[00:00:03]
[CALL TO ORDER ]
AND I'M GONNA CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 2:43 PM ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13TH, 2025.THIS IS AN IN-PERSON MEETING AT TAKING PLACE AT THE 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 TURNED IT INTO STAFF NEAR THE FRONT DOOR.
CONSENT AND REQUEST SPEAKERS, REPEAT SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED FOR ONE MINUTE AND NEW SPEAKERS ARE TIMED FOR TWO MINUTES.
SPEAKER RULES ARE FOUND ON THE TOP PORTION OF THE SPEAKER SIGN IN FORM ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA.
COUNCIL MEMBERS SPEAKING ON AN ITEM ARE NOT TIMED.
APPLICANTS HAVE THEIR ALLOTTED TWO MINUTES TIME AS WELL AS REBUTTALS AND NON APPLICANTS OR GENERAL SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED.
THERE IS NOT AN OPTION FOR REBUTTAL, EVEN IF YOU DID NOT USE YOUR FULL TWO MINUTES AND YOU CANNOT, UH, ALLOCATE YOUR TIME TO ANOTHER PERSON.
SO TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM, I'M GOING TO CALL THE ROLE QUORUM IS 11.
MAD PRESENT, AND I'M GONNA MESS THIS UP AND I'M GONNA APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE.
DID I GET THAT RIGHT? NARANJO.
UH, COMMISSIONER FAM FA PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER PIERCE PIERCE PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER POROUS PERLE POROUS PER PRESENT.
I'M SORRY, I SHOULD'VE NOTED THAT.
COMMISSIONER VICTOR VICTOR? PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD? PRESENT.
PRESIDENT AND, UH, DIRECTOR TRAN TRAN.
SO WE HAVE A QUORUM WITH 20 MEMBERS PRESENT.
I'M GONNA NOW TELL YOU ABOUT OUR WITHDRAWALS.
I NEED TO LET YOU KNOW THERE'S A, THERE'S A HANDFUL OF THEM.
UH, SO WE ARE HAVING WITHDRAWALS FOR THESE ITEMS, WHICH MEANS WE WILL NOT HEAR ANYTHING ON THEM AND WE WILL NOT, UH, DO AN, TAKE ANY ACTION ON THEM.
NUMBER 14, KATIE FREEMAN BUSINESS PARK.
NUMBER 29, SAN JACINTO PRESERVE GRAND, UH, GENERAL PLAN 41 COOPER RESERVE 55.
MARTIN DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN AT WEBSTER.
72 ESTATES AT WOODING STREET AND 83 ALABAMA PLAZA.
[Director’s Report]
OKAY, SO NOW I'LL CALL FOR THE, UH, DIRECTOR'S REPORT.GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR CLARK COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
I AM VON TRAN, SECRETARY OF THIS COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
I HAVE THREE ANNOUNCEMENTS TODAY.
THE FIRST ONE, THE HOUSTON PERMITTING CENTER, WILL BE OFFERING A WORKSHOP ON NOVEMBER THE 19TH AT THE UNITED WAY FROM 12 TO 5:00 PM THE ADDRESS IS 50 WALL DRIVE.
UH, THIS WORKSHOP WILL BE LED BY OUR STAFF HERE, UM, IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UH, THE, UH, PLANNING TEAM, AS WELL AS THE PERMITTING TEAM ALONG WITH HOUSTON, UH, PUBLIC WORKS STAFF MEMBERS.
UM, IT IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN ABOUT THE PROCESS AND PERMITTING.
UH, YOU ARE WELCOME TO ALSO ASK QUESTIONS, UH, MEET OUR STAFF.
SO I REALLY ENCOURAGE ALL, UH, TO COME BY AND, UM, ATTEND THE WORKSHOP.
UH, MY SECOND ANNOUNCEMENT IS, FIRST OF ALL, SAVITA, CAN YOU PLEASE STAND UP, PLEASE SO WE CAN ACKNOWLEDGE YOU
SO, SAVITA BANDY HAS BEEN PROMOTED FROM PLANNING MANAGER TO DIVISION MANAGER.
SAVITA, UH, HAS BEEN WITH THE DEPARTMENT FOR 18 YEARS.
SHE STARTED OUT AS A BABY PLANNER.
UH, SHE WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN DEVELOPING THE LIVABLE PLACE ORDINANCE AND MANY OTHER THINGS ALONG WITH, UM, THE LAUNCHING OF PLOT TRACKER.
I'M JUST SO PLEASED TO BE WORKING WITH SOMEONE WHO IS SO COMMITTED TO PUBLIC SERVICE, WHO IS SO BRIGHT, UM, AND, UM, WHO EVERYBODY REALLY LOVES WORKING, UH, TOGETHER WITH HER.
SO, AVITA, CONGRATULATION, I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOU IN FRONT OF EVERYONE.
[00:05:03]
THANK YOU SO MUCH.UH, AND I'M HAPPY TO SERVE AND DO MY BEST TO SERVE THE CITY AND THE COMMISSION.
I DON'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF, BUT I KNOW THAT EVERYONE'S SITTING HERE APPRECIATES WHAT YOU DO, AND I'VE WORKED WITH YOU PRETTY CLOSELY FOR THE LAST 10 OR 15 YEARS, AND, UH, EVERYTHING DIRECTOR TRAN SAID IS VERY TRUE, AND WE APPRECIATE YOU.
AND THE THIRD ANNOUNCEMENT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A, UH, SAD, UH, NEWS.
UM, OUR OWN KIM MICKELSON, WHO'S SITTING OVER AT THE END OF THE HORSESHOE THERE, UM, WHO HAS BEEN WITH THE CITY FOR THE PAST EIGHT YEARS, HAS DECIDED TO LEAVE US.
UM, I TRIED MY HARDEST TO CHAIN HER TO THAT CHAIR, BUT, UH, I'VE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL.
SO I WANTED TO THANK HER FOR HER SERVICE.
WE'RE GONNA REALLY, REALLY MISS YOU.
UH, BUT I JUST GOTTA WARN YOU, THERE'S A WAY OF, UM, YOU KNOW, THINGS BOUNCING BACK.
SO WE'RE NOT GONNA BE, PLEASE DON'T BE SO, UM, SHOCKED IF WE SOMEHOW END UP, UH, PULLING KIM BACK IN, IN SOME CAPACITY OR ANOTHER.
UH, BUT WE'RE GONNA REALLY, REALLY MISS YOU.
UM, IT HAS REALLY BEEN AN HONOR.
I, I DON'T MEAN TO MAKE YOU GET MORE UPSET, BUT I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE.
YOU AND I HAVE WORKED SIDE BY SIDE ON A LOT OF THINGS AND, UH, I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE FOR ME AND FOR THE COMMISSION.
AND I'M PROBABLY NOT GOING FAR
SO IN CLOSING, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CAN BE REACHED AT (832) 393-6600.
YOU CAN CALL DEVELOPMENT SERVICE OF, UM, PLANNER OF THE DAY AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 6 2 4.
UM, AS YOU KNOW, OUR WEBSITE IS HOUSTON PLANNING.COM.
[Platting Activities a & b]
TO PLANNING ACTIVITY SUBDIVISION CHAIR.UH, DIRECTOR TRAN, WHAT TIME IS THE WORKSHOP ON THE 19TH? UM, IT IS FROM 12 TO 5:00 PM AT THE UNITED WAY.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE SOME ABSTENTIONS, UH, COMMISSIONER? HE, YES, MADAM CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER MAREZ? YES, MADAM CHAIR, ITEM 23 AND 35.
UM, I NEED TO ABSTAIN FROM 1232 AND 33.
SO DID YOU YES, I NEED TO ABSTAIN FROM 69 70 AND 90, 69, 70 AND 90.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER ABSTENTIONS? OKAY.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS AJU, SECTIONS A AND B ARE PRESENTED AS ONE GROUP, WHICH INCLUDES CONSENT AND REPL.
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATIONS.
SECTIONS A AND B ARE ITEMS ONE THROUGH 66 SECTIONS A SECTION A CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 37 AND SECTION B REPL ITEMS ARE NUMBERS 38 THROUGH 66.
NO ITEMS NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MADAM CHAIR, IF THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSENT AND REPLIED ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M CHECKING THE SPEAKER LIST.
SO ON 11 AND 36, I HAVE THOMAS FORNER AND FOR QUESTIONS ONLY.
IS THAT CORRECT? UH, YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO I NEED A MOTION SAVE AND ACCEPT FOR ITEMS 20, EXCUSE ME.
12, 20, 23, 32, 33, 35, AND 86.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION, VICTOR? MOTION.
[00:10:01]
THE ITEMS THAT WE JUST SAVE AND ACCEPT ITEMS 20 23, 12, 32, 33, 35 AND 86.DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION, MOTION ITEM 86 IS, OH YEAH, IT'S FURTHER DOWN.
YOU'RE, THANK YOU FOR THAT CORRECTION.
SO 12, 20, 23, 32, 33, AND 35.
[Consideration of October 30, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes]
SO WE NEED TO, UH, CONSIDER THE MINUTES THAT WERE IN YOUR PACKET FOR OCTOBER 30TH, 2025.DO I HAVE ANY COMMENTS? UH, MADAM CHAIR, JUST A MINOR CORRECTION TO THE, UH, TO THE, THE CALL TO ORDER, AND THAT'S ALL.
AND THE CORRECTION HAS BEEN MADE.
ALL RIGHT, SO I NEED A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
[c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Aracely Rodriguez, Dorianne Powe-Phlegm, John Cedillo, and Ken Calhoun)]
ON TO PLATS WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS RODRIGUEZ, ITEM 67, CHARGER EIGHT.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMIT NORTH OF UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD BETWEEN GREEN WIRE DRIVE AND CHARLES DRIVE SOUTH OF W BOULEVARD.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLA IS TO CREATE ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE OUTTA MULTIPLE SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND TO REMOVE, UM, SOME EASEMENT.
NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT AND STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS.
IN EVENT, STAFF RECEIVED LEGAL OPINION BEFORE THIS MEETING, AND LEGAL HAD DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED PLA DOES NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION SINCE LEGAL OPINION IS NOT.
STAFF NOW WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
MADAM MR. PLEASE DO THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 67 IS OPEN.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS PATRICK SHEHAN.
IF YOU'D STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
UH, MY NAME IS PATRICK SHEHAN.
I'M ACTUALLY, AFTER SEEING THAT IT'S LIKELY TO GET DEFERRED.
I'D LIKE TO DEFER MY TWO MINUTES TO THE NEXT, AND THAT WAS MY MISTAKE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS GONNA BE DEFERRED NOW MAYBE IT'S NOT SO IT IS NOT SO I SHOULD SPEAK.
WE'RE LIVE, UM,
UM, I WISH TO SHARE THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS.
THROUGH CONVERSATIONS WITH LOCAL SHOP OWNERS, CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND RESIDENTS, I'VE LEARNED THAT THE CURRENT PLAN INVOLVES CONSTRUCTING A ROAD AND NEW BUILDINGS.
I BELIEVE MAINTAINING THE SCREEN SPACE WOULD BETTER SERVE BOTH THE PUBLIC AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
I LIVE IN RICE VILLAGE AND I BLOCK THIS SPECIFIC BLOCK DAILY FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS.
UM, EMPLOYEES FROM NEARBY SHOPS REGULARLY TAKES BREAK, TAKE BREAKS THERE, ENJOYING THEIR MEALS OR SNACKS AT A PICNIC TABLE UNDER THE OAK TREE.
UM, I ALSO REGULARLY SEE RICE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND LOCAL RESIDENTS RELAXING IN THE AREA.
IT IS A, UH, PEACEFUL AND WELCOMING SPACE FOR MEALS, DATES, AND TIME OUTDOORS WITH PETS.
UH, WHAT'S MISSING IS NOT MORE BUILDINGS, IT'S PICNIC TABLES, BENCHES, SIDEWALKS, TRASH CANS, UH, POOP BAGS FOR DOGS, UH, AND OTHER ITEMS YOU WOULDN'T FIND IN A PARK.
UM, BEYOND ITS COMMUNITY VALUE, THERE ARE IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED.
UH, THREE TREES ON THIS LOT ARE HOME TO BATS, WHICH MAY BELONG TO AN ENDANGERED SPECIES.
UH, ONE TREE ALSO CONTAINS EIGHT ACTIVE BIRD NESTS BY MY COUNT.
UH, I CONTACTED THE ENVIRONMENTAL TREE REMOVAL SERVICE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT BACK IN MAY, UM, TO ALERT THEM OF THESE CONCERNS.
THEY WERE NOT AWARE PRIOR TO MY PHONE CALL.
UM, I HAVE PHOTOS AND VIDEOS OF THE BATS AND THE BIRDS, IF IT, IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
UM, FROM WHAT I, I'M OUT OF TIME.
WELL GO AHEAD AND WRAP UP REAL QUICK.
I PROBABLY
[00:15:01]
I HAVE A WR I CAN GIVE YOU THE WRITTEN FULL.YOU CAN LEAVE THAT WITH STAFF.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THANK YOUR TIME AND, UM, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER WHO, UH, WHO I GIVE THIS TO STAFF RIGHT HERE.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CHUCK DAVIS.
I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING DEFERRAL.
NO, IT'S BEING RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
SO I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 67.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER MARS? WELL, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION FOR THE SPEAKER, NOW THAT THE DEED HAS BEEN REVIEWED, UM, IT'S A SHALL APPROVE.
SO DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM 67? MOTION.
COULD I JUST COMMENT TO THEM? YES, YOU CAN.
SINCE I DID VISIT WITH YOU BEFORE, I MEAN, YOU CAN TAKE YOUR ARGUMENT UP WITH RICE.
I MEAN, THERE, THERE IS STILL AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE GREEN SPACE.
I DON'T THINK THEY TOTALLY WORKED THIS THING OUT.
SO I MEAN, CERTAINLY MAYBE THEY COULD INCORPORATE SOME OF YOUR IDEAS AND INCORPORATE MORE GREEN SPACE INTO THIS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
MR. DAVIS, DO YOU REPRESENT RICE? MAYBE YOU COULD CATCH UP WITH THIS GENTLEMAN AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BALDWIN.
OKAY, SO DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? UH, WE DID, WE DID THAT AND WE VOTED.
THANKS FOR KEEPING ME STRAIGHT.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TAKE A REALLY LONG VACATION.
'CAUSE I WAS GONE 18 DAYS AND FEEL LIKE I DID SOMETHING WRONG AND NOW I CAN'T GET IT TOGETHER.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 68 IS CITY ESTATES OF WOODLAND PARK, PARTIALLY PLA NUMBER ONE.
THE SITE IS IN HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF HOUSTON AVENUE AND WRIGHTWOOD STREET.
THE REASON FOR RELIGHT IS TO REVISE THE BUILDING LINES AND CREATE ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 15 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG HOUSTON AVENUE, A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE IN PLACE OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET BUILDING LINE.
THE SITE IS ORIGINALLY A PORTION OF A LOT OUT OF WRIGHTWOOD EDITION, CREATED IN 1918 AND THEN WAS LATER REPLIED INTO A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION IN 2012.
THE PROPOSED REPL IS A REPL OF LOT ONE BLOCK, ONE OF THE CITY OF STATE OF WOODLAND PARK SUBDIVISION.
THE OWNER PROPOSED TO BUILD ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT AND TAKE ACCESS FROM WRIGHTWOOD STREET.
BECAUSE OF THE REGULAR TRIANGULAR SHAPE OF THE LOT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 15 FOOT BUILDING LINE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FEET BUILDING LINE.
HOUSTON AVENUE IS A MAJOR RAFA WITH A SUFFICIENT RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH OF 80 FEET IN THE CITY.
THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS REDUCED BUILDING LINES OF 15 FEET AND LESS WITH CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT PROVIDE A LARGER PEDESTRIAN REALM AND PARKING ON THE SIDE OR REAR.
THE PROPOSED SITE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 18.6 FEET FROM THE BACK OF THE CURB TO THE PROPERTY LINE WITH AN EXISTING SIDEWALK OF NINE FEET AND EIGHT INCHES WIDE AND PROVIDE SEMI OPEC FENCING MAX EIGHT FEET HIGH AND NO VEHICLE ACCESS FROM THE MAJOR RAFA.
A REDUCED BUILDING LINE WAS GRANTED IN 20 IN 2019 FOR ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT ON THE SAME STREET.
IT IS CONDUCIVE TO THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROVIDE MINIMAL TO NO TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO THE MAJOR RAFA.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WOULD NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS AS LONG AS A 15 FEET BUILDING LINE IS MAINTAINED ALONG WRIGHTWOOD STREET.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THIS REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT, UH, SHALL MAINTAIN THE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY, ACCESS GATES AND FRONT DOOR FACING HOUSTON AVENUE.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORUM CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED, UM, AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION AWAITING LEGAL REVIEW AND LEGAL HAS REVIEWED IT AND IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE RESTRICTIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IT PLEASES COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
I'LL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 68.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING.
[00:20:01]
ANY QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER.I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING LAST TIME, BUT I I'M SURE THAT THIS HOUSE THAT WE SEE DOESN'T MEET THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS THAT'S CLEARLY IN THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
I'VE BEEN THERE FOR 30 YEARS AT HARVEY.
THERE WAS 14 FEET OF WATER RIGHT THERE THAT I SWAM THROUGH THE, I DID SELL ALL THE HOUSES TO THE RIGHT WHICH HAVE NO LIVING SPACE UNTIL YOU GET TO 20 FEET.
BUT THEY'RE NOT GONNA BUILD THAT HOUSE.
THEY'D HAVE TO MEET THE PERMITTING OF SOMETHING MUCH HIGHER.
I JUST DIDN'T WANT IT TO IMPLY THAT WE'RE GONNA GET THAT HOUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA BE MUCH HIGHER THAN THAT.
AND PLEASE PLAN ON A LOT OF WATER COMING THERE VERY SOON.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BALDWIN.
YEAH, THEY HAVE TO MEET ALL THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY.
SO I NEED A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM 68 GARZA.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES ITEM 69.
NOW PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER SYKES IS ABSTAINING FROM THIS ITEM.
ITEM 69 COMMON PART PLAYS PART OF RELET NUMBER ONE.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY, WEST OF HUFFMAN, CLEVELAND ROAD AND SOUTH OF KINGWOOD DRIVE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLA IS TO CHANGE TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOT INTO ONE COMMERCIAL RESERVE.
THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A VARIANT ON SECTION 42 DASH 1 93 TO ALLOW THE WE PLATTING OF THE TWO LOTS INTO A COMMERCIAL RESERVE.
STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF ANY REQUEST AS ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE EXPRESSED OPPOSITION PER LEE, WE REVIEW THE PROPOSED PLA WILL VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION PER THE DE THE LOT ARE LIMITED TO RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, BUT THE VARIANT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT AND ALSO SUBMITTED A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR A 30 30 DAY EXTENSION TO ALLOW TIME TO MEET THE COMMUNITY AND TO ADDRESS THE RESTRICTION.
STOP RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY THE VARIANT REQUEST AND DISAPPROVED THE PLOT.
MADAM CHAIR IS TO PLEASE YOU, THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 69 IS CONTINUED.
SO WE RECEIVED A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS EVELYN BRENNAN.
I CAME LAST TIME AND I EXPLAINED TO YOU THAT I WAS RETIRED GENERAL TAX COUNSEL FROM SHELL CHEMICAL.
AND I DID THAT TO IMPRESS YOU.
THAT, UH, ALTHOUGH I'M A LITTLE OLD LADY AND I I TRULY AM A LITTLE OLD LADY, I'LL BE 77 A WEEK FROM TOMORROW.
BUT IN SPITE OF THAT, MY NAIVETE SHOWED WHEN I PICKED UP THE PAPER A WEEK AGO SUNDAY.
AND I LEARNED, CREDITED YOU WITH YOUR CREDENTIALS THAT, UH, SAID THAT YOU KNEW THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
AND THAT ARTICLE MADE YOU LOOK LIKE INSTEAD OF CREDENTIALS AS GATEKEEPERS, IT MADE YOU LOOK LIKE CO-CONSPIRATORS.
INSTEAD, I URGE YOU WHEN YOU CONSIDER THIS NOT TO BE CO-CONSPIRATORS, TO BE THE TRUE GATEKEEPERS THAT YOU CAN BE.
I THINK YOU'VE RE RECEIVED A LOT OF WRITTEN, UH, RE PLEAS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOT TO MAKE THIS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
WE DON'T WANT MORE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT LOT GOT TO BE COMMERCIAL.
PLEASE BE THE GREAT GATEKEEPERS THAT MY NAIVETE, IN SPITE OF MY EXPERIENCE SAID YOU COULD BE AND VOTE NO WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE TO DO THAT.
THERE'S NOT ONE PERSON SITTING HERE AT THIS HORSESHOE THAT IS A CO-CONSPIRATOR.
WE ARE VERY PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE THAT BRING A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE AND EDUCATION.
UH, WE LIVE IN THIS CITY AND WE LOVE THIS CITY AND WE DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAKE THIS CITY GREAT.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
ARTICLE WAS NOT, OH, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ARTICLE SAID.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JONATHAN TALLEY.
HELLO, MY NAME'S JONATHAN TALLEY.
UM, I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS REPL.
I PURCHASED MY HOME FEBRUARY 27TH THIS YEAR.
IT IS TWO HOUSES AWAY FROM THIS REPL.
TWO MONTHS AFTER I PURCHASED THE HOME, I STEPPED OUTTA MY PATIO.
WE HAD A THREE HOUR RAINSTORM AND MY HOUSE IS COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY WATER.
I HAVE SOME EXTRA COPIES FOR ANYBODY MAY WANT ONE.
[00:25:01]
WITH STAFF NEXT TO YOU.DOCUMENT CAMERA ON THE LEFT, LEFT, OTHER LEFT, OTHER LEFT.
I PULLED UP THIS, UH, FRONT YARD, BACKYARD COMPLETELY SURROUNDED.
SECOND PAGE IS FROM MY DRIVEWAY, SHOWING PLOT FOUR AND FIVE.
THAT'S IN QUESTION OF THE REPL.
IMMEDIATELY I SUBMITTED A TICKET TO THE HARRIS COUNTY DRAINAGE DEPARTMENT INQUIRING FOR THE, UH, DRAINAGE ISSUES.
I DID RECEIVE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND I HAVE A VOICEMAIL, I HAVE THAT TRANSCRIBED ON ANOTHER PAGE ON THIS DOCUMENT AND NO RESOLUTION.
I HAVE PHOTOS, DOCUMENTATION FROM A YEAR PRIOR FROM MY O UH, PREVIOUS OWNER WHO HAD, WHEN THEY PURCHASED FLOOD DOCUMENTATION AT THE TIME OF DISCLOSURES, WHO DID NOT DISCLOSE THAT TO ME.
I'M IN A CIVIL LAWSUIT OVER THAT CURRENTLY.
AND SO WHAT I'VE DETERMINED IS 25 YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION IS WHAT MY BACKGROUND IS.
I'M CURRENTLY A MANAGER IN, UH, INDUSTRIAL, UH, CONSTRUCTION, NEW GRASSROOTS PROJECTS.
I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH DRAINAGE AND PLANNING IN THESE DEVELOPMENTS.
THE COVERTS AT COMMONS VISTA IS NOT BIG ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE FLASH, UH, AMOUNT OF RAIN THAT OCCURRED AND IT'S HAPPENED MULTIPLE TIMES.
SO THIS IS GONNA DISPLACE ANY COMMERCIAL BUILDUP ON THESE TWO LOTS.
IS GONNA DISPLACE ROUGHLY 300 TO 500 CUBIC FEET OF DIRT, WHICH IS GONNA DISPLACE WATER, WHICH IS GONNA FURTHER PUT MY HOME AT JEOPARDY.
THE HOME THAT IS OWNED BY THE POA ON LOT FOUR EXPERIENCED SOME INTERNAL FLOODING DURING A FREEZE FOUR YEARS AGO.
THE LAST PAGE OF MY DOCUMENT IS PHOTOS OF THAT HOME.
IT IS VACANT AND GUTTED IN THAT HOME.
THEY HAVE HAD THAT HOME FOR FOUR YEARS.
THEY MAINTAIN THE EXTERIOR OF THAT PROPERTY.
IT IS THEIR CLEAR INTENT TO CONVERT THIS PROPERTY TO COMMERCIAL.
UH, I'LL, I'LL DO IT ON THE NEXT REPORT.
I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO OKAY.
GOOD AFTERNOON PLANNING COMMISSION.
I'M WITH META PLANNING DESIGN.
WE ARE THE APPLICANTS FOR THIS.
UM, ITEM, UM, JUST AS MADAM SPEAKERS SAID, WE DID REQUEST A 30 DAY EXTENSION.
UH, WE JUST GOT CONFIRMATION THAT WE DID SET A MEETING WITH, UM, THE RESIDENTS, UM, ON NOVEMBER 18TH.
UM, IN ADDITION TO DEED RESTRICTIONS, UM, OUR CLIENT HAS BEEN SPEAKING WITH THEIR IN-HOUSE LEGAL TEAM AND THEY DID SEE NO CONCERNS WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
UM, SO DURING THAT 30 DAY PERIOD, WE UH, WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MEETING WITH LEGAL, UM, TO DISCUSS THESE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER TO SAY I'M GONNA CLOSE IT OR
MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION.
SO, UH, AM I TO UNDERSTAND FROM STAFF THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR A 30 DAY DEFERRAL? YES.
AND IT'S ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE, IT'S OUR PREROGATIVE TO GRANT THAT OR NOT.
I'LL BE MAKING A MOTION IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMISSIONER SPEAKING.
UH, MY MOTION IS TO DENY THE EXTENSION FOR 30 DAYS SECOND AND DENY THE PLAT.
ITEM 70 IS COMMON PAR PLACE, PART TOLAND NUMBER TWO.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY WEST OF HOTMAN, CLEVELAND ROAD AND SOUTH OF KINGWOOD DRIVE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WELA IS TO COMBINE TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOT WITH AN ASSISTING COMMERCIAL RESERVE TO CREATE ONE LARGER COMMERCIAL RESERVE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARI TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF THE TWO LOT INTO A COMMERCIAL RESERVE.
STOP IS NOT IN SUPPORT THE REQUEST.
THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER HAVE REQUEST OPPOSITION AND PER LEGAL REVIEW, THE PROPOSED PLOT WILL VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION.
THE LOT ARE LIMITED TO RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.
SO, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT AND ALSO SUBMITTED A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION STOP.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY THE VARI VARI REQUEST AND DISAPPROVED THE PLOT.
MADAM CHAIR IS TO PLEASE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS EVELYN BRENNAN.
I DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING I READ IN THE PAPER.
I READ ENOUGH STUFF THAT'S WRITTEN ABOUT, WRITTEN ABOUT LEGAL MATTERS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT,
[00:30:01]
THAT KNOW THAT YOU READ EVERYTHING WITH A GRAIN OF SALT.IF I DIDN'T HAVE FAITH IN YOU GUYS TO DO THE RIGHT THING, I WOULDN'T BOTHER TO COME DOWN HERE.
SO PLEASE, I'VE ALREADY SEEN THE RECOMMENDATION FROM YOUR DEPARTMENT TO TURN THIS DOWN.
I HAVE FAITH THAT YOU'LL DO THE RIGHT THING.
UH, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS A LOVELY NEIGHBORHOOD AND INCIDENTALLY, THE $9,500,000 PROPERTY THAT IS FOR SALE TRULY IS THERE.
IT'S THE HOME OF FORMER BOXER GEORGE FOREMAN WHO PASSED AWAY RECENTLY.
NOT THERE ARE NOT VERY MANY HOUSES LIKE THAT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT'S A LOVELY PLACE.
I TRUST YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
THAT'S WHY I CAME, THAT'S WHY I APPEALED TO YOUR CREDENTIALS AS GATEKEEPERS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JONATHAN TALLEY.
UM, IT'S PRIOR TO MY PURCHASE OF THE HOME.
I DID MY DUE DILIGENCE WITH RESEARCH.
THERE'S A EXISTING COMMERCIAL RESERVE.
I ACTUALLY CALLED THE BROKER AND GOT INFORMATION ABOUT PURCHASING THAT LOT FOR PROPOSED STORAGE UNIT.
THEY WERE ASKING $14 A SQUARE FOOT.
THESE TWO LOTS THAT ARE IN QUESTION ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD ARE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE.
I PURCHASED THE HOUSE ACCEPTING THAT THERE IS A COMMERCIAL RESERVE WITH NO ISSUES.
I LOOKED AT THE TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS AS A WAY TO KIND OF PARTIALLY BLOCK MY VIEW FROM THE ANYTHING COMMERCIAL THAT COULD HAPPEN.
THE REALITY IS THAT $14 PER SQUARE FOOT, THESE FOUR LOTS THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO CONVERT, EQUATE TO ABOUT A MARKET VALUE OF 300 TO $500,000.
DEPENDING ON THE VALUE OF THIS VACANT HOME.
IF CONVERTED TO COMMERCIAL, THAT'S GONNA BRING THE VALUE TO $1.8 MILLION.
THIS IS A MONEY GAME FOR THEM.
THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF EVER SELLING THOSE AS RESIDENTIAL.
THE NEIGHBOR NEXT TO THAT, JOE, WHO'S NOT HERE, BUT HE SPOKE LAST TIME, OFFERED TO PURCHASE THOSE AT A REASONABLE MARKET VALUE.
SO I TRUSTED THE ZONING AT THAT TIME AND THAT WAS THE CLEAR DIRECTION OF MY PURCHASE OF MY HOME, THAT THESE WOULD REMAIN RESIDENTIAL AND I'M JUST ASKING FOR THEM TO STAY THAT WAY.
ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
GOOD AFTERNOON PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME'S JAKE GUERRERA WITH META PLANNING DESIGN CASE.
UM, WE ARE THE APPLICANT'S FOR THIS ITEM.
UH, WE ARE REQUESTING A 30 DAY EXTENSION TO ALLOW MORE TIME TO COORDINATE WITH, UM, THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS AS WELL AS LEGAL.
UM, WE DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS FROM THE RESIDENTS.
UH, WE HAVE EXPRESSED THIS TO OUR CLIENT.
UM, THAT'S WHAT I HAVE FOR YOU.
GREAT, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
OKAY, I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISH ELSE THAT WISHES TO? ALRIGHT, SO I AM GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
MADAM CHAIR, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO, UH, DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND DISAPPROVE THE PLAT AS WELL AS DENY THE 30 DAY DEFERRAL.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF STAFF HAD HEARD ME FOR THE FIRST 1 69 AND MADE THE SAME MOTION.
MOTION BY GARZA TO NOT ALLOW THE, UM, 30 DAY EXTENSION AND TO DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND DISAPPROVE THE PLATS MOTION BY GARZA.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMIT AT THE IN SECTION OF YELLOWSTONE STREET AND ENGLAND STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLA IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OUT OF TWO LOTS.
NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT AND STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE.
PER LEGAL, THE PROPOSED PLA WILL NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
MADAM CHAIR IS TO APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 71 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY.
HEARING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ITEM 72 IS WITHDRAWN, SO WE'LL GO TO 73.
[00:35:01]
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS EAST ALONG FERNDALE STREET, NORTH OF ALABAMA STREET AND WEST OF KIRBY DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO NARROW FRONT LOADING LOTS AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO NOT DEDICATE FIVE FEET OF WIDENING TO FERNDALE STREET.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THIS IS A REPL OF LOT NINE BLOCK TWO OF KERS FERNDALE EDITION.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THE PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY A MIX OF RESIDENCES AND FORMER RESIDENCES THAT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO COMMERCIAL USE.
THE SITE LIES WITHIN AN ESTABLISHED RIGHT OF WAY GRID, INCLUDING MAJOR THOROUGH AFFAIRS OF ALABAMA WESTHEIMER AND KIRBY KIRBY DRIVE BEING THE EDGE OF THE STREET WITH EXCEPTION AREA, WHICH WOULD NOW REQUIRE THE WIDENING BEING ADDRESSED TODAY.
THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE RE UH, RELAS ALONG FERNDALE THAT HAVE NOT DEDICATED WIDENING TO THE RIGHT OF WAY, MOST OF WHICH HAVE BEEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
SAVE AND ACCEPT BELLMEAD APARTMENT COMPLEX AT THE INTERSECTION OF WESTHEIMER IN FERNDALE, WHICH WAS GRANTED A VARIANCE IN 2006 TO NOT DEDICATE WIDENING TO FERNDALE.
THE RECENT COMMERCIAL CONVERSIONS OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCES HAS TRIGGERED THE REQUIREMENT FOR DEDICATION TODAY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCPC 1 0 1 FORM.
CONDITIONS MA'AM, CHAIR FOR PLEASE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
I'M OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 73.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THE SITE IS IN HOUSTON, CORPORATE LIMITS WEST AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 45 AND PARK PLACE BOULEVARD.
THE REASON FOR REPLIED IS TO CREATE ONE COMMERCIAL RESERVE.
THE APPLICANT HAD REQUESTED A 30 DAY EXTENSION, UM, FOR THIS PLAT, UH, TO CONFER WITH LEGAL CONCERNING SEPARATELY FILED DEED RESTRICTIONS.
LEGAL HAS REVIEWED THE, UH, REVIEW, THE RESTRICTIONS AND LEGAL REVIEW INDICATES THIS PLAT VIOLATES DEED RESTRICTIONS FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS DIS IS TO DISAPPROVE THE PLOT.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCE COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
I'LL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 74.
UM, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO THERE'S TWO.
DOES THE APPLICANT NOT GO FIRST? I GET THEM IN ORDER THAT THEY WERE PRESENTED.
UM, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF APPROVAL OF THE, UH, SUBDIVISION, UM, THIS WAS, UH, THE, WAS BUILT BY DR.
LANKEY AND, UH, OD LANG, WHO'S A DOCTOR AND A PHARMACIST IN PARK PLACE BEFORE IT WAS HOUSTON.
UM, THOSE TWO GUYS WERE PILLARS IN THE COMMUNITY AND, UM, THEY, UH, THEY DID EVERYTHING THAT THEY WERE ASKED TO DO AT THE TIME.
APPARENTLY NOBODY ASKED THEM TO, UH, ABANDONED THE, THE EASEMENT UNDER THE BUILDING.
AND THEY BUILT THE, UH, THEY BUILT THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, NOBODY KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.
UH, DOC CLAN'S, UH, DAUGHTER MANAGED IT FOR 35 YEARS.
AND, UH, WHEN WE PUT IT IN THE TITLE COMPANY, ALL KIND OF RED FLAGS CAME UP.
LANKEY HAD PASSED AWAY AND AT HIS FUNERAL THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IN TEARS THAT SAID HE TREATED THEM ALL HIS LIFE AND NEVER CHARGED.
SO MY GUESS IS THEY LET HIM, WHEN THEY DID THIS, THEY, UM, THEY PROBABLY WENT EASY ON HIM.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ASKED HIM TO DO THIS OR NOT, BUT IT WAS NEVER DONE.
WE ARE NOW TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
[00:40:01]
AND GOT THE, UM, THE, UH, THE SIGNATURES ON SOME 280 PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE STILL REMEMBER DR.
LANKEY AND OD AND, UM, APPARENTLY THE WORDING, THERE WAS A, A TYPO IN THAT AND IT WAS INCORRECT.
IT SAID SECTION 2 0 4 WHEN IT MEANT TO BE 2 0 1.
AND, UH, I'M, I THINK WE'RE HERE TO, UH, MATTHEW WILL DESCRIBE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
ASK YOU, EVERYBODY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD SIGNED OFF.
I DON'T THINK THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE SIGNING ANY MORE THAN I WOULD.
SO, UH, ANYWAY, I'M, I'M, UH, I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN GET YOUR HELP.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? SO YOU'RE THE APPLICANT, RIGHT? I MEAN, AND IT'S BEEN IN NO, NO.
AND IT'S BEEN IN COMMERCIAL USE SINCE ITS INCEPTION SINCE 54.
AND YOU GOT ALL THE NEIGHBORS TO SIGN, BUT THE DOCUMENT'S NOT QUITE TO THE PAR OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
COULD YOU GO GET THOSE SIGNATURES WITHIN 30 DAYS IF WE GRANT YOU A 30 DAY EXTENSION? NO, NO.
YOU DON'T THINK YOU CAN THE 30 DAY EXTENSION THEN WHAT WOULD THE 30 DAY EXTENSION DO FOR YOU? WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY AT THIS HORSESHOE TO MODIFY YOUR, WE, WE CANNOT APPROVE YOUR DEAL BECAUSE WE CAN'T VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
WE CAN GRANT THE 30 DAYS AND WE OFTEN DO IF WE FEEL LIKE THERE'S A REASON FOR DOING SO.
BUT IF YOU CAN'T GET THE SIGNATURES IN 30 DAYS, WE WE'RE PROBABLY JUST GONNA DENY YOU AND THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO AND GET THOSE SIGNATURES AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK AND REAPPLY.
IS THAT NOT THE WAY IT'S LOOKING? I JUST WANTED TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, DR.
LANKEY WAS I WANNA DO THE RIGHT THING.
YOU GUYS DECIDE IT AND WE'LL DO WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
THE LAW JUST DOESN'T GRANT US THE ABILITY TO OVERRIDE THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
BUT LIKE I SAY, WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO GRANT YOU 30 DAYS IF WE THOUGHT IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
BUT IF IT'S NOT, I'LL CALL THE NEXT SPEAKER IN A SECOND.
WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY UNDERSTAND UNDER STATE LAW TO OVERRIDE A DEED RESTRICTION.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER, MADAM CHAIR.
JUST WANTED TO ADD, UH, THERE'S ONLY ONE 30 DAY EXTENSION.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MATTHEW SIGMAN.
HELLO, I'M MATTHEW SIGMAN WITH TEXAS LAND MAPS.
I WAS HIRED, UH, IN 2019 TO HELP TO AMEND THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
AND I DISAGREE WITH WHAT'S BEEN SAID SO FAR ABOUT THE STATE'S ABILITY TO, UH, APPROVE THIS, UH, APPLICATION BECAUSE, UM, WE HAD AN ATTORNEY WHO DID MAKE A TYPO ON THE ORIGINAL DEED RESTRICTIONS.
HE IMPLIED THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN AN HOA AT THE TIME THAT THE AMENDMENT TO, UH, REMOVE THE RESIDENTIAL RESTRICTION WAS SIGNED.
HOWEVER, UM, WE GOT AN ATTORNEY DURING OUR 30 DAY EXTENSION WHO EXPLAINED THAT ACCORDING TO JOHNSON VERSUS STRUCTURED ASSETS IN 2004, EVANS VERSUS POLK IN 1990, HEINZ VERSUS HEISLER IN 1983, CURLY VERSUS WALKER IN 1922, THAT TEXAS IS A, HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE STATE AND TEXAS COURTS HAVE LONG HELD THROUGH THE CASES THAT I JUST STATED, THAT EQUITY RECOGNIZES SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WHEN IT IS, UH, SUFFICIENTLY MEETS THE PURPOSES OF THE REQUIREMENT TO BE FULFILLED.
IN THIS CASE, 2 0 4, WHICH IS WHAT WAS STATED ON THE DOCUMENT, WOULD'VE REQUIRED US TO GO THROUGH AN HOA.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN HOA, THE OTHER REQUIREMENT FOR 2 0 1 WOULD'VE REQUIRED US TO GET 74% OF THE SIGNATURES.
SO REGARDLESS, ACCORDING TO BOTH ATTORNEYS THAT WE HAVE RETAINED FOR THIS PROJECT, REGARDLESS OF WHICH SET OF REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE USED, WE MET NOT JUST SUBSTANTIAL REQUIREMENTS, BUT WE EXCEEDED THEM SIGNIFICANTLY.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, UM, HOUSTON IS ONE OF TWO CITIES IN TEXAS THAT HAS MORE THAN 1.5 MILLION CITIES IN ITS MUNICIPALITY MAKING IT HAVE THE ABILITY TO UPHOLD DEED RESTRICTIONS, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN ENFORCING DEED RESTRICTIONS OR MAKING LEGAL DETERMINATIONS ON AMENDED DEED RESTRICTION DOCUMENTS.
I THINK YOU NEED TO ADDRESS THAT FOR US.
YEAH, LET, LET ME TRY AND CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS.
SO THE, THE CHAPTERS 2 0 1 AND 2 0 4 THAT ARE BEING REFERRED TO ARE IN THE TEXAS
[00:45:01]
PROPERTY CODE, UM, TEXAS 2 0 4, UM, AMENDMENTS TO DEED RESTRICTIONS REQUIRE, UM, THAT AN HOA BE INVOLVED IN AND THAT THE PROCESS WORK THROUGH THAT HOA, ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THESE LOTS WERE IN THE ORIGINAL DEEDS OUT.AND THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER DID NOT RETAIN ANY INTEREST IN THEM IN ENFORCING THEM OR IN, UM, ACTING AS AN HOA.
SO 2 0 4 WAS NOT AN A WAS NOT THE PROPER ROUTE TO GO THROUGH.
WHETHER IT WAS A TYPO OR NOT, WE DON'T KNOW.
YOU KNOW, I I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.
THAT'S HOW IT'S BEEN PRESENTED.
UM, 2 0 1 WOULD, WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO GO A DIFFERENT ROUTE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'VE DONE THIS, YOU KNOW, WITH MORE THAN THE REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MORE THAN THE REQUIREMENT OF SIGNATURES THAT WOULD, WOULD BE NECESSARY UNDER CHAPTER 2 0 1.
UM, AND I THINK WE GOT A QUESTION ABOUT CAN WE JUST REPLACE THE PAGE AND CORRECT THE TYPO AND NO, BECAUSE IT'S FILED OF RECORD, WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T, YOU, YOU DON'T GET A TYPO CORRECTION IN IN THAT.
UM, IN THAT SENSE, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, UH, THAT THE DEED RESTRICTION ATTORNEYS, PAUL BARNES HAD SPOKEN, SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY, QUOTE, AND, UM, SAYS THAT THE REPL WILL VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THE ATTORNEY UNDERSTOOD THAT.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, THE ISSUE ARE.
I WILL SAY I'M FAMILIAR WITH SOME LATER CASES, UM, ON DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT SAY THEY ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AND THINGS CAN ONLY BE PROHIBITED.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY ARE EXPLICITLY STATED, IT'S COME UP IN SHORT TERM RENTALS, FOR EXAMPLE.
BECAUSE WHO THOUGHT ABOUT SHORT TERM RENTALS IN THE 1950S? RIGHT.
BUT, UM, SO THAT'S ONE CASE ACTUALLY OUT OF THE HOUSTON AREA.
UM, WE ARE ONE OF A LIMITED NUMBER OF CITIES WHO MAY CHOOSE TO ENFORCE SPEED RESTRICTIONS.
AND THE QUESTION WOULD BE, MIGHT BE ARE THEY GONNA ENFORCE AGAINST THIS BECAUSE THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN, UM, IN COMMERCIAL USE FOR SO LONG? THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION FROM THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE.
UM, JUST THINK ABOUT EVERYBODY PASSING YOU WHEN YOU'RE SPEEDING AND YOU'RE THE ONE WHO GOT PULLED OVER.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, ENFORCEMENT CAN BE, CAN, CAN, CAN BE, I, I WON'T SAY SPOTTY, BUT IT'S DISCRETIONARY.
AND THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD LOOK AT THE FACTS TO EVALUATE THAT.
BUT I THINK MR. BALDWIN IS CORRECT.
THERE'S NOTHING IN STATE LAW THAT ALLOWS THE, UH, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THAT A WAIVER HAS BEEN MADE OF RIGHT, OF THE USE LIMITATIONS WE HAVE DISCUSSED WITH THE DIRECTOR AND UM, OTHER STAFF ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD PUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE THAT MAYBE WOULD PROVIDE YOU ALL SOME GUIDANCE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MAY I USE MY TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL? IS THE APPLICANT? YEAH.
IS IS THAT OKAY? IS THE APPLICANT YES.
SO AS FAR AS AMENDING THE DOCUMENT WITHOUT REGAINING THE SIGNATURES, I KNOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE A 30 DAY EXTENSION PERIOD TO DO THAT, BUT I DISAGREE WITH THE ABILITY OF THAT TO BE DONE BECAUSE OF CHAPTER FIVE OF THE PROPERTY CODE, WHICH TALK, I THINK IT'S 5.001, WHICH TALKS ABOUT SCRIBNER'S ERRORS.
SCRIBNER'S ERRORS ARE WHEN SOMETHING'S BEEN RECORDED IN ERROR AND THERE IS A PROCESS OF DOING THAT.
WE'VE BEEN DENIED THAT PROCESS.
BUT MY 15 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH LEGAL DEPARTMENT IS THAT THEY'RE ALWAYS BEEN EXTREMELY HELPFUL.
AND MY THREE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES IS, THEY'RE EXTREMELY UNHELPFUL.
SO I, I JUST FEEL LIKE IN THIS SITUATION, YOU KNOW, WE MET WITH LEGAL BEFORE WE RECORDED THE DOCUMENT AND THEY COUNTED OUR SIGNATURES AND LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENT AND BELIEVED THAT EVERYTHING WAS OKAY A COUPLE OF YEARS LATER WHEN NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES CAME ABOARD.
AND THAT SEEMS A LITTLE BIT UNFAIR.
CAN, CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT IS THE CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY TODAY SINCE 1954? IT'S BEEN IN COMMERCIAL USE.
AND WHAT IS IT THAT YOU'RE TRYING, WHY ARE YOU REIDING? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO? WE'RE TRYING TO FIX THE, THE IN COMPLIANCE.
WE, IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN TO THIS BUILDING, WE COULDN'T GET A PERMIT.
SO YOU, YOU'RE STILL OPERATING, MAKING MONEY AND COULD TAKE THE TIME TO GO GET THE DEED RESTRICTIONS OVER TIME.
ARE YOU SAYING COULD I GO GET THE 300 SIGNATURES AGAIN? WELL, THAT'S GONNA BE YOUR OPTION, I BELIEVE.
YEAH, I MEAN THAT IS POSSIBLE.
IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS.
IT IS BEEN THREE MONTHS OF NOTIFICATION AND ABOUT $6,000.
BUT TO USE THE BUILDING, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A PATHWAY FOR YOU TO GO AND GET THIS RESOLVED.
THERE IS A PATHWAY FOR US TO GET THIS RESOLVED AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S
[00:50:01]
A LEGAL PATHWAY TO RESOLVE IT RIGHT THIS MINUTE.AND I BELIEVE THAT WE'VE SUBSTANTIALLY MET THE REQUIREMENTS TO RESERVE IT.
AND OUR LAWYERS DON'T AGREE WITH YOU.
NOBODY'S EVER GONE AGAINST LEGAL, SO I I UNDERSTAND THAT
I DON'T THINK PLANNING COMMISSION HAS EVER VOTED AGAINST THEIR LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
BUT THEY GIVE US, THEY ARE OUR LEGAL ADVISORS, SO IT'S THE SAME WAY AS YOUR ATTORNEY, AS YOUR LEGAL ADVISOR.
SO I I JUST WANNA SAY I REALLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE HERE AND YOU'RE TRYING TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND AS COMMISSIONER BALDWIN HAS SAID, BASICALLY OUR HANDS ARE TIED.
NOW YOU MENTIONED A NUMBER OF LEGAL CASES, COURT CASES, AND WE HAVE SEEN THAT HAPPEN A NUMBER OF TIMES WHERE THE COURT HAS DECIDED THAT YOU'VE COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH DEED RESTRICTIONS.
IF YOU WERE TO COME BACK WITH A COURT ORDER, AND AGAIN, I'M NOT A LAWYER BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, UM, THEN, THEN THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO COMPLY AND BRING YOU AND YOUR CLIENT INTO COMPLIANCE.
BUT AS OF TODAY, AS COMMISSIONER BALDWIN SAYS, OUR HANDS ARE TIED.
THERE'S NOT, THERE'S NOTHING LITERALLY WE CAN DO HERE AROUND THIS HORSESHOE FOR YOU TODAY.
OKAY? I STILL DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT, UM, SO I GOT THOSE 300 SIGNATURES.
IT TOOK ME LIKE NINE MONTHS TO DO A LEGAL CASE LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE'D HAVE TO SUBPOENA EACH OF THE 300 PEOPLE IN THE SUBDIVISION WITH A PROCESS SERVER.
IT WOULD BE AN EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE PROCESS.
I I HOPE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A LOT.
I I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE.
FORVER TWO PEOPLE TO MAKE A MOTION AND ALL OF YOU TO AGREE.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT AND WE, WE RESPECT THAT.
SO I UNDERSTAND, I HOPE I'M NOT BEING RUDE, SO I UNDERSTAND CLEARLY IF YOUR ATTORNEY HAD NOT MADE A MISTAKE ON YOUR DOCUMENTS, WE'D BE FINE.
IF OUR ATTORNEY HAD NOT MADE A MISTAKE, IF HE HAD LEFT THAT SENTENCE OUT OF OUR DOCUMENTS AND NOT STATED, STATED ANY PROPERTY CODE, WE WOULD BE FINE.
I I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH THAT.
IT, I MEAN, NOT ME SPECIFICALLY, BUT YES SIR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.
AND MAY I MAKE ONE OTHER CLARIFICATION? YES, MS. NISSON? YES.
YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THAT WHEN THE, WHEN DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE AMENDED REFERENCE TO THE PROPER CHAPTER OF THE PROPERTY CODE IS NECESSARY, WE, WE NEED TO KNOW HOW IT'S BEING DONE SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT, WHAT TO COUNT.
UM, I THINK THAT I, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE SEEN ANYTHING THAT SHOWS OR THAT EVIDENCES IT TO CERTAINLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES ATTORNEYS, THEIR SATISFACTION THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR, THAT THAT WAS A TYPO.
UM, AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT IF THEY BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIVENER'S OPTION IS AVAILABLE TO THEM, I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS FOR THIS TYPE OF DOCUMENT, BUT THAT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED BY ANYONE HERE AT THE CITY.
UM, THAT IS A MATTER FOR THEIR LAWYER TO TAKE THAT AVENUE DOWN TO THE COURTHOUSE AND TRY AND GET THAT CORRECTED.
UM, WHICH IS WHERE IT WOULD COME INTO QUESTION AND REVIEW.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
I HAVE, UH, NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE ONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO? ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NONE, I AM GOING TO, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMIT AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF WEST VIEW DRIVE AND BUNKER HILL ROAD.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLOT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOT OUT OF A PORTION OF ONE LOT.
NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT PER LEGAL.
THE PROPOSED PLOT WILL NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION AND STAFF HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL PUBLIC COMMENT IN ADVANCE WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED WE PLAT.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBSTITUTE, THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION, AND MADAM CHAIR IS TO APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CONTINUED FOR ITEM 75.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS BRENDA VENABLE AND IF I PRONOUNCE THAT WRONG, PLEASE CORRECT ME.
SO I'M, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU GUYS,
[00:55:01]
YOUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT'S ALREADY APPROVED THIS, BUT I STILL WANNA SPEAK AT THIS HEARING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAVE LAWS IF WE'RE NOT FOLLOWING THEM.AND YOUR, YOUR CITY OF HOUSTON WEBSITE SPECIFICALLY STATES YOU MUST FILE A PLAT FIRST BEFORE YOU GET PERMITTING.
THIS GUY STARTED TO BUILD THE HOUSE, HE'S BUILDING IT ON BUNKER HILL.
IT'S NOT FACING WESTVIEW LIKE HE PERMITTED FOR.
THEY'RE ALL FOR 97, 56 WESTVIEW.
HIS REAL ESTATE AGENT ACTUALLY STARTED TO SOCIALLY PUT THIS OUT AS GONNA BE A ONE STORY HOUSE.
I MEAN A TWO STORY HOUSE FACING NORTH TO SOUTH WITH A POOL AND A POOL HOUSE BEHIND IT.
THE NEXT THING YOU KNOW, A BIG SIGN GOES UP, THEY'RE GONNA TRY TO REPL IT, BUT THE HOUSE IS ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
WE'RE PUTTING A HOUSE FACING SIDEWAYS AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION INTO THESE TWO NEIGHBORHOODS.
SPRING BRANCH WOODS, AND LONG POINT WOODS.
WE HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 75 YEARS.
WE HAVE LOTS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION.
IT'S BEAUTIFUL AND IT'S STARTING TO BECOME VERY NICE WITH ALL THIS NEW CONSTRUCTION.
BUT NOW YOU'RE GONNA ALLOW A GUY TO PUT A HOUSE AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION SIDEWAYS ON THE LOT.
AND IT WAS ALL PLANNED BECAUSE AS I WAS LEAVING MY HOUSE TODAY TO COME TO THIS MEETING, I WAS TALKING TO A NEIGHBOR THAT'S BUILDING A THREE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE ON TAPPING BACK IN THE BEND.
AND HE WAS TELLING ME HE TRIED TO BUY THAT LOT AND HE TOLD ME HE GOT THIS CLOSE TO CLOSING AND THE GUY CALLED HIM UP AND SAID HE WAS NOT GONNA SELL THAT LOT BECAUSE NOW HE'S GONNA SELL IT FOR TWO LOTS.
SO THIS HAS BEEN A PLAN FOR OVER A YEAR.
AND NOW YOU'RE GONNA HAVE GARBAGE TRUCKS SITTING ON BUNKER HILL WITH BLOCKED INTERSECTION.
WHERE ARE YOU GONNA PUT THOSE CARS? YES.
HE NEVER COULD, I DON'T GO AHEAD AND WRAP UP.
HE COULD NEVER BUILD THAT HOUSE THE OTHER WAY 'CAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS ARE 60 FEET ACROSS AND HE DIDN'T HAVE 60, HE DIDN'T HAVE 60 FOR TWO HOUSES, SO IT WAS ALL PLANNED.
I I I JUST THINK THAT YOU GUYS SHOULD, YOUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT SHOULD RECONSIDER IT.
I, I JUST, I THINK IT WAS ALL DONE IMPROPERLY.
IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE LAWS ON YOUR WEBSITE, THEN WHY DON'T WE FOLLOW THOSE PROTOCOLS? I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND.
THAT'S, I'M GONNA SAY THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS REVEREND DR. LEVY BARNES.
GOOD AFTERNOON, HONOR HONORABLE COMMISSIONERS.
UH, MYSELF AND MY PARTNER, UH, ANNA AND HIS WIFE, UH, WE SAW THIS HOUSE, UH, THIS LOT RATHER A YEAR AGO.
UH, THE QUESTION THAT DID COME UP, UH, SHE SAID THAT WE STARTED BUILDING WITH OUR PERMITS.
WE ACTUALLY ARE BUILDING THE FIRST HOUSE AND BECAUSE OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ONLY, WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE THE DRIVEWAY FACING WESTVIEW ORIGINALLY, THE PLANS WERE TO FACE WESTVIEW, BUT, UH, BECAUSE OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR THAT PROPERTY, WE HAD TO TURN THE HOUSE THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
UH, BUT AS FAR AS PERMITS, WE DID FOLLOW ALL PROTOCOLS.
UM, THE HOUSE AND THE PLANS WERE ACTUALLY IN PLACE FOR MANY MONTHS AND, UM, WE'RE JUST SPLITTING A LOT THAT'S ALREADY THERE TO HAVE A SECOND HOUSE.
BUT, UH, ALL RULES HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED AND, UH, THAT'S ABOUT IT.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER SYKES? YES.
YOU, YOU'RE SAYING THE DE RESTRICTION REQUIRES YOU TO HAVE YOUR DRIVEWAY ON WESTVIEW? UH, IT COULDN'T BE ON WESTVIEW.
I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO CAN I SHOW THE SURVEY BECAUSE THE LOT NO MA'AM.
NO, YOU'VE ALREADY HAD YOUR TWO MINUTES.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO TALK WITH YOU AFTER.
UM, IF YOU WANNA DISCUSS IT, YOU CAN GO OUT IN THE HALLWAY PLEASE.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE, UM, WELL, LEMME WAIT A MINUTE.
I, I DID NOT CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO LEMME CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 7 75 AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
CAN WE JUST GET CLARITY THAT IT DOESN'T VIOLATE ANY RESTRICTIONS? ABSOLUTELY.
I'M NOT SEEING ANYTHING THAT PROHIBITS HIM FROM HAVING A DRIVEWAY.
SO THE LAW CANNOT TAKE ACID FROM WELFARE PER THE ORDINANCE, RIGHT? SO THEY HAVE TO TAKE ACID FROM BUNKER HILL, RIGHT? UM, THE APPLICANT DID GET PERMIT FROM ONE HOME, CURRENTLY ONE LOT.
SO THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD A HOME RIGHT NOW.
SO WHEN, IF THAT PLA GET RECORDED, THAT HOME WAS STILL BEING COMPLIANT WITH ONE ENTIRELY LOT AND ALSO, UM,
[01:00:01]
THE DEVELOPER HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE WHICH STREET TO FRONT.SO THERE'S NO LIMITATION WHERE THE HOUSE HAD TO FUND.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
YES, COMMISSIONER MORALES AND THEN CLARIFY THAT THEY'RE MEETING THAT 25 FOOT SETBACK.
THEY ARE MEETING THE 25 FEET AS REQUIRED PER THE DEED AND CHAPTER 42.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND WE DID HAVE A QUESTION RECEIVED FROM STAFF ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THERE'S NO PROHIBITION ON SUBDIVIDING THIS LOT OR ANY OF THE LOTS AND, UM, AS LONG AS THE LOT ENDS UP WITH AN AREA OF AT LEAST 7,800 SQUARE FEET, WHICH BOTH OF THESE HAVE.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I NEED A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A NEARLY 8,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF LOCKETT AVENUE AND VAN ETTEN STREET, UH, NORTH OF OLD SPANISH TRAIL AND EAST OF ALAMEDA ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS A RE PLAT OF LOT 13 OF BLOCK THREE OF THE CENTRAL CITY SUBDIVISION REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT DOES VIOLATE SEPARATELY FILED DEED RESTRICTIONS, INCLUDING THOSE, UH, REGARDING LOT SIZE MINIMUMS. SET RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT FOR TWO WEEKS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO COORDINATE WITH LEGAL.
IF THEY PLEASE THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
I'M OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 76.
I HAVE A SPEAKER SIGNED, UH, PETER AES.
HI, UH, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS PETER AES AND I AM A RESIDENT OF THE CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M HERE TO RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED CENTRAL CITY RELA FOR LOT 13 BLOCK THREE, WHICH WOULD DIVIDE A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO TWO SMALLER PARCELS WHILE I SUPPORT RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT.
THIS PROPOSAL OFFERS NO REAL PUBLIC BENEFIT AND INSTEAD THREATENS THE CHARACTER INFRASTRUCTURE AND LIVABILITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
CENTRAL CITY IS DEFINED BY ITS LARGER, LOTS, MATURE TREES, AND OPEN SPACE THAT CREATE A SENSE OF BALANCE AND COMMUNITY.
ALLOWING THIS REPL WOULD SET A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LOT SPLITS LEADING TO HIGHER DENSITY, REDUCED BUILDING SETBACKS, OVERCROWDING, AND A GRADUAL LOSS OF PRIVACY AND GREEN SPACE THAT MAKE OUR AREA SPECIAL.
THIS CHANGE BENEFITS ONLY A SINGLE DEVELOPER WHILE PLACING COSTS ON RESIDENTS, MORE TRAFFIC, MORE FLOODING AND RUNOFF RISK, MORE STRAIN ON OUR AGING INFRASTRUCTURE AND REDUCE PROPERTY VALUES.
IT DOES NOTHING TO IMPROVE AFFORDABILITY, ACCESSIBILITY, OR AMENITIES FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
THERE ARE SEVERAL VACANT OR UNDER LOT USES IN THE COMMUNITY WHERE NEW HOMES CAN BE BUILT RESPONSIBLY WITHOUT FRAGMENTING EXISTING PROPERTIES.
GROWTH SHOULD HAPPEN THERE NOT THROUGH PIECEMEAL, OVER DEVELOPMENT.
IN FACT, SEVERAL NEW HOMES ARE BEING BUILT OR HAVE RECENTLY BEEN COMPLETED ALL WITHIN THE EXISTING LOT SIZE CONSTRAINTS.
HOUSTON'S MINIMUM, LOT SIZE PROTECTIONS EXIST TO SAFEGUARD NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE OURS FROM EXACTLY THIS KIND OF CHANGE.
APPROVING THIS REPL WOULD WEAKEN THOSE PROTECTIONS AND INVITE FURTHER EROSION OF NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY.
I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOU TO DENY THIS REFL REQUEST AND PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY, LIVABILITY, AND CHARACTER OF CENTRAL CITY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 76.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'LL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ITEM 77 IS MARINO PLACE, PARTIALLY PLAT NUMBER ONE.
THE SITE IS IN HOUSTON, CORPORATE LIMITS SOUTH ALONG EAST
[01:05:01]
43RD STREET, EAST OF OXFORD AND MAIN STREETS.THE REASON FOR REPLIED IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THE APPLICANT TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND TWO LANDSCAPE RESERVES.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT FOR FURTHER UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS.
REVIEW STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
MADAM CHAIR PLEASES THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 77 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I WILL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ITEM 78 IS NEW AND MANOR PARTIAL REPL NUMBER 31.
THE SITE IS IN HOUSTON, CORPORATE LIMITS AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF HAMLEY BOULEVARD AND BAR DRIVE.
THE REASON FOR REPL IS TO CREATE 28 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND FOUR RESERVES.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THIS PLAT WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST UH, MEETING AWAITING LEGAL REVIEW.
WE'VE RECEIVED LEGAL REVIEW AND THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILES SEPARATELY.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CC 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 78 IS, IS OPEN.
I MIGHT SEE, I'M NOT SEEING RIGHT TODAY.
UM, I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY.
HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UM, JUST BECAUSE OF, UM, CENTER POINTS COMMENT ON BAUER DRIVE ABOUT A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE VERSUS THE FIVE FOOT BUILDING LINE.
I MEAN, I KNOW THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO MEET THAT CONDITION, BUT IS THAT GONNA CHANGE THE, THE LAYOUT OR I, BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA HAVE CALL OUT FOR A FIVE FOOT BUILDING LINE AND THEY GOTTA MEET A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE.
WELL, THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAID, SO, OKAY.
SO THEY'LL JUST FIX IT ON THE FINAL? YEAH.
CORPORATE LIMITS EAST ALONG PRINCE STREET, NORTH OF WEST 12TH STREET.
THE REASON FOR REPLY IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING A VARIANCE TO PROVIDE FIVE FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE IS A RELA OF ONE LOT OUT OF THE SHADY WOOD EDITION CREATED IN 1939.
THE OWNER INTENDS TO BUILD ONE HOUSE ON EACH LOT.
PRINCE STREET IS A LOCAL STREET WITH THE EXISTING PLAN RIGHT AWAY OF 40 FEET.
PRINCE STREET IS ONLY SIX BLOCKS LONG AND AT THIS LOCATION DOES NOT CONTINUE STRAIGHT.
MOST OF THE STREET IS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL WITH ONLY ONE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF PRINCE PRINCE STREET AND WEST 12TH STREET.
IN 2023, A VARIANCE WAS GRANTED TO PROVIDE FIVE FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET.
AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF PRINCE STREET AND WEST 12TH STREET, THE MAJORITY OF THE LOTS ALONG THE STREET WAS RECORDED WITH A FIVE FEET DEDICATION TO THE STREET INSTEAD OF 10 FEET.
THERE IS ONLY ONE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF PRINCE STREET AND WEST 12TH STREET AND PRIMARILY IS A RESIDENTIAL STREET AND IS CONDUCIVE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MINIMUM FIVE FOOT WIDE OUT INSTRUCTIVE SIDEWALK, MINIMUM FOUR FEET WIDE SAFETY BUFFER, THREE INCH CALIBER TREES AND MAXIMUM EIGHT FEET HIGH.
UM, WATER IRON FENCE STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 79
[01:10:01]
IS OPEN.I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
CAN I GET CLARITY ON ABSOLUTELY.
COMMISSIONER BAR? THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE FRONT FENCE OR IT CAN'T BE ANY HIGHER OR MUST BE OPAQUE IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO A FENCE, BUT IT WAS A REQUIREMENT OF THE PLA NO, IT'S NOT.
I JUST, YOU MADE IT SOUND LIKE THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO A FENCE, IT MUST BE O OKAY.
THE SITE IS IN HOUSTON, CORPORATE LIMITS NORTH OF LAW EQUIPMENT STREET.
THE REASON FOR REPLY IS TO CREATE ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO FURTHER PLAT FOR FURTHER DEED RESTRICTION REVIEW.
STAFF HAS NOT STAFF HAS RECEIVED ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM CONCERNING DRAINAGE AND TRAFFIC AND PARKING.
MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
DID SO LET ME GET, HANG ON A SECOND GUYS.
OKAY, SO LEMME GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON IT'S ITEM 80.
AND ON HERE IT SAYS APPROVE IT.
I'M GONNA GET CLARIFICATION FIRST.
I HAVE AN OPINION IN MY FILE THAT IT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY OF THE APPLICABLE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
IT'S RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE THAT CLARIFICATION.
WERE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS OUTSIDE OF THAT? OKAY.
SO I HAVE SOMEONE THAT'S NOT SIGNED UP, BUT IF YOU COULD COME FORWARD IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK.
SO I'M GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE'S NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO, ALL RIGHT.
I HAVE TO JUST HAVE CLARIFICATION.
WELL, YOU NEED TO COME FORWARD PLEASE.
ALSO NEAR NORTH SIDE RESIDENT.
FOR A SINGLE FA FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
'CAUSE WE STILL, I BELIEVE, HAVE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THAT AREA AND IT MEETS UP HERE.
JUST NEEDED THAT CLARIFICATION.
WE'RE, WE'RE ONLY HERE TO SUPPORT.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY.
I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 81 IS SPRING BRANCH ESTATE NUMBER TWO, PARTIAL REPLANT NUMBER 18.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS SOUTH OF ALONG KERRWOOD BETWEEN PEPPER MILL AND MCKEAN.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REPL IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILES SEPARATELY, STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENTS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION.
STATUTES RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEADS THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 81 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES ITEM 82.
ITEM 82 IS ROCKTON CITY HOMES.
[01:15:01]
SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS SOUTH ALONG ROCKTON BETWEEN GREENBRIAR AND UH, MORNINGSIDE.THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACES OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILES SEPARATELY, STAFF HAS RECEIVED A FEW COMMENTS, UH, REGARDING THIS APPLICATION FROM THE PUBLIC.
UM, AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEADS THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 82 IS OPEN.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, UH, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
I'M A RESIDENT ON ROCKTON ROAD, UH, TWO BLOCKS, UH, DOWN THE STREET.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
I'M A RESIDENT ON, UH, ROCKTON STREET.
I OWN A PROPERTY TWO BLOCKS DOWN, UH, THE STREET.
UH, THIS REPORT CLEARLY VIOLATES, DID RESTRICTIONS OF THE SOUTH UP EXEMPTION EXTENSION.
SO THOSE RESTRICTIONS WERE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DEVELOPER AND I WAS VERY SURPRISED THAT, UH, THE REQUEST FOR PLATING HAS NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN.
I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 82.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY, SO I'M GONNA CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I JUST WANNA DO IT, MAKE SURE THE DEFERRAL IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OR NO, IT WAS BY THE APPLICANT PER APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
ARE WE CLEAR ON THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS, THOUGH? WE ARE.
THERE ARE NO DEED RESTRICTIONS.
DID IT APPEAR TO NOT VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS? GOT A VERY CLEAN, CLEAN REPORT BACK.
SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAYS IT DOES VIOLATE DEED RESTRICTIONS, SO IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE THAT MAYBE LEGAL DOES NOT HAVE, PLEASE PRESENT IT, UH, YOU KNOW, LATER ON SO THAT THAT CAN BE REVIEWED.
'CAUSE CURRENTLY WE'RE BEING TOLD BY LEGAL DEPARTMENT, IT DOES NOT, UH, CORRECT GO AGAINST E RESTRICTIONS.
SO IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T KNOW, PLEASE BRING IT TO OUR ATTENTION.
OR YOU CAN BRING IT TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OR TO STAFF.
IT NEEDS TO BE DOCUMENTED INFORMATION.
OKAY, SO I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M, UH, SORRY.
I, OKAY, I'M GONNA CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, I THINK I ALREADY SAID THAT.
AND I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
SO THIS IS A REALLY GOOD TIME FOR ME TO SAY THIS WHEN PEOPLE JUST SPEAK OUT INSTEAD OF WAITING UNTIL I CALL ON THEM, IT CONFUSES EVERYTHING AND I THEN, I DON'T REMEMBER, DID I CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING? DID I CONTINUE IT? AM I EVEN SITTING IN THIS SEAT? WHAT AM I DOING? UM, SO IF EVERYONE WOULD JUST BE PATIENT WITH ME AND JUST KINDA GIMME A LITTLE SIGNAL, RAISE YOUR FINGER OR NOD TO ME OR TO, TO MY, UH, VICE CHAIR SO THAT WE CAN CALL PEOPLE IN ORDER.
IT WILL HELP ME KEEP MYSELF STRAIGHT, SO THANK YOU.
[d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests (Geoff Butler, John Cedillo, and Devin Crittle)]
TO SUB D SUBDIVISION PLATS WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS.SO WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT 84.
ITEM 84 IS ANDERSON ROAD PARK.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS NUMBER 21 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMIT WEST ALONG LIA WAY SOUTH OF ANDERSON ROAD AND EAST OF SOUTH POST OAK DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN, UH, COMMERCIAL RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO NOT PROVIDE, I'M SORRY, THIS IS THE WRONG ONE.
UH, IS, UH, AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT EXTENDING NOR TERMINATING WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC BOW LANE.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE IS INTENDED FOR A WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER WITH PARKING FOR LARGE TRAILER TRUCKS AND IS TAKING DIRECT ACCESS FROM BEND WAY TO THE EAST, NOT EXTENDING THE STREET.
WOULD MAINTAIN THE EXISTING INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG ANDERSON ROAD, WHICH IS 1500 FEET.
ONLY A 100 FOOT DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD BOW LANE ITSELF IS A 50 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF, UH, LOCAL STREET THAT WOULD GIVE COMMERCIAL SITE DIRECT ACCESS TO A SOLELY RESIDENTIAL, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH.
AS SUCH, STAFF REQUIRES NO VEHICULAR ACCESS TO BE GRANTED TO THE SIDE VIA BOW LANE.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED ADVANCED COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS RAISE THE CONCERNS FOR COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE POTENTIAL DANGER AND HAVE VOICE SUPPORT FOR THE VARIANCE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STATUS PRESENTATION.
I DO HAVE A SPEAKER SIGNED THOMAS FORNER.
PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I DID NOT GET THAT RIGHT.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, HONORABLE UH, PLANNING COMMISSION.
I'M THOMAS FORNER WITH WISER ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
[01:20:01]
ON THE APPLICANT.I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? I DO HAVE 1:00 AM AM I SEEING LIKE AN ACCESS ON THE WEST SIDE TO POST OAK? NOT ON THE WEST SIDE OF POST OAK.
I'M JUST LOOKING AT ARIEL AND OH, CURRENT ACCESS.
YEAH, THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT, UH, SORRY.
THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TOWARDS POST OAK.
THE CURRENT, UH, DEVELOPMENT HAS JUST A GRAVEL ROAD THAT'S, UH, ACCESSING POST OAK.
UM, MAYBE STAFF COULD LET ME KNOW IF IT'S A LEGAL ACCESS OR, SO.
THE, THE, UH, DIRT ROAD CROSSES TWO DIFFERENT PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP AS THE CURRENT OWNER.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE THEY DO OR HAVE PREVIOUSLY TAKEN THAT ACCESS, BUT, UH, HAVE VERIFIED THAT THEY DO NOT OWN THAT PROPERTY ANY LONGER.
UM, SO IN, IN THE PROPOSAL OF THE SITE PLAN, THEY'RE SHOWING THAT DETENTION POND TO THAT WESTERN BOUNDARY THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY KIND OF STOP TRAFFIC FROM GOING THAT WAY.
UM, SO IT DOESN'T LOOK, THAT WOULD BE A CONTINUED ACCESS FOR THE PROPERTY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
ALRIGHT, SO COMMISSIONERS, I NEED A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS, ALONG FERGUSON WAY BETWEEN MONTGOMERY ROAD AND CARVER ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW 20 LOTS TO TAKE ACCESS FROM A PRIVATE ROADWAY.
EASEMENT STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS A ONE AND A HALF ACRE TRACK INTENDED TO BE DEVELOPED INTO 20 LOTS AND THREE RESERVES WITHIN THE TRACK AND IS AN EXISTING 20 FOOT ROADWAY EASEMENT.
THE GOAL OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO WIDEN THE EXISTING EASEMENT AND MAINTAIN ACCESS FOR TWO LANDLOCKED PARCELS OUTSIDE OF THE PLAT BOUNDARY.
THE EASEMENT WILL BE IN THE 28 FEET, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO OUR PRIVATE STREET REQUIREMENTS.
IF THE APPLICANT WAS TO PROPOSE A PRIVATE STREET OR A SHARED DRIVEWAY, IT WOULD REMOVE THE ABILITY FOR THE LANDLOCK PARCELS TO GET ACCESS TO FERGUSON WAY.
THE DEVELOPMENT PROVIDES SUFFICIENT GUEST PARKING, FIRE HYDRANTS, AND A TURNAROUND FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES.
STAFF FOUND THIS REQUEST TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING EASEMENT TO BE A PRACTICAL SOLUTION TO THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTED THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS COMPLETES MY PRESENTATION AND I BELIEVE YOU DO HAVE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS KENDRICK NEWMAN.
I'M NOT GONNA, YOU ARE NOT GONNA SPEAK.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS FRED STARKS.
UH, HE'S SAYING FROM CARVER ROAD TO WEST MONTGOMERY, BUT IT'S A STREET IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT.
IT'S BURG LANES WHERE I GREW UP.
IT'S A LITTLE DEAD END STREET AND THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE AN EASEMENT, FUTURE PLANS, I GUESS, TO TRY TO COME THROUGH OUR HOMES AND PROPERTY TO CUT ACROSS THROUGH OUR STREET.
I WAS A KID LIVE THERE NOW PARENTS NEXT TO, TO ME.
UM, AND I, IT'S A GOOD, PEACEFUL, NICE QUIET STREET AND IF WE GET ALL THAT ACCESS COMING THROUGH THERE, IT'S GONNA BRING MORE CRIME, MORE NOISE, AND OTHER ABILITIES THAT I PREFER NOT TO BE ON THAT STREET.
SO I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO GO THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OR REDO SOMETHING ON THE PLAN AS LONG AS THEY NOT COMING THROUGH AND TAKING AWAY HOMES AND MY HOUSES AND STUFF.
WE GREW UP MY PARENTS' HOME AND EVERYBODY ON THAT STREET THAT'S BEEN THERE OVER CENTURIES, YOU KNOW? THAT'S IT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING IN.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LA KENIA HENDERSON.
IF YOU HAVE THINGS YOU WANNA SHOW, YOU CAN GIVE IT TO STAFF THERE.
BESIDES I'M ASKING, I WANT CLARITY MM-HMM.
BECAUSE IT'S SAYING THAT IT IS PROPOSING THAT IT'S TAKING A EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE WITHIN THEIR OWN, UM, PROPERTY LINE.
BUT WHAT IT'S SAYING IN THE LETTER IS SAYING THAT IT WAS REQUESTING FOR THE EIGHT FEET, BUT
[01:25:01]
WHEN I TALKED TO THE ENGINEER, HE WAS STATING THAT IT WAS WITHIN THEIR OWN, UM, WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY, WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY LINES.HOWEVER, I'M ON THE BACK END AND I'M ON BEHALF OF MY MOTHER, POA, SHE'S 85.
UM, ON THE BACK END, THEY HAVE ALREADY STARTED CLEARING AND THEY HAVE ALREADY CROSSED THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO I'M TRYING TO GET CLARITY AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, I NEED THEM TO MARK, UH, SORRY.
I NEED FOR IT TO BE, UH, FENCING AS WELL AS RESTORE IT BACK TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITIONS BECAUSE OF, NOW I'VE GOT PICTURES THAT THERE'S ALREADY SHRUB AND BUSHES THAT ARE IN MY PARENTS' YARD.
SO I NEED CLARITY, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE SAYING EASEMENT AND, UM, AS OPPOSED TO BURG LANE, THEY CAN COME OUT ON THE OTHER END.
I JUST DO NOT WANT THEM CROSSING THE PROPERTY LINE.
MR. CRIDDLE, CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR US? YEAH.
SO, UH, TO CLARIFY, THIS ACCESS IS NOT FROM BERG LANE.
UH, IF YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN, THERE'S, UH, THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED IS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED.
WITHIN THAT PARCEL, THERE'S A 20 FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT THAT RUNS DOWN THE MIDDLE.
UH, SO THEY'RE TAKING THAT SAME PROPERTY WITH THAT EXISTING EASEMENT AND SIMPLY WIDENING THAT EASEMENT.
SO, UH, THIS REALLY DOESN'T AFFECT, UH, BERG BERG LANE AS FAR AS ACCESS.
WHAT ABOUT 82 20 CARTER? BECAUSE I'M ON THE BACK.
WHAT, WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE QUESTION? SO, WELL, WE CAN'T, YEAH, YEAH, YOU NO.
IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IT SAYS EXISTING 20 FOOT.
THEY'RE CLEARING OUT, WE'RE OFF OF CARVER, BUT THEY ARE CLEARING OUT AND THEY'RE ALREADY STARTED TEARING DOWN, UH, SHRUBBERY AND BUSHES.
RIGHT ON THE BACK, ON THE SIDE OF OURS.
MR. BROWN, CAN YOU SPEAK WITH THE, THE SPEAKER AFTERWARDS? BECAUSE THIS BODY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE CLEARING.
UM, BUT MR. BROWN IS PUBLIC WORKS.
HE'S STANDING UP AND HE CAN HELP YOU OUT WITH THAT.
OKAY, OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CHRISTOPHER MATTHEWS AFTERNOON.
HOW Y'ALL DOING TODAY? UM, I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION.
YOU SAYING THAT THE EASEMENT THAT'S GOING EAST AND WEST, RIGHT? NO, NORTH, SOUTH, NORTH AND SOUTH.
SO NOTHING'S COMING TO WHAT ABOUT THE DIP THAT'S GOING EAST? THAT'S THE STUB OUT.
OKAY, WELL THAT'S MY BACKYARD.
NO, NO, IT'S WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY.
IT'S WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY, YEAH.
AND IT STUBS OUT, IF YOU'LL SEE ON THE, ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT MM-HMM
SO THAT'S JUST A TURNAROUND FOR LIKE FIRE AND RESCUE IS, IS THE MAIN REASON FOR THAT.
WELL, I MEAN, I GOT ANOTHER QUESTION.
WITH, WITH ALL OF THIS, WITH ALL OF THIS GOING NORTH AND SOUTH, UM, AND DISTURBING THE PROPERTY, YOU NEED TO LOOK AT US.
I KNOW I HAVE THE SAME MAP OF EVERYBODY.
YOU HAVE CARVER ROAD WITHIN THOSE TWO, UH, MY HOUSE HERE AND THE HOUSE HERE, BUT WITHIN BETWEEN THERE IT'S NOTHING BUT BUT'S.
SO WHY CAN'T THEY USE THAT INSTEAD OF DISTURBING ANYBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY IF YOU'RE NOT GETTING, IF YOU WERE THERE? YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SPEAKING OF? YEAH.
BECAUSE THE WORK'S BEING DONE WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY, WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY BALANCE, MA'AM.
BUT, UH, THE YOUNG LADY JUST CAME UP THAT'S DISTURBING HER PROPERTY AS WELL.
AND MR. BROWN WITH PUBLIC WORKS IS GONNA GET WITH HER.
AND THEY'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, UM, THAT THIS BODY DOESN'T ADDRESS ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WELL, BUT WE APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT TO OUR ATTENTION.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LINDA BLUE.
SO I'M, I'M HERE AS WELL FOR BERG STREET.
I THINK THEIR MAIN CONCERN WAS THE EASEMENTS.
UM, THERE WAS CONFUSION ABOUT HOW FAR THE EASEMENT GOES, IF IT'S GONNA INTERRUPT THEIR PROPERTY EVENTUALLY, BECAUSE SOME OF THE EASEMENTS, WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT ON MAPS WAS SHOWING THAT IT COULD CONNECT TO THEIR PROPERTIES.
SO THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT NONE OF THEIR PROPERTIES WILL BE AFFECTED IN THE FUTURE.
ONCE EVERYTHING IS FORMALIZED AND THE COMMUNITY IS UPDATED 10, 10 YEARS OR 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, THEY WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY ANOTHER EASEMENT THAT'S ABLE TO GO, YOU KNOW, TRESPASS ON THEIR PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
SO THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHY EVERYONE RAISED IT.
IT WAS MORE PEOPLE HERE FROM BERG STREET.
BUT THAT'S WHY THEY CAME, BECAUSE THE LETTER THEY RECEIVED, THEY SAID THE LETTER SAID THAT YOU WERE GONNA CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AT THIS MEETING, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S BEEN APPROVED THROUGH LEGAL ALREADY.
SO THEY JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE THIS GENERATION OVER A HUNDRED YEARS, PEOPLE LIVING ON THEIR STREET.
SO THEY JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEIR STREET IS GONNA STILL, STILL BE INTACT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
[01:30:01]
ME LOSE MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT.SO WHAT WE'RE APPROVED, WHAT WE ARE, WHAT'S PROPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, BE APPROVED TODAY, STAFF'S RECOMMENDING APPROVAL IS JUST THEIR SITE.
AND IF YOU SEE THAT STOUT STREET, ALL OF THOSE LOTS BACK UP TO I THINK THE PROPERTIES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO THAT'S WHAT'S BEING APPROVED TODAY.
THERE'S NO CUT THROUGH BRIAN APPROVED TODAY.
CAN THERE BE FUTURE CUT THROUGHS? NO.
AND THE ONLY REASON, AND BECAUSE ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS HAS BEEN THERE FOR OVER 50 YEARS, SOMEONE REACHED OUT TO HER.
I TRIED TO GO TO HER HOUSE AND SAY, WE NEED TO GO INTO YOUR BACKYARD.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY WERE LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GOING ON? SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE FEAR COMING IS WHERE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO INTRUDE ON THEIR PROPERTY TO GET ACCESS TO OTHER THEIR PROPERTY ON FERGUSON.
SO, UM, DO YOU KNOW IF THOSE PROPERTIES FACING ENBERG FACING THE REAR, DO YOU KNOW THAT THEY'RE ALL, ARE THEY ALL FENCED? DO YOU KNOW? BACK FENCES? THEY'RE ALL FENCED BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL FENCED.
BECAUSE THE QUESTION WAS SOMETIMES WHEN PROPERTIES AREN'T FENCED, PEOPLE KIND OF START GOING BEYOND THEIR PROPERTY INTO THE EASEMENTS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
SO THE, THE CONCERN THAT YOU, MY, MY CONCERN WAS THAT THEY, THEY WON'T, THEY WON'T GO INTO YOUR PROPERTY IF IT'S FENCED.
THEY HAVE TO STAY ON THEIR SIDE PERIOD.
IF THERE ARE EASEMENTS, THEN THAT IS, YOU KNOW, THAT IS CITY PROPERTY BASICALLY CITY USAGE.
THIS IS ONLY WITHIN THE RED LINES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR PROPERTIES, YOUR STREET, YOUR ACCESS, NOTHING.
THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A NORTH, SOUTH STREET MM-HMM
EVERYTHING HAS TO STAY WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES.
IF IT DOES, YOU NEED TO CALL THE CITY AND REPORT IT.
DOES THAT, DOES THAT CLARIFY EVERYTHING? THANK YOU EVERYONE.
THANK WHILE WHILE I HAVE YOU THOUGH, HOLD ON MR. BALDWIN.
I JUST WANNA BE TOTALLY HONEST.
HOW MS. BLUE, I JUST, MS. BLUE, I WANNA BE TOTALLY HONEST WITH YOU.
IF LOOK AT THE PROPERTY AND ALL THAT GREEN SPACE BELOW IT, THE WAY THE RULES WORK, IF SOMEONE DEVELOPED EVERY BIT OF SOUTH OF THAT LAND, EVERYTHING THAT'S GREEN, IF THEY CAME BACK TO THIS COMMISSION AND WE'RE GONNA PUT 500 HOUSES THERE, THE RULE WOULD BE FOR RED ROCK TO CONTINUE THROUGH THAT DEAL.
THAT'S THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN.
AND THEY'D NEED A VARIANT NOT TO EXTEND RED ROCK.
IF YOU, IF I'M JUST SAYING HYPOTHETICALLY, 'CAUSE I DON'T WANT YOU TO LEAVE HERE WITH NOT, YOU KNOW, ONE INDIVIDUAL LOT'S NOT GONNA TRIGGER ANYTHING.
BUT IF YOU TRIGGERED A HUGE PATH OF LAND FROM ALL THE WAY DOWN TO ESTHER, THE WAY THE RULES WOULD WORK IS RED ROCK WOULD BE EXTENDED.
YOU'D HAVE TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE NOT TO EXTEND RED ROCK BECAUSE WE DO WORK ON CONNECTIVITY A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW AND THAT'S JUST THE WAY THE RULES ARE WRITTEN.
MR. CRIDDLE, I MEAN IF SOMEONE DEVELOPED EVERY BIT OF GREEN SPACE SOUTH OF THERE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO ESTHER, THERE POTENTIALLY COULD BE RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION FOR RED ROCK.
'CAUSE I DON'T WANT YOU TO LEAVE HERE AND NOT BE TOLD THE TRUTH.
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT RED ROCK COULD BE RECOMMENDED FOR EXTENSION AND, BUT THAT COULD BE A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW OR MAY NEVER HAPPEN AND YOU COULD STILL COME IN AND FIGHT IT.
WELL IF I'M HERE IN A HUNDRED YEARS,
YOU'RE HERE IN A HUNDRED YEARS AND I'M HERE.
YES, THANK YOU MS. BLUE CHAIR.
I JUST JONES, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE ST.
STU ROAD TO THE EAST BERG IS 24 AND A HALF FEET.
SO YOU DID SENSE THAT THAT ROADWAY, THAT TURNAROUND WILL BE 24 AND A HALF FEET FROM YOUR WESTERN BOUNDARY LINE.
THAT IS THE WEST SIDE OF BERG.
SO THE ENCROACHMENT YOU IS STILL QUITE A DISTANCE.
FROM WHERE THAT PAVEMENT WOULD END.
UM, NOT TO PROLONG THE CONVERSATION, BUT UM, AT ONE POINT IN TIME, THIS WAS ONE LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS PROPERTY WAS SUBDIVIDED WITHOUT THE MEANS OF A PLAT.
SO THAT EASEMENT, UH, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, THE EASEMENT WAS TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THOSE LOTS THAT ARE ALREADY SUBDIVIDED, UM, WITHOUT THE MEANS OF A PLA.
SO THAT'S THE REASON THE THE EASEMENT IS THERE.
OUR YES AND HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER AND HE'S THE APPLICANT.
OH, DO YOU WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION NOW OR LATER? WELL, QUESTION FOR STAFF MM-HMM
SO, UM, THE PURPOSE OF THE ACCESS EASEMENT IS TO GET, UM, THOSE LANDLOCKED PROPERTIES.
SO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GONNA ASK YOU? I'LL LET YOU, IN THE UTILITY EASEMENT, ARE THEY GONNA BE ABLE TO GET SOMETHING TO PROVIDED TO THEM? YEAH, SO I SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT, UH, AND THE INTENT IS TO GET, UH, THE UTILITIES WITHIN THE EASEMENT.
JUST KNOW THAT IT HAS TO BE IMPLICITLY STATED BECAUSE CENTERPOINT WON'T ACCEPT AN ACCESS EASEMENT FOR THE ABILITY TO RUN, UH, THE UE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
OKAY, OUR LAST SPEAKER IS JOSE MENDOZA.
[01:35:01]
GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.I'M THE APPLICANT ON THIS ITEM.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY SOME, SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS I HAD, PARTICULARLY THE, THE APPLICANT ALONG CARVER, I JUST SPOKE TO THE, THE APPLICANT, UM, LAST WEEK AND THAT PROPERTY DOESN'T AFFECT OUR SIDE.
THAT'S MAINLY FACING RED ROCK, THE, THE STREET TO THE, YOU KNOW, THE EAST, WEST STREET.
SO WE'RE NOT GOING ANY, ANY FURTHER DOWN THAN THE FOUR TRACKS THAT WE OWN.
UM, AND EVERYTHING'S STAYING WITHIN OUR PARCEL.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT, MR. CRIDDLE, CAN YOU RESTATE THE RECOMMENDATION? YES, MA'AM.
UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? WELL, I HAVE A MOTION, YES, BUT I'D LIKE TO AMEN THE LANGUAGE.
COMMISSIONER MAD UHHUH
SO TO, TO BE CLEAR, TYPICALLY IN THESE SITUATIONS, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE UTILITIES ARE DONE BY A SEPARATE INSTRUMENT PRIOR TO, UM, RECOMMENDATION.
YEAH, THAT'S, WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE IT HAPPENS BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU PERSONALLY THAT THEY WILL NOT RUN IT ON A, A, AN ACCESS EASEMENT.
YEAH, THEY, THEY HAVE TO, THEY HAVE TO DO IT SEPARATELY SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT IT HAPPENS.
UH, ITEM 86 IS HOCKLEY MEADOW HONEYBEE HOLLOW LANE STREET.
DEDICATION OF THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING OF THE SITES LOCATED ALONG BECCA ROAD, SOUTH OF US TWO 90 AND WEST OF JUBILEE HAVEN STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A MINIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING OF ROUGHLY 240 FEET.
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 600 FEET ALONG A MAJOR FAIR FARE STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS A STREET DEDICATION FROM THE HOCKLEY MEADOWS GENERAL PLAN.
A PUBLIC STREET IS BEING PROPOSED TO CONNECT, TO BE BECCA ROAD.
A PUBLIC STREET IS BEING PROPOSED TO CONNECT BECCA ROAD TO HOCKLEY MEADOWS DRIVE.
STRICT INTERPRET INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE RIGHT OF WAY TO BE LOCATED AT LEAST 600 FEET FROM THE NEAREST LOCAL STREET INTERSECTION ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO LOCATE THE STREET ROUGHLY 240 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION.
AND THE JUSTIFICATION STATE, EXCUSE ME, THE APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION STATES A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OFFSITE WATER FLOW ENTERS A NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE TRACK AND MOVES IN A NORTHEAST DIRECTION ACROSS THE PROPERTY TO MANAGE THIS.
THE PROPERTY, EXCUSE ME, THE PROJECT PROVIDES A DETENTION SYSTEM WITHIN PONDS ONE, TWO, AND THREE ON THE SCREEN, UH, THAT EXTEND ACROSS THE ENTIRE NORTHERN BOUNDARY.
THIS IS ALSO ILLUSTRATED IN THE DRAINAGE IMPACT ANALYSIS DUE TO THE WIDTH OF BECCA ROAD.
THERE ARE NO PLANS TO CONSTRUCT A MEDIAN THAT WILL HINDER INGRESS AND EGRESS TO BECCA AND HARRIS COUNTY HAS VOICED NO OBJECTION SINCE THE PREVIOUS DEFERRAL FOR THIS REQUEST.
STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTED THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
AND PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER MAREZ IS RECUSING FROM THIS ITEM.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF YOU.
UH, THIS SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS NORTH OF DENVER MILLER ROAD AND SOUTH OF WEST BELFORT STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING A EAST, WEST STREET THROUGH THE TRACT.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS AN EXISTING FOUR ACRE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG CLOTHING ROAD.
THE PURPOSE OF THE PLAT IS TO OBTAIN PERMITS FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON THE SITE.
THE NEAREST INTERSECTION EXCEEDS THE LOCAL 1400 FOOT DISTANCE AND STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A PUBLIC EAST WEST STREET TO BE DEDICATED WITHIN THE PLAT BOUNDARY.
JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPORTING THE VARIANCE INCLUDES A LARGE LANDFILL OWNED BY FORT BEND COUNTY EAST OF THIS SITE.
THE LIKELIHOOD OF THIS AREA RE REDEVELOPING IS SLIM.
ALSO, THE SITE CON CONTAINS EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THE CREATION OF A NEW STREET WOULD GREATLY LIMIT THE DEVELOPABLE AREA.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST AND STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM.
CONDITIONS, UH, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
[01:40:01]
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, UH, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF US.ITEM 88 IS REDEEMER SAVIOR VILLAGE.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS AN OVER THREE ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION EAST OF PETERS ROAD, NORTH OF STROKER ROAD AND EAST OF THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF MILLER WILSON ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A RESERVE RESTRICTED TO CHURCH AND INSTITUTIONAL USES AND IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES.
ONE, TO NOT PROVIDE A NORTH SOUTH STREET THROUGH THE PROPERTY AND TWO, TO ALLOW A RESERVE TO TAKE ACCESS VIA A 30 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY IN LIEU OF THE 60 FOOT WIDTH REQUIRED.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTS.
THE SITE IS FULLY WITHIN 1,250 FEET OF PETERS ROAD AND A NORTH SOUTH STREET COULD BE BETTER PROVIDED BY A LARGER TRACK TO THE EAST.
THE SPARSE AND LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA WOULD NOT GREATLY BENEFIT FROM A NORTH SOUTH STREET AT THIS LOCATION.
FURTHER, THE SITE LIES WITHIN AN EXTENDING ALIGNMENT OF LOW Q AVENUE, A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY THAT IS SYSTEMATICALLY REPLACING TWO SIDE-BY-SIDE 30 FOOT WIDE INGRESS EGRESS EASEMENTS.
AS THE PROPERTIES OF THE SOUTH BECOME PLATTED, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO DEDICATE THE OTHER 30 OF THE 60 FOOT WIDE LOW Q TO PROVIDE A RIGHT OF WAY OF SUFFICIENT WIDTH.
HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE VARIANCES STAFF.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? ALRIGHT.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF YOU.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION MAD MOTION MANCA SECOND FORT.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES ITEM 89.
ITEM 89 IS SPRING COUNTRY CLUB.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS AN OVER 22 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY, EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AT THE EASTERN INTERSECTION OF GOSLING ROAD AND WEST RAYFORD ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 21 LOTS AND FOR RESERVES AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW ALL LOTS AND RESERVES TO TAKE ACCESS VIA A 50 FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT IN LIEU OF THE PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE REQUIRED STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE PLAN PROPOSES A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, UNRESTRICTED RESERVES INTENDED FOR MULTI-FAMILY AND DETENTION, UH, RESERVES, WHICH WOULD TAKE ACCESS THROUGH AN EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT SHOWN IN YELLOW.
THE PROPOSED 50 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY, A UH, 50 FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT SHOWN IN RED WOULD EXTEND OFF OF THAT EXISTING, UH, EASEMENT TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THOSE PROPOSED PROPERTIES.
THE EXISTING EASEMENT IS BUILT OUT AS A FUNCTIONING RIGHT OF WAY AT THE SIGNAL INTERSECTION OF RAYFORD AND GOSLING.
PROPOSING PUBLIC RIGHT DRIVEWAY WOULD BE HINDERED BY THE PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES OF EAST SPRING, SORRY, SPRING CREEK TO THE EAST, THE SPRING VALLEY GOLF CLUB TO THE NORTH AND THE APPROVED TNT, UH, NTN GOSLING, UH, DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH, NONE OF WHICH PROVIDE ANY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY EXTENSIONS.
A LARGE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS BEING DEDICATED FOR DRAINAGE AND DETENTION.
THE PLAT WAS DEFERRED LAST CYCLE AS A PROPOSED TYPE ONE PAES THAT WERE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE INTENDED LAYOUT OF THE UTILITIES AND THE EASEMENTS REQUIRED.
THE APPLICANT HAS ADJUSTED THE PLAT BY PROPOSING AN ACCESSING EASEMENT AND COORDINATION WITH HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING STAFFERS REQUIRING THE DEDICATION LANGUAGE OF THE EASEMENT TO BE PROVIDED AT FINAL TO ENSURE THAT IT MEETS ALL DEVELOPMENTAL AND LEGAL STANDARDS AND TO BE RECORDED PRIOR TO RECOMMENDATION.
UH, HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS ADDED THE CAVEAT THAT THE INITIAL CUL-DE-SAC NOT BE GATED FROM THE EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE WEST.
HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE VARIANCE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MA'AM, CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
UM, COMMISSIONERS YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF YOU.
[e. Subdivision Plats with Special Exception Requests (John Cedillo)]
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.ITEM 90 IS AZALEA DISTRICT SECTION EIGHT.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A 3.7 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WEST OF US 59 AND NORTH OF FM 1314.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SUBDIVISION OF 21 LOTS AND ONE RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW MORE THAN 156 LOTS, UH, WITH ONE POINT OF ACCESS.
STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
I BELIEVE THE UH, FIRST REASON THE ONE-LINERS DO SHOW THAT WE ARE, UH, SUGGESTING TO GRANT IS THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
OKAY, SO WE'RE CHANGING TO RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY, UH, AS THE APPLICATION WAS DEFERRED LAST CYCLE, IT CANNOT BE DEFERRED AGAIN.
AZA DISTRICT SECTIONS ONE THROUGH FIVE WERE RECORDED BETWEEN 2015 AND 2017 AND LINE NORTH OF THE MAJOR COLLECTOR OF AZALEA BOULEVARD SECTION SIX AND SEVEN WERE APPROVED AS PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS EARLIER THIS YEAR PROPOSING A TOTAL OF 135
[01:45:01]
LOTS.THE INCLUSION OF SECTION EIGHT BEFORE YOU WITH ITS 21 LOTS PROPOSES TO HAVE 156 LOTS WITH A SOLE ACCESS THROUGH FLOWERING CRAB.
APPLE DRIVE THROUGH TO ZALEA BOULEVARD.
THE ORDINANCE PERMITS DEVELOPMENTS TO HAVE A SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS ALONG AS THE LOT COUNT DOES NOT EXCEED 150.
OTHERWISE, AN ALTERNATIVE, UH, PUBLIC STREET PATH WOULD BE PROVIDED OR REQUIRED.
THE GENERAL PLAN WAS GRANTED VARIANCES AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION EARLIER THIS YEAR TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT NOT TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC STREET CONNECTION TO THE WEST, CONNECTING TO VALLEY RANCH PARKWAY AND TO ALLOW EXCESSIVE INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG UH, ITS SOUTHERN BOUNDARY BY NOT EXTENDING MAYOR ROAD TO THE SOUTH.
THE BASIS FOR SUPPORT WAS THAT THE PUBLIC STREET CONNECTIONS TO THE PERIMETER ROADS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL SECTIONS WOULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION AND CONNECTION WITH THESE REQUESTS.
THE APPLICANT ELIMINATED BY CHOICE POSSIBLE POINTS OF CONNECTION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN UTILIZED TO MEET THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS TODAY.
THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE ADDITIONAL POINTS OF CONNECTION WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE FUTURE, HOWEVER, NO GUARANTEE IS PROVIDED TO ENSURE THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC CONNECTIONS WILL OCCUR IN A TIMELY MANNER OR AT ALL.
THE SITE ITSELF IS A GREENFIELD SITE AND THE REQUEST IS SELF-IMPOSED.
THE APPLICANT HAS GIVEN WAS GIVEN TWO OPTIONS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE.
OPTION ONE TO REDUCE THE PROPOSED LOCK COUNT BY SIX OR UH, UNTIL A SECOND, UH, POINT OF ACCESS COULD BE GRANTED OR OPTION TWO, UH, TO RECORD A STREET DEDICATION PRIOR TO OR SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THIS PLAT TO PROVIDE A SECOND POINT OF ACCESS.
INSTEAD, THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED A THIRD OPTION TO PROVIDE A TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT THROUGH A LOT IN SECTION SIX TO PROVIDE ACCESS UNTIL A PERMANENT ACCESS POINT CAN BE PROVIDED.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS STATED THAT THEY ARE NOT IN SUPPORT OF A TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT, UH, FOR PUBLIC USE AND HAVE YET TO CONFIRM THAT IT WOULD MEET FIRE MARSHAL STANDARDS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY THE SPECIAL REQUEST AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS INCLUDING EITHER REDUCING THE LOCK COUNT TO COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 42 OR PROVIDING A SECOND POINT OF ACCESS FOR THE EXCESSIVE LOCK COUNT.
MA'AM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? COME FORWARD PLEASE.
MY NAME IS JACOB GUERRE WITH META PLANNING DESIGN.
WE ARE THE APPLICANTS FOR THIS ITEM.
UH, WE ARE AWARE OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, UM, TO DENY THE VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLA AS IS AND WE ARE CONTENT WITH THAT.
OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, THEN I'M SEEKING A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
[f. Reconsiderations of Requirement (John Cedillo) ]
MOVING ON TO F RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT.I WAS SUPPOSED TO SAY THAT COMMISSIONER SYKES WAS ABSTAINING.
UH, ITEM 91 IS CEDAR ROCK RESERVE.
UH, THIS APPLICATION WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BY UH, HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING'S OFFICE.
UH, THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HARRIS COUNTY NORTH OF ZOO ROAD IN EAST OF ROBERTS ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50 FOOT RADIUS FOR A CUL-DE-SAC INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 60 FEET AND TO ALLOW A FIVE FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR ONE LOT INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF BOTH BARRENS REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING PROPOSING A PRIVATE STREET DEVELOPMENT AND INTENDED FOR 21 LOTS AND SEVEN RESERVES.
THIS SITE IS LOCATED AT THE END OF CEDAR ROCK DRIVE AND THIS DEVELOPMENT IS TERMINATING THE DEAD END STREET WITH A CUL-DE-SAC CEDAR ROCK.
CEDAR ROCK DRIVE IS A 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY AND REQUIRES A 60 FOOT CUL-DE-SAC.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 50 FOOT RADIUS FOR THE CUL-DE-SAC.
STAFF HAS WORKED CLOSELY WITH HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING'S OFFICE AND THEY HAVE VOICED NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST.
AND ADJACENT TO THE CUL-DE-SAC IS LOT ONE OF BLOCK FIVE, EXCUSE ME, LOT FIVE OF BLOCK ONE.
THIS LOT WILL NOT TAKE ACCESS FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC, BUT DUE TO ITS CLOSE PROXIMITY AT 10 FOOT SIDE BUILDING LINE IS REQUIRED.
THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS A FRONT FACING FIVE FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR LOTS TAKING ACCESS FROM A TYPE TWO PRIVATE STREET, ALLOWING THIS FIVE FOOT SIDE BUILDING LINE IS IN KEEPING WITH THE OVERALL BUILDING LINE WITHIN THE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT.
FURTHERMORE, THE CUL-DE-SAC WILL NOT, EXCUSE ME.
FURTHERMORE, THE CUL-DE-SAC WILL BE MOSTLY OCCUPIED BY RESIDENTS OF THE PRIVATE COMMUNITY AND THE CUL-DE-SAC DOES NOT PROMOTE HIGH SPEEDS OF TRAFFIC.
OVERALL STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
UH, THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF YOU.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION MAN.
ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA MOVE TO G EXTENSION OF APPROVAL.
I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND UH, STATE THAT
[01:50:01]
UH, COMMISSIONER HE IS ABSTAINING FROM THE FOLLOWING.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS GHI AND J AS ONE GROUP.
[Platting Activities g - j]
G EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEMS 92 TO 113 SECTION H NAME CHANGES CONSISTS OF ITEMS 114 SECTION I CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CONSISTS OF NO ITEMS AND SECTION J ADMINISTRATIVE CONSISTS OF NO ITEMS. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTIONS GHI AND J.YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THESE ITEMS? DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION.
[k. Development Plats with Variance Requests (Geoff Butler)]
TO K DEVELOPMENT PLANS WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
UH, ITEM ONE OH, OR EXCUSE ME, ONE 15 IS 3 0 3 WEST 30TH STREET.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG THE SIX 10 NORTH LOOP BETWEEN SHEPHERD AND YALE.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A ONE STORY ACCESSORY UNIT BEHIND AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE NEW STRUCTURE TO BE SITUATED 12 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AS OPPOSED TO THE 25 REQUIRED FOR MAJOR THOROUGH AFFAIRS.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE CONSISTS OF AN EXISTING HOME WITHIN THE GARDEN OAKS COMMUNITY.
THE HOME FRONTS WENT WEST 30TH STREET AND FEATURES A 50 FOOT FRONT BUILDING LINE.
THE SITE BACKS UP TO THE WESTBOUND FEEDER ROAD OF THE SIX 10 NORTH LOOP.
THE EXISTING HOME AND SUBDIVISION PREDATE THE FEEDER ROAD AND THE 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE REQUIREMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO DEVELOP A 765 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY DWELLING TO THE REAR OF THE EXISTING HOME, SET BACK 12 FEET FROM THE FEEDER ROAD PROPERTY LINE.
A CONCRETE SOUND BARRIER SEPARATES THE SITE FROM THE TRAVEL LANES OF THE FREEWAY.
THIS ALLOWS FOR THE SMALLER STRUCTURES FOR SMALLER STRUCTURES TO BE BUILT WITHIN THE 25 FOOT SETBACK WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH TRAFFIC OR PUBLIC SAFETY.
IN ADDITION, THE, THE APPLICATION ACHIEVES A SIMILAR RESULT TO CHAPTER 42, ALLOWING FOR ONE STORY GARAGES TO BACK UP TO MAJOR THOROUGHFARES, ALBEIT WITH A HABITABLE STRUCTURE.
COMMISSION HAS GRANTED SIMILAR VARIANCES WITH THIS JUSTIFICATION ALONG THIS SEGMENT OF SIX 10.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF CHAPTER 42 AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
UH, WE'VE RECEIVED A WRITTEN COMMENT IN SUPPORT CITING THE SITE'S CONSTRAINTS AND THE SOUND BARRIER.
ROSS GONZALEZ, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK OR ARE YOU JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF YOU.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MAY I ASK A QUESTION? YES, YOU MAY.
DID THEY QUALIFY FOR A PARKING EXEMPTION WITH THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT? SO, OR WERE THEY REQUIRED TO PUT IN ADDITIONAL PARKING? IT'S A BIG LOT WITH A LONG DRIVEWAY.
ANYTHING ELSE? IF NOT, I SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ITEM ONE 16 IS 2 2 2 WEST CROSS TIMBER STREET.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG CROSS TIMBERS BETWEEN SHEPHERD AND YALE.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ALTERATION AND RENOVATION TO AN EXISTING CITY OF HOUSTON FIREHOUSE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANDED STRUCTURE TO BE SITUATED FIVE FEET FROM OLD YALE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 10 FEET.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE CONSISTS OF AN ACTIVE CITY OF HOUSTON FIRE STATION AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF CROSS TIMBERS IN OLD YALE.
THE EXISTING FIRE STATION PREDATES CHAPTER 42 AND THE 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL STREETS.
THE STATION HAS LONG OPERATED WITH A FIVE FOOT SETBACK ALONG OLD YALE WITH NO OBVIOUS NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE PUBLIC.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN EXTENSIVE RENOVATION TO THE STATION THAT WILL RESULT IN SMALL ADDITIONS TO THE STRUCTURE'S EXTERIOR.
THESE ALTERATIONS RESULT IN THE STRUCTURE NOT QUALIFYING TO REMAIN AT THE EXISTING SETBACK.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE FIRE STATION TO REMAIN WHERE IT'S THE VARIANCE WILL ACHIEVE A RESULT SIMILAR TO WHAT'S ALLOWED UNDER STRICT INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 42.
THE CHANGES TO THE EXTERIOR ARE MINOR ENOUGH TO NOT PRESENT ANY PROBLEMS WITH TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, OR PUBLIC SAFETY.
THE STATION IS SITUATED 30 FEET FROM OLD DL, PAVE THE OLD DL PAVEMENT, ALLOWING FOR AMPLE ROOM FOR VISIBILITY AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.
[01:55:01]
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF CHAPTER 4 82 AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND WE RECEIVE NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT.I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK FOR THIS ITEM.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL? DO I HAVE A MOTION? OH, COMMISSIONER MAREZ.
UM, DOES CENTERPOINT LOOK AT THIS BY ANY CHANCE? THEY THIS ARE YOU THE APPLICANT? YEAH, I'M THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE PROJECT.
I JUST, UM, THE OVERHEAD LINES LOOK REALLY CLOSE TO IT AND WITH THE ADDITION, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT NOT ISSUE.
WE'VE ALREADY MET WITH SENATOR.
DO ME A FAVOR AND STATE YOUR NAME.
CYNTHIA WALTON, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER AT GSD.
WE HAVE MET WITH CENTERPOINT FIVE TIMES
THEY'RE WELL AWARE OF THE PROJECT.
OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
YOU HAVE A, UH, RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL? DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION.
ITEM ONE 17 IS 4 59 FALSE LANE.
UH, STAFF JUST WANTS TO NOTE THAT THIS IS IN YOUR, UH, AGENDA AS A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL IS BEING CHANGED TO DEFER.
UH, THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT, SOUTH AND WEST OF MEMORIAL AND EAST OF BELTWAY EIGHT.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A CORNER SINGLE FAMILY LOT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR A SIDE FACING GARAGE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FEET.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL TO ALLOW TIME TO, FOR THE APPLICANT TO COORDINATE WITH THE, UH, HOA AND WE'VE RECEIVED, UH, ONE ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC OVER IMPACT ON UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF DEFERRAL.
MOTION POURS PER SECOND JONES.
ITEM ONE 18 IS, UH, 10,896 NORTHWEST FREEWAY.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG THE NORTHWEST FREEWAY NORTH OF MANGUM AND SOUTH OF ANTOINE.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW SEAFOOD RESTAURANT TO REPLACE THE ONE RECENTLY LOST BY FIRE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG THE TWO 90 FEEDER ROAD RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG THE NORTHBOUND TWO 90 FEEDER AT NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF KINGSWOOD STREET.
THE SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY HOME TO A RESTAURANT THAT WAS RECENTLY LOST IN A FIRE.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSED TO REBUILD THE STRUCTURE, MOSTLY MIMICKING THE PREVIOUS ONE, ALBEIT WITH A USED ENC NEW ENCLOSED AREA THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY COVERED.
SINCE THE RECONSTRUCTION DOES NOT FOLLOW THE EXACT BUILDING ENVELOPE, THE APPLICANT MUST BE GRANTED A VARIANCE TO RETAIN THE 10 FOOT SETBACK ALONG S TWO 90.
THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURE COMPLIED WITH THE 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG THE FEEDER ROAD AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.
HOWEVER, TEXT OUT ACQUIRED OVER 50 FEET OF THIS PROPERTY IN 2013 TO ACCOMMODATE WIDENING OF TWO 90.
THIS RESULTED IN A REDUCED SETBACK AFTER CONSTRUCTION.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE JUSTIFIED AS ALLOWING THE RESTAURANT TO REBUILD IN ITS LONGSTANDING LOCATION TO BE A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE TO STRICT INTERPRETATION.
AND WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT.
DID YOU WANNA MAKE A PRESENTATION OR JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS? WE'LL BE QUESTIONS.
YOU HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL? DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION HEINZ.
ONE SECOND WAS WHO? A BALLARD.
ALL RIGHT, NOW I NEED TO, YEP.
[II. Establish a public hearing date of December 18, 2025]
NUMERAL TWO.ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF DECEMBER 18TH, 2025 FOR THE FOLLOWING.
CATO PINES, GATEWAY VILLAS AND OAKVIEW PHARMA STATES.
ALL IN FAVOR OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
[III. Consideration of an Off-Street Parking Variance for 10555 Synott Road (Devin Crittle).]
RIGHT.MOVING ON TO ROMAN THREE OFF STREET PARKING WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS.
UH, ROMAN ROMAN NUMERAL THREE IS A PARKING VARIANCE FOR 1 0 5 5 5 SIDE KNOT ROAD.
UH, THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS WITHIN FORT BEND COUNTY.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS, EXCUSE ME.
THE APPLICANT IS, UH, IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING
[02:00:01]
A COMMERCIAL SITE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW 80 PARKING SPACES IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 109 PARKING SPACES.STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT RECENTLY RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING MULTIPLE STRUCTURES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.
THE DEVELOPER SHOWS TO REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IN ORDER TO ACCURATELY SATISFY THE DEVELOPMENT'S NEEDS.
THE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES THREE, THREE BUILDINGS, THE FIRST BUILDING BEING A BANQUET HALL, THE SECOND BEING A AUTO STORE, AND THIRD BEING A FOOD RETAIL STORE.
THE BANQUET HALL HAS THE GREATEST PARKING NEED OF 70 SPACES AND IS MOSTLY OCCUPIED BETWEEN FIVE AND NINE O'CLOCK.
THE FOOD RETAIL STORE REQUIRES 30 SPACES AND IS MOST OCCUPIED BETWEEN EIGHT AND FIVE.
AND THE AUTO STORE REQUIRES ROUGHLY EIGHT SPACES, MOSTLY OCCUPIED BETWEEN EIGHT O'CLOCK AND FIVE O'CLOCK.
USING THE SHARED PARKING METHOD, THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES IS REDUCED FROM 109 TO 97 SPACES.
CHAPTER 26 CALCULATIONS REPRESENT A GROSS AREA AND THE APPLICANT STATES IN THEIR VARIANCE REQUEST THAT THE FOOD RETAIL STORE, WHICH IS 5,400 SQUARE FEET, MAINLY CONTAINS FREEZERS AND COOLERS FOR FOOD STORAGE.
ONLY 1600 SQUARE FEET OF THE RETAIL SPACE IS ACTUALLY OCCUPIABLE.
THE FACT THAT THE THREE MAIN USES OF THIS PROPERTY HAVE PEAK DEMANDS AT DIFFERENT TIMES MAKES THE SHARED PARKING METHOD MORE COMPATIBLE AFTER THE BICYCLE REDUCTION OF 10%.
THE TOTAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE PARKING SPACES IS 87 AND THE DEVELOPMENT WILL PROVIDE 80 SPACES.
STAFF FINDS THAT THIS SMALL DEVIATION TO BE REASONABLE, RE EXCUSE ME, STAFF FINDS THAT THIS SMALL DEVIATION TO BE A REASONABLE REQUEST AND STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY OBJECTION FROM FORT BEND COUNTY.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY OUT THERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK.
SO COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A MOTION AND I MEAN A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION BALDWIN.
ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
MOVING ALONG TO ROMAN NUMER FOUR.
DO I HAVE ANYONE THAT MAKES, WANTS TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY.
HEARING NONE, I WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 4:45 PM THANK YOU EVERYONE.