PROTE CASTEX STADIUM'S OFFICE. UH, WE WERE ALSO IN TOUCH WITH HER, UM, REPRESENTATIVE, UH, MS. PITA CHAVEZ. UH, WE ALSO CONNECTED WITH, UH, DAVID HAWES ON BEHALF OF THE BRAZE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND TURNS 20, UH, SOMETIME JUST BEFORE CHRISTMAS. I BELIEVE THAT DATE WAS, UH, DECEMBER 19. UH, HE INFORMED OUR OFFICE THAT THEY HOLD NO POSITION ON THE APPLICATION. UH, AND AS YOU CAN, UH, SURMISE TODAY, THERE'S BEEN QUITE A BIT OF CONVERSATION. I'M SURE IT WILL CONTINUE TO, UH, UH, BE ONGOING CONVERSATION, UH, WITH MR. ME AND, AND OUR CLIENT AS WELL. SO, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO THAT'S OUR LAST SPEAKER. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT, MR. CRIDDLE, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING, UH, GRANTING THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION SILER SECOND JONES. SECOND JONES. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. [Items g. - j.] YES. MOVING ON TO G AND I. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON MA'AM. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS PETRA SHAW. IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS. G-H-I-N-J AS ONE GROUP? YES, PLEASE. SECTION G EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 0 6 THROUGH ONE 15 SECTION H. NAME CHANGES CONSISTS OF ITEM ONE 16 SECTION I, CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE. HAS NO ITEMS IN SECTION J. ADMINISTRATIVE ALSO HAS NO ITEMS. THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTIONS GHI AND J. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR G-H-I-N-J? MOTION POROUS PERLE GARZA. SECOND GARZA. ALL IN FAVOR? A OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ALONG TO ONE 17 NELAND AVENUE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR OR LINE, PLEASE CATCH YOUR MIC ON. THANKS. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME'S FABIAN ADA. I'M PRESENTING ON ITEM 1 17 11 34 BAYLIN AVENUE SIDE IS LOCATED NORTH OF WHITE OAK DRIVE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BAYLEN AVENUE AND STUDEWOOD STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A ZERO FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG STUDEWOOD STREET IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE FOR A RESIDENTIAL PATIO. ADDITION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER, TO ALLOW TIME FOR REVISED INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY, SO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR DEFERRAL. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION JONES. MOTION ROBINS SECOND JONES. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM ONE 18. ITEM ONE 18. ADDRESS IS 1734 CREEK DRIVE. THE SITE IS LOCATED NORTHWEST HOUSTON NORTH OF THE I 10 AND WEST OF THE SIX 10 FREEWAY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LONG POINT ROAD AND CREEK DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE [01:35:01] ALONG LONGPOINT ROAD IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE PROPERTY WAS SUPPLIED WITH THE TIMBER CREEK SUBDIVISION IN 1951 WITH ONLY A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG LONG POINT ROAD. THE MAJORITY OF THE HOMES ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF LONG POINT ROAD ARE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE ORIGINAL 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE IS KEEPING IN CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE BACK OF THE CURB IS 28 FEET ALONG LONG POINT ROAD. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF A TWO STORY THREE CAR GARAGE THAT WILL TAKE ACCESS FROM CREEK DRIVE. NO VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY WILL BE TAKEN FROM LONG POINT ROAD. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR A NEWS TWO STORY RESIDENCE. IS THAT YOUR AT THE END OF YOUR PRESENTATION? THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. OKAY, THANK YOU. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, I'LL RECOMMEND. I MEAN, I NEED A MOTION FOR, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION. MOTION. MODEST. SECOND HINES. SECOND HINES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? A OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. AND COMMISSIONER JONES, I FORGOT THAT YOU WANTED A MINUTE AHEAD OF TIME, SO I'M GONNA GET YOU AT RIGHT BEFORE PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. [II. Establish a public hearing date of February 6, 2025] OKAY. MOVING ON TO ROMAN NUMERAL TWO, NO RESIGNING. RIGHT. WE NEED TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 6TH, 2025 FOR A SI HOMES. REPL NUMBER ONE HUDLEY STREET LIVING NAVAJO PLACE, SECTION ONE PARTIAL REPL NUMBER TWO, ALTON PARK U-HAUL. MOVING IN STORAGE OF HI ROOM CLARK. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION? SECOND. VERA BLAND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. [Additional Item] OKAY, WELL MAYBE COMMISSIONER JONES, GO AHEAD WITH YOUR MOMENT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE BEFORE WE DO THE OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. I WILL BE BRIEF. UH, AS, AS Y'ALL KNOW, I'M A RESIDENTIAL LAND DEVELOPER. I'VE GOT A PRIVATE NEIGHBOR GATED NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE CITY. I THINK WE TAKE FOR GRANTED AT TIMES STREET ADDRESSES IN THE SENSE, YOU KNOW, CENTER POINT DOES THE ADDRESSING OUT IN THE COUNTY, BUT IN THE CITY LIMITS, CITY DOES THAT AND THE QUESTIONS ALWAYS COME UP. HOW DOES THAT INFORMATION GET DISSEMINATED? WELL, DURING THE HOLIDAY, I FIND OUT THE HARD WAY IT DOESN'T. UH, SO I REACHED OUT TO A FEW STAFF MEMBERS HERE WITHIN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UM, NAMELY STARTING, YOU KNOW, WITH HECTOR RODRIGUEZ. AND HE WAS VERY HELPFUL FOR ME AND, AND GETTING WITH METI QUIN ANYWAY. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING THAT MIS UH, MISPRONUNCIATION AND BETWEEN HER AND THEN, UH, WHAT AM I THINKING OF SOMEBODY ELSE? RYAN JOST. I WILL TELL YOU THAT THEY WERE AWESOME. JUMPED ON IT AND KNEW WHAT TO DO, MADE IT HAPPEN. AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD FINALLY BECAME ON THE MAP. AND I JUST WANT TO THANK THE DEPARTMENT AND CHAIR, THE DEPARTMENT HEAD, MS. TRAN AS WELL AS THE STAFF FOR REALLY TAKING THAT ON. IT WAS JUST SIMPLE FOR THEM, NOT SO SIMPLE FOR ME AND OTHERS. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, SATISFIED A LOT OF NEIGHBORS WHO WERE A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING THEIR DELIVERIES. SO THANK YOU TO STAFF. THANK YOU FOR THE PLAYING DEPARTMENT FOR STEPPING UP AND JUMPING ALL OVER IT AND MAKING IT SO EASY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I KNOW, UM, DIRECTOR TRAN PROBABLY WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING. THANK YOU. IT IS SO WONDERFUL TO HEAR POSITIVE FEEDBACKS, , UM, AND WE DO WANNA HEAR ALL FEEDBACKS, BUT, UM, WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT AND I'M SO GLAD THAT OUR TEAM IS ON A BALL ON THE BALL AND WE DO, WE ARE VERY COMMITTED TO RESPONDING AND MAKING A DIFFERENCE AND PROVIDING THE CUSTOMER SERVICE THAT THE MAYOR'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT. SO WE HAVE BEEN REALLY HARD AT WORK WITHIN OUR DEPARTMENT TO DO THAT. SO THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK ABOUT THE TEAM AND I'M GONNA COME BACK TO THEM AND GIVE THEM A BIG PAT ON THE BACK. THANK YOU. THANKS TO BOTH OF YOU. [III. Consideration of an Off-Street Parking Variance at 1126 W. Gray Street (Ed Buckley)] OKAY. NOW WE'LL MOVE ALONG TO ROMAN NUMERAL THREE CONSIDERATION OF AN OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAME CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS RAMON, UH, ROMAN NU NURO. THREE, UH, 1126 WEST GRAY STREET. UH, THE SITE IS LOCATED WEST OF MONTROSE BOULEVARD ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST GRAY STREET. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A, ALLOW THREE OFF STREET PARKING SPACES INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES FOR A CONVERSION OF A FOURPLEX TO A SPA AND ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER, UH, TO ALLOW MORE TIME FOR STUDY AND REVIEW. THANK YOU. [01:40:01] I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. I DON'T SEE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE LOOKING AT ME LIKE THEY WANT TO SPEAK. SO I NEED A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL ALLMAN. MOTION ALLMAN. ANYBODY WANNA SECOND THAT? SECOND. GARZA. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. UH, ROMAN NUMERAL FOUR PUBLIC COMMENT. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY, SEEING NONE, WE WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 4:16 PM THANKS EVERYONE. OUTSTANDING. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.