[00:00:03]
GOOD AFTERNOON[CALL TO ORDER]
EVERYONE.MY NAME'S LISA CLARK AND I'M THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND I'M CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 2:32 PM ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4TH, 2025.
THIS IS AN IN-PERSON MEETING TAKING PLACE AT THE CITY HALL ANNEX AT 300 BAGBY.
YOU MAY ALSO MONITOR THE MEETING BY VIEWING VIA HTV SPEAKERS.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AN ITEM, PLEASE FILL OUT THE SPEAKER'S FORM BEFORE THE ITEM IS CALLED AND TURN IT INTO STAFF NEAR THE FRONT DOOR.
CONSENT AND REPEAT SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED ONE MINUTE.
NEW SPEAKERS ARE TIMED FOR TWO MINUTES.
LET'S SEE, WHAT DOES THAT SAY? OH, THE RULES, SPEAKER RULES ARE FOUND ON THE TOP PORTION OF THE SPEAKER 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.
NON APPLICANTS AND GENERAL SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED TWO MINUTES TIME.
THERE'S NOT AN OPTION FOR A REBUTTAL.
EVEN IF YOU DID NOT USE YOUR FULL TWO MINUTES, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO, YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK AGAIN, AND TIME CANNOT BE ALLOTTED TO ANOTHER SPEAKER.
UM, BEFORE I MOVE ON, I DID WANNA SAY I HOPE EVERYONE HAD A THANK, HAPPY THANKSGIVING AND WELCOME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO NOW TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM, I'M GONNA CALL THE, THE ROLE CHAIR, CLARK IS PRESENT.
OH, EXCUSE ME, I, I SKIPPED, EXCUSE ME.
COMMISSIONER NA NA NARANJO? NOT HERE.
I'M GETTING USED TO WHERE EVERYBODY'S SITTING.
UM, COMMISSIONER SHEPHERD PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER SEGLER IS ABSENT.
COMMISSIONER VICTOR IS NOT HERE AND COMMISSIONER MANKA IS NOT HERE.
AND OUR DIRECT, OUR SECRETARY VON TRAN TRAN PRESENT.
AND NOW I WILL MOVE ON TO, UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY WITHDRAWAL, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT TODAY.
AND NO CHANGES IN RECOMMENDATIONS.
[Director’s Report]
DIRECTOR'S REPORT.DID YOU NOTE COMMISSIONER NORAN HO? JUST OKAY.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR CLARK COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
I AM VON TRAN, SECRETARY OF THIS COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING, THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
I JUST HAVE A FEW UPDATES FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TODAY.
FIRST, I'M HAPPY TO SHARE THAT MS. ARVA HOWARD HAS RETURNED TO ASSIST US IN AS LEGAL LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MANY OF YOU MAY REMEMBER FROM HER PREVIOUS YEARS.
UH, SHE BRINGS A GREAT DEAL OF EXPERIENCE FROM HER TIME IN THE CITY, UH, CITY LEGALS DEPARTMENT, AND WE'RE GREAT GRATEFUL TO HAVE HER SUPPORT WHILE WE WORK TO FILL THE IN-HOUSE POSITION.
SECOND, JUST A QUICK REMINDER THAT OUR FINAL COMMISSION MEETING OF THIS YEAR WILL BE WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER THE 18TH.
WE APPRECIATE ALL YOUR TIME AND EFFORT THAT YOU'VE DEDICATED THIS YEAR, AND WE LOOK TO WRAPPING UP, UH, A 20, UH, A STRONG 2025.
AND FINALLY, WE LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU.
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS ALWAYS LOOKING FOR WAYS TO IMPROVE AND YOUR FEEDBACK IS INCREDIBLY VALUABLE TO US.
THERE IS A QR CODE ON THE SIGNUP TABLE.
IT LOOKS LIKE THIS, THAT LINKS TO A VERY, VERY SHORT SURVEY.
IT SHOULD TAKE ONLY TWO MINUTES TO COMPLETE IF YOU HAVE A MOMENT.
WE REALLY LOVE AND APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT.
SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT IN CLOSING THE PLANNING.
AND, UH, THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CAN BE REACHED AT EIGHT THREE TWO THREE NINE THREE SIX SIX ZERO.
OR YOU CAN CALL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNER OF THE DAY AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 6 2 4.
YOU MAY VISIT OUR WEBSITE AS WELL, HOUSTON PLANNING.COM.
[Consideration of November 13, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes]
UM, APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES.SO WE'RE GONNA GO BACK AND, UH, SEEK A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 13TH, 2025
[00:05:01]
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS.UH, SEE, I'M GOING DOING, GONNA SAY GARCIA GARZA.
[Items I & II]
GOING TO MOVE TO, UH, ROMAN NUMERAL ONE PRESENTATION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UH, MADAM STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE TOGETHER ONE NU ONE AND TWO.
SO BEFORE YOU TODAY FOR YOUR CONTINUATION IS THE 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE, AND THE MAY 3RD FREEWAY PLAN MEETINGS.
ALL MEETING ARE HELD HERE IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER.
CITY HALL ANNEX, BEGINNING AT 2:30 PM ON THURSDAY.
TYPICALLY FOLLOWING A BIWEEKLY UM, SCHEDULE.
THE THREE WEEK CYCLE OCCURRED AROUND THE CITY ADOPTED HOLIDAY SCHEDULE TOOK AS JULY 4TH, THANKSGIVING AND CHRISTMAS NEW YEAR.
THE SUBDIVISION PLOT SUBMITTAL PERIOD OPEN AT 6:00 AM ON FRIDAY, FOLLOWING COMMISSION MEETING AND CLOSED ON MONDAY AT 11:00 AM ON HOLIDAY, THE FALL ON MONDAYS THE SUBMITTAL PERIOD IS EXTENDED TO TUESDAY.
ALONG WITH THIS, YOU CAN ALSO FIND THE 2026 CHAPTER 26 SUBMITTAL DATE TO SUBMIT PARKING VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PARKING AREA APPLICATION.
THIS ADOPTED DATE WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER BEFORE JANUARY 1ST, 2026.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE AND THE 2026 CHAPTER 26 SUBMITTAL DATE CHAIR.
THIS CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, THE MIN, UH, MEETING DATES? MOTION.
AND THAT WAS, UM, MEETING DATES AND SUBMITTAL DATES.
AND I KNOW THAT YOU ALREADY PROBABLY CAUGHT HIM, BUT COMMISSIONER MANDE PAKA CAME IN.
[Platting Activities a & b]
GONNA MOVE ALONG TO PLANNING ACTIVITY SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT PLATS.MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SECTIONS A AND B ARE PRESENTED AS ONE GROUP, WHICH INCLUDES CONSENT AND REPL.
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION.
SECTIONS A AND B ARE ITEMS ONE THROUGH 85 SECTION A.
CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 46 AND SECTION B REPL ITEMS ARE NUMBERS 47 THROUGH 85.
IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO MOVE.
CONSENT ITEMS NUMBER 17, FAIRBANKS LANDING SECTION ONE TO BE WITH ITEM 98 FAIRBANKS LANDING.
GENERAL PLAN IN THE VARIANCE SECTION, THERE ARE NO OTHER ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MADAM CHAIR, IF THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS ASSIGNED TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSENT AND REPL ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION, SAVE AND ACCEPT ITEM 17.
UH, DO I HAVE ANY ABSTENTIONS? YES.
UH, COMMISSIONER PIERCE ABSTAINING FROM ITEMS NUMBER, UH, CUT YOUR MIC ON FOR ME, PLEASE.
UM, ABSTAINING FROM ITEMS 10, 11, AND 12.
ANYONE ELSE? UH, COMMISSIONER MODEST, 22, 23, AND 51 THROUGH 54.
MADAM CHAIR, I'M GONNA AB UH, COMMISSIONER HAYES ABSTAINING FROM ITEMS 2, 3 10 THROUGH 1651 THROUGH 54, 57, AND 58.
HERE SECTION A ITEMS 2, 3, 20, 21, 32, 33, 42, AND 45.
UH, SECTION B, UH, 51 THROUGH 54 AND 84.
OKAY, SO I'M GONNA TELL Y'ALL ALL RIGHT UP FRONT, I'M GONNA MESS THIS UP.
FIRST OF ALL, WE'RE GONNA TAKE ITEM 17 OUT AND THEN, UH, SAVE AND ACCEPT ITEMS 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 20 AND 21.
THE NEXT ONES ARE 32, 33, 44, 45, 51 THROUGH 54, 57, 84 AND 91.
[00:10:01]
58.WAIT, WHAT YOU HAVE? YOU HAVE? YEAH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? YES.
DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE? OKAY.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION BALDWIN.
SO NOW WE'RE VOTING ON ITEMS 2, 3 10 THROUGH FIFTH, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 33, 42, 44, 45, 51 THROUGH 54, 57, 58, 84, AND 91.
DO WE GET 'EM ALL? OH, THANK GOODNESS.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION, MOTION.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.
[c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Ken Calhoun, Dorianne Powe-Phlegm, and John Cedillo) (Part 1 of 2)]
C RELAS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH NOTIFICATION OCCASION.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS NORTH ALONG MADERA ROAD BETWEEN THORN AND TRUMPET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REPL, IT'S TO CREATE FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO RESERVES.
THERE ARE NO VARIANTS REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM, AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT WILL VIOLATE, UH, SEPARATELY FILED RESTRICTIONS.
SETH HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENTS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO SEND REVISED MATERIAL THAT MEET THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 86 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANY ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY.
I WILL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND IF COMMISSIONERS YOU DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, UH, MAKE A GET A MOTION FOR, UM, DEFERRAL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 87 IS COLONIAL HEIGHTS ANNEX.
THE SITE IS IN HOUSTON, EX EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN HARRIS COUNTY NORTH OF COLONIAL PARKWAY, WEST OF KATY FORD, BEN ROAD, AND EAST OF THE GRAND PARKWAY, HIGHWAY 99.
THE REASON FOR RELAID IS TO CREATE 61 LOTS AND FOUR RESERVES.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW LANDSCAPE RESERVES TO BE REPLA INTO LOTS.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS A RELA OF A LANDSCAPE RESERVE RESERVE H AND A PORTION OF A LANDSCAPE RESERVE RESERVE SEA THAT WAS CREATED WITH THE COLONIAL HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION IN 2024.
THE PROPERTY IS PART OF THE PARK WEST GREEN GENERAL PLAN AND IS STILL UNDER DEVELOPER'S CONTROL.
THE LOTS ARE IN SIMILAR SIZE OF THE ADJACENT SECTION AND WILL EXPAND SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND PROVIDE LANDSCAPE RESERVES THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY AND COMPENSATED OPEN SPACE RESERVE.
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS CONDUCIVE TO THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO SIGN A MUTUAL AGREEMENT TO TAKE ACCESS TO THE ADJACENT TYPE TWO PAE COLONIAL COMMONS DRIVE WITH THE COLONIAL HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION PRIOR TO RECORDATION HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE POSES NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS FILED SEPARATELY.
ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND PROVE THE PLA PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
THE STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
MS. POE FLYNN, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN FOR ITEM 87.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY.
HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LOOK.
MAY IF I ASK A QUESTION, DO WE, HOW MANY LOTS ARE IN SECTION ONE? IN SECTION ONE, RIGHT.
THIS IS SECTION TWO, UM, OR THE ADJACENT TRACK ANYWAY TO THE WEST.
THAT'S, THAT'S TIED INTO THIS COMMUNITY.
[00:15:01]
UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS 90 LOTS, BUT THEY ARE ACTUALLY REPLANTING TWO OF THE LOTS AWAY.SO, AND THE COMBINATION OF THE, OF THE, THE TWO SECTIONS IS ONLY WOULD BE 150 LOTS.
BUT I WILL SAY I GET THE, THE INTENT AND THE WAY CHAPTER 42 IS WRITTEN, BUT WITH THESE SMALL LOTS, 150 HOME SITES IN A VERY SMALL TRACK OF LAND, YOU KNOW, AND ONE, ONE ENTRANCE EXIT IS GONNA BE CHALLENGING FOR THOSE WHO LIVE THERE.
I RECOGNIZE IT FOLLOWS THE ORDINANCE, BUT I DON'T THINK THE INTENT WOULD BE SOMEWHERE IN THE 14 TO 15 UNITS TO THE ACRE.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SEEING HERE.
SO JUST, JUST TO COMMENT, YOU KNOW, GOING FORWARD, BUT I JUST RECOGNIZE THERE'S GONNA BE A CHALLENGE IN THE FUTURE WITHIN, UH, POINTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS.
AND, UH, AS ALWAYS, WE'LL MAKE THAT ON THE RECORD AND I SEE DIRECTOR TRAN VIGOROUSLY WRITING OVER HERE.
SO, UM, IN THE FUTURE, IF THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, CHANGES OR ADDITIONS TO CHAPTER 42, ALL OF THESE THINGS WILL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
OKAY, SO DO I HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? IF NOT, THEN I WILL SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
CORPORATE LIMITS WEST AT THE INTERSECTION OF, UH, BELL GREEN DRIVE.
UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, CHAIRS AND COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS JOHN PHILLIPS CILLO.
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 EDDEN STREET NORTH OF OLD SPANISH TRAIL AND EAST OF ALAMEDA ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND THERE ARE NO VARIS REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ON NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED MULTIPLE ADVANCED COMMENTS FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE A HOA AND THE SUBDIVISION STATING THE PROPOSED PLAT VIOLATES ACTIVE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THIS IS A PLT OF LOT 13 BLOCK THREE OF THE CENTRAL CITY SUBDIVISION.
THE PLAT WAS DEFERRED LAST CYCLE PER APPLICANT REQUEST TO FURTHER COORDINATE WITH LEGAL REVIEW BY LEGAL CURRENTLY INDICATES THAT THE PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE SEPARATELY FILED DEED RESTRICTIONS.
SITE RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MA'AM, CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
AS THIS WAS DEFERRED ON A THREE WEEK CYCLE, WE DO NOT HAVE THE OPTION TO DEFER IT AGAIN.
LET ME CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND I HAVE MY FIRST SPEAKER IS ALFONSO.
I THINK THAT'S CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'M SORRY, WERE YOU SAYING SOMETHING TO ME? CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING.
OH, DID I SAY CLOSE? I'M CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS ALFONSO PICO OR PILO.
AND, UH, I'VE BEEN A, I HAVE BEEN A PART OF THIS COMMUNITY FOR 25 YEARS.
I FEEL THAT, I FEEL THAT TO DIVIDE THIS LOT INTO TWO LOTS IS NOT A IDEAL, IS NOT.
WAIT, I FEEL THAT TO DIVIDE THIS, THIS LOT INTO TWO LOTS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA.
CENTRAL CITY IS BASED ON SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
GO AHEAD IF YOU HAVE MORE TO COMMENT ON.
WERE YOU DONE? WHAT'S THAT? ARE YOU DONE? YOU CAN SAY MORE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER, ISAY CHANDRA.
I KNOW I BUTCHERED THAT, SO PLEASE CORRECT ME.
I AM, I HAVE BEEN LIVING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? YES MA'AM.
I LIVE IN THE CENTRAL CITY SUBDIVISION FOR LAST 10 YEARS.
[00:20:01]
OUR SUBDIVISION RANGE FROM 7,000 SQUARE FEET TO MORE THAN 14,000 SQUARE FEET.REPLATING TO 3,783 AND 4,200 SQUARE FEET EACH, UH, REALLY DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE CO CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'LL BE DISPROPORTIONATE IN SIZE COMPARED TO OTHER PROPERTIES, AND IT'S ALSO A VIOLATION OF OUR JURISDICTIONS.
THERE USED TO BE A DUPLEX ON THIS LOT, WHICH WAS A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT WAS GRANDFATHERED.
AND NOW THAT THEY HAVE DEMOLISHED ACCORDING TO OUR DE JURISDICTION, ANY NON-CONFORMING LOT CANNOT BE SUBDIVIDED.
SO IT'S A VIOLATION OF OUR DE JURISDICTION AS WELL AS DISPROPORTIONATE IN SIZE COMPARED TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S WHY I'M OPPOSED TO REPL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING IN TODAY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS, I AM SORRY, I CAN'T READ IT.
IS THIS UM, GAAN, G-A-I-T-N? YES.
AND IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
I AM A RESIDENT OF CENTRAL CITY.
I LIVE IN 69 18 VAN ENS STREET.
I ALSO OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION AND ASK FOR YOU TO REJECT FOR YOUR VOTE TO REJECT.
UM, THE PRECEDENT OF OUR CIVIC ASSOCIATION IS HERE AND HE WILL SPEAK NEXT ABOUT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND WHY THESE ARE IN EFFECT.
AND THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THAT.
I WILL BE SPEAKING ABOUT THE, UH, LOT SIZE.
THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS 8,511 SQUARE FEET.
60% OF THE LOT SIZES IN CENTRAL CITY ARE MORE THAN 8,160 SQUARE FEET.
THIS LOT THAT IS DISCUSSED IS 88 75 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS AVERAGE RIGHT NEAR THE AVERAGE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I HAVE BROUGHT A MAP AND WITH INDIVIDUAL LOT SIZES FOR YOUR REVIEW TODAY.
DIVIDING THE LOT WOULD RESULT IN HALF OF THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE AND WILL CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT WILL SET A PRECEDENCE OF THE DIVIDING LOTS THROUGHOUT, UH, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY 31 VACANT LOTS AND IF WE ALLOW THIS APPLICATION TO GO THROUGH, IT'LL SETS THE PRECEDENCE.
IT WILL CERTAINLY NOT ONLY AFFECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT ALSO EXACERBATE THE STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM THAT IS ALREADY DEFICIENT.
I HAVE BROUGHT THESE PICTURES OF FLOODING, WHICH WE ARE CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING.
EVERY TIME IT IT RAINS, HE'S HAND THOSE TO STAFF BESIDE YOU.
THEY CAN PUT 'EM UP ON THE SCREEN DOCUMENT CAMERA.
AND, UM, THESE PICTURES ARE WHAT WE EXPERIENCE WHEN THERE'S A MEDIUM RAIN.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING WITH CITY COUNCILWOMAN ALSO WHO IS HELPING IN ADDRESSING THIS.
BUT THIS OVERDEVELOPMENT WILL EXACERBATE THIS, UH, SITUATION.
AND FOR THIS, I ASK YOU TO VOTE TO REJECT THIS APPLICATION.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DANIEL GOLDBERG.
SO, UM, I'M THE PRESIDENT AND ALSO THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
I VOLUNTEERED FOR NEITHER AND I GET PAID FOR NEITHER.
UM, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS HAD THESE IDENTICAL LOT SIZES SINCE 1939.
IN 2022, WE HIRED WILSON CRIBS, WHICH IS THE LAW FIRM, WHICH HAS ADVISED THE CITY OF HOUSTON ON HOW NEIGHBORHOODS, OLD NEIGHBORHOODS WITH OLD DEED RESTRICTIONS, WITH ALL SORTS OF BAD TERMS THAT PEOPLE DON'T WANT ANYMORE, OR TERMS THAT HAVE LONG EXPIRED, HOW THEY CAN REVIVE IT.
THIS LAW FIRM'S MATERIAL IS ON THE CITY OF HOUSTON'S OWN WEBSITE.
I HIRED THIS LAW FIRM SO THAT WE COULD GET THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS REENACTED THE PROPER WAY.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DID.
WE SENT OUT A NOTICE OF OUR INTENT TO START UP THIS, UH, THIS COMMISSION, SORRY, THE COMMITTEE TO GET NEW DEED RESTRICTIONS.
AFTER SUFFICIENT PERIOD OF TIME AND PUBLIC NOTICE TO INCLUDE ALSO MAILINGS TO EVERYONE AND THEN SOME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE THEN GATHERED SIGNATURES.
WE COUNTED UP THE SIGNATURES IN A SPECIFIC WAY PERMITTED BY THE LEGISLATOR.
THIS IS TEXAS PROPERTY CODE 2 0 1 0.006 B TWO.
THIS IS A COUNT OF PROPERTIES THAT
[00:25:01]
SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS FOR A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF THE SEPARATELY OWNED PARCELS, SEPARATELY OWNED PARCELS.AND THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS COUNT, AS OPPOSED TO OPTION A, WHICH IS JUST TO DO A VOTE PER PARCEL OR OPTION C, WHICH IS TO DO BY SQUARE FOOTAGE, WAS TO NEGATE THE, AND JUST WRAP IT UP REAL QUICK.
WE SEND OUT THE NOTICES IN PROPER TIME.
WE GOT THE SIMPLE MAJORITY OUT OF THE 66 REQUIRED VOTES.
WE GOT 35 BEFORE WE THEN SUBMITTED THE NOTICE, THE ACTUAL PETITION TO FILE THIS, UM, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS A YEAR LAPSE DURING WHICH ANYONE COULD HAVE ASKED FOR AN EXCLUSION.
NOT ONE SINGLE EXCLUSION WAS FILED OTHER THAN BY THE TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER, WHICH OWNS A STRING OF PROPERTIES.
THEY FILED ONE SINGLE AFFIDAVIT FOR THEIR ONE SINGLE EXCLUSION, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A STRING OF PROPERTIES BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD IT'S A VOTE PER SEPARATELY OWNED PARCELS OF LAND.
THIS PROPERTY OWNER MISSED HIS OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO, AND NOW HE WANTS TO REPL THE DEED RESTRICTIONS DO NOT PERMIT IT.
THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT.
AND WE ARE VERY MUCH BEGGING THIS COMMISSION TO NOT ALTER THE FACE OF THIS ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD IN A WAY THAT CREATES WHAT WILL HAVE TO BE TOWN HOMES.
BECAUSE ON A PROPERTY AS SMALL AS WHAT THIS GUY IS PROPOSING, A NORMAL SIZED HOME JUST WON'T BE ABLE TO TO FIT.
WE WORKED REAL HARD, WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY, WE SPENT A TON OF TIME AND WE GOT A MAJORITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO WANT THESE NEW DEED RESTRICTIONS GRANTING THIS RE PLATING.
WE'LL DO AWAY WITH ALL OF THAT AND WE'LL OPEN UP THE FLOOD GATES TO OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT ARE WAITING, CHOMPING ON THE BIT IN ORDER TO REDEVELOP THE, THEIR PROPERTIES THAT THEY OWN IN WAYS THAT ARE NOT WHAT WE ALL KNOW AND LOVE AND WHY WE ALL LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
SINGLE FAMILY HOME RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? YES.
IS THERE SOMEONE WITH WILSON REED RECENTLY YOUR MICROPHONE ON? SAY, HAVE YOU VISITED WITH YOUR, I MEAN I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH WILSON REED.
HAVE YOU VISITED WITH THEM IN THE LAST WEEK OR TWO SINCE THE CITY'S WEIGHED IN THAT MAYBE THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT VALID? SO, UM, GOING INTO THIS HEARING AS OF YESTERDAY MORNING, WE'RE FEELING QUITE CERTAIN AND CONFIDENT IN OUR LEGAL POSITION.
IT WAS ONLY YESTERDAY AFTERNOON WHEN SOMEONE SPOKE WITH JOHN CILLO THAT WE LEARNED THAT, UH, THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT MIGHT BE HAVING SOME DOUBTS.
SO YESTERDAY AFTERNOON I SCRAMBLED, I CALLED UP BOTH THE NAME PARTNER THAT WE HAD HIRED TONY MARR AND ALSO THE ASSOCIATE SAMUEL BASKIN TO SPEAK WITH HIM.
TONY'S HAIR WAS ON FIRE BECAUSE HE HAD HIS OWN DEADLINES GOING ON.
SAMUEL BASKIN IS OFF TRAVELING IN UTAH, SO NEITHER ONE OF US COULD SPEAK.
NEITHER ONE OF THEM COULD SPEAK WITH US.
I WAS CONFIDENT IN MYSELF BECAUSE I LITIGATE PROPERTY LAW ALL THE TIME.
BUT I STILL HIRE THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET IT RIGHT.
AND WE CHOSE OPTION TWO BASED UPON THEIR ADVICE, KNOWING THAT THE COUNT WOULD THEN TILT IN OUR FAVOR IF WE DON'T ALLOW THOSE THAT OWN MULTIPLE PROPERTIES, WHICH ARE ALMOST I I'LL RETRACT THAT.
MULTIPLE OF WHICH ARE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS THAT WANNA ALTER THE LAND.
SO WE CHOSE THIS ROUTE, WHICH IS OPTION B, TO NEGATE THE POWER THAT SOMEONE THAT OWNS MULTIPLE PROPERTIES WOULD HAVE OVER SOMEONE LIKE MR. PICO THAT OWNS ONE SINGLE PROPERTY.
YOU HAVE NOT VISITED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY.
UM, I HAVE INDEED VISITED WITH A CITY ATTORNEY.
I SCRAMBLED THIS MORNING AFTER A COURT HEARING TO SEND OUT MY POSITION VIA LETTER TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
AND I GOT THAT LETTER OUT AROUND 12:30 PM WHERE I JUST TRIED TO WALK THEM THROUGH AND I HAVEN'T, UM, HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH THEM.
I WOULD'VE DONE ALL THIS SOONER.
I I PROMISED Y'ALL HAD I KNOWN THAT THERE WOULD BE THIS SORT OF OPPOSITION.
BUT JUST TO LAY OUT, HERE'S THE TIMELINE.
THEY HAVE ALL BEEN PROPERLY FILE STAMPED, THEY'RE ALL RECORDED WITH, WITH THE COUNTY.
UM, HERE ARE THE PUBLIC NOTICES AND HERE IS SPECIFICALLY THE CERTIFIED MAIL THAT WENT TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
THE TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER WAS THE ONLY ONE TO, UH, TO FOLLOW THE EXCLUSION.
PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS, BUT I HADN'T HEARD YET.
UH, BACK FROM THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER JONES.
UH, HAS THE ASSOCIATION SENT THIS PROPERTY OWNER YOUR FIRM POSITION? AND IF SO, HAS THE APPLICANT REPLIED TO THAT POSITION? NO, SIR, WE HAVE NOT.
UM, WE HAD ATTEMPTED TO COMMUNICATE IN A PREVIOUS ROUND OF REPLYING.
THE SAME DEVELOPER CAME BEFORE Y'ALL A COUPLE YEARS
[00:30:01]
AGO TRYING TO BUILD AN APARTMENT BUILDING ON THIS, UH, THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.SO HE WAS ASKING FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST AT THE SAME TIME.
AND I WILL NOTE HE PLAYED THE SAME IDENTICAL GAMES WHEN ALL OF US TOOK TIME OUT OF OUR CALENDARS TO WRITE OPPOSITION LETTERS TO SCHEDULE TIME FOR US TO COME ON OVER HERE.
HE, AT THE LAST MINUTE PULLED THE AGENDA ITEM FROM THE HEARING ONLY TO RESCHEDULE IT.
WE ALL, UM, VOICE OUR OPPOSITION.
I TRY TO GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM AT THE TIME, NO RESPONSE.
AND THEN AGAIN, RIGHT BEFORE THE HEARING, RESCHEDULED IT BEFORE THEN PULLING IT COMPLETELY SO THAT Y'ALL DON'T DENY IT.
FAST FORWARD A YEAR AND A HALF YEAR TWO OR SO, AND WE'RE HERE AGAIN WITH A NEW GAME PLAN FOR REPL RATHER THAN APARTMENT BUILDING.
WE HAD A HEARING, I THINK NOVEMBER 13TH.
WE ALL SCHEDULED TIME OFF FROM OUR CALENDARS.
WE ALL SUBMITTED, UM, THE, THE OBJECTIONS WHICH Y'ALL RECEIVED.
AND THEN AT THE LAST MINUTE, HE PULLS IT FROM THE AGENDA ITEM TO PUT IT ON THIS AGENDA ITEM.
UM, THE SAME INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPER WHO DOES NOT LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL NOT BE IMPACTED BY, BY THE, BY WHAT HE'S DOING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE PREVIOUS ROUND, PLAYED THESE GAMES WHERE HE DIDN'T PUT UP A BOARD AT ALL.
THAT WAS ONE OF OUR OBJECTIONS, WHICH CAUSED HIM TO PUT IT ON THE NEXT, THAT HEARING DATE.
AND THEN THIS ROUND, HE DIDN'T PUT UP HIS, UM, THE POSTER IN TIME BEFORE THE NOVEMBER 13TH ONE.
WE OBJECTED TO IT, IT WAS ONE OF OUR GROUNDS.
HE PUT IT UP A COUPLE DAYS BEFORE AND THEN IT WAS ONLY A WEEK AND A HALF AGO OR SO THAT HE GOES UP AND I HAVE A PHOTO OF THIS, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN GET IT UP ON HERE.
HE TAPES A SMALL STRIP OF PAPER THAT SAYS DECEMBER FOUR ON THIS GIANT BOARD.
SO MOST OF US DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT HE WAS CHANGING IT FROM ONE DATE TO ANOTHER.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS PURPOSEFUL AND COMPLETELY FITS WITHIN THIS PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR OF WHAT HE'S DOING AND HOW HE'S TREATING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AGAIN, ONE HE DOES NOT LIVE IN AND HAS NO PLANS ON LIVING IN.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO PERFECT TIMING.
COME ON UP AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
I AM A RESIDENT OF CENTRAL CITY SUBDIVISION IN HOUSTON, TEXAS.
AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF OUR RESIDENTS.
I APOLOGIZE FOR, UH, APPEARING LATE AT THE THAT'S FINE.
I'VE BEEN, YOU, YOU'RE LIKE, YOU'RE RIGHT ON TIME.
I'VE BEEN TRYING TO PARK LITERALLY FOR THE LAST 15, 20 MINUTES, SO MY APOLOGIES.
UM, HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE? JUST TWO MINUTES.
AND I DON'T PLAN TO TAKE ALL OF IT.
SO I AM HERE AS A RESIDENT OF CENTRAL CITY.
I'M GONNA GRAB THESE FOR YOU, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
UM, TO OPPOSE THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S A WILLFUL ENCROACHMENT OF DEVELOPERS FOR ECONOMIC GAIN.
AND IT'S A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF RD RESTRICTIONS.
UH, THE CITY ALLOWS, IF THE CITY ALLOWS ITS VARIANCE, WE CAN REASONABLY EXPECT DOWN HOMES TO POP UP ON EACH OF THE 12 TO 13 VACANT LOTS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO MY HOUSE, WHICH MY FAMILY BUILT IN 2009, YOU KNOW, LARGE, BEAUTIFUL HOME AND WHERE WE'VE RESIDED SINCE THEN HAS AN EMPTY LOT RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
AND IF YOU ALLOW THIS VARIANCE TO CONTINUE, THEN THAT LOT IS UP FOR GRABS FOR THE NEXT DEVELOPER.
OF COURSE, I HAVE NOT HAD THE CONTEXT OF, UH, MY NEIGHBOR DANNY'S ARGUMENT SO I CAN KIND OF BUILD ON THEM.
BUT WE STRONGLY BELIEVE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE AND WE WERE AWARE THERE WERE SOME KIND OF ISSUES WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THAT'S WHY WE WORKED ON THEM IN, UM, COORDINATION WITH OUR COUNCIL.
AND THEN WE RECORDED NEW DEED RESTRICTIONS IN 2022.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS HAD A, UH, RECORD OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
GO AHEAD AND YOU CAN FINISH UP.
I WOULD SAY THAT THIS DEFIES A LOT OF PRECEDENT.
UH, IN 2005, THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE WROTE AN ARTICLE REGARDING THE, UH, POSSIBLY ENCROACHMENT OF THEN TMC, UM, ON THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
AND AFTER A LOT OF DISCUSSION, THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WAS PASSED IN NOVEMBER OF 2009, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OUR RESIDENTS SAID THERE WERE DEED RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE THAT EACH DEVELOPER, INCLUDING TMC SHOULD RESPECT.
AND, UH, UH, THEN GOVERNOR PERRY SIGNED, UH, A BILL, I BELIEVE IT WAS, UH, SENATE BILL SEVEN, IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN, IN
[00:35:01]
2006 AS A RESPONSE TO THE ENCROACHMENT AND THE, UM, SORT OF PROCESS OF TRYING TO SAY THAT THIS COMMUNITY IS THAT NEED RESTRICTION RESTRICTED.I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE YOUR, UM, CONSIDERING OF ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE SO FAR, AND APPRECIATE YOU LETTING ME SPEAK.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING IN AND SHARING YOUR COMMENTS.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE TO SIGN TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO, OKAY.
MR. SIA, WOULD YOU RESTATE WHAT, WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS? UH, THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCPC 1 0 1.
CURRENT CONDITIONS, AS PER LEGAL REVIEW, INDICATES THAT THE PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATELY FILED DEED RESTRICTIONS.
UM, I, I'M GONNA LET LEGAL SPEAK MS. MS. HOWARD.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT APPROVAL FOR THIS.
THE FIRST IS BECAUSE OF THE NOTICE.
UM, THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT A LITTLE STRIP OF PAPER WAS PUT OVER AN OLD SIGN SAYING DECEMBER 4TH, AND THAT MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO SATISFY THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE ORDINANCE.
I AM LOOKING AT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE, BUT IT APPEARS TO BE CONSENSUS THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE TOWNHOUSES AND THE RESTRICTIONS THAT I'M READING RIGHT NOW, UH, EXCLUDE TOWNHOUSES AND CONDOS, THINGS WITH COMMON WALLS AS BEING OUTSIDE OF BEING A SINGLE FAMILY RE UM, USE.
BUT WHAT CONCERNS ME THE MOST IS THE FACT THAT THERE'S A JUDGMENT PENDING.
THEY WENT TO COURT AND, UM, THIS MORNING AND TO TAKE ACTION WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT A JUDGE WILL RULE.
I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE WISE.
SO YEAH, THAT'S, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE WISE ADVICE.
YES, I SAW COMMISSIONER GAR GARZA YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING? DIRECTOR TRAN? SURE.
UM, IF I MAY, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, UM, OUR, UH, ATTORNEY JUST REALLY IS SPEAKING ABOUT NEW INFORMATION YES.
UH, SO WE DID NOT HAVE THIS INFORMATION PRIOR TO OUR RECOMMENDATION.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR TO THE AUDIENCE AND EVERYONE ON THIS COMMISSION.
I MEAN, I'M, I'M LISTENING NOW.
SO BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WAS THERE PRIOR, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A VALID RECOMMENDATION, BUT WITH A JUDGMENT PENDING AND NOTICE BEING AN ISSUE, I JUST DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATION TODAY.
I'LL ALSO ADD THAT THE SUBDIVISION IS CREATING LOTS THAT ARE, UH, LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM LOSS SIZE OF 3,500 SQUARE FEET.
WE WOULD SUGGEST CALLING ON THE APPLICANT TO CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S AN INTENTION TO DO TOWN HOMES AS INTERPRETED OR IF IT CAN, BECAUSE IT COULD ALSO BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
BUT WE JUST WANNA GET THAT CONFIRMATION FROM THE APPLICANT.
COMMISSIONER SERAN, LOTS OF QUESTIONS.
YEAH, THAT WAS JUST MY NEXT QUESTION.
IN REGARDS TO THE DATE RESTRICTION, IS THERE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE SPECIFIED IN IT OR IS IT JUST TOWN HOMES VERSUS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES? MAY I? NO, SIR.
I AM, UNFORTUNATELY, WE WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO LEGAL TO MAKE THAT INTERPRETATION FROM MY RE REVIEW.
I DON'T SEE A MINIMUM MOD SIZE.
I DO SEE USE RESTRICTIONS AND DEFINITIONS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS ALL THE RESTRICTIONS THAT I HAVE AVAILABLE.
UH, MR. SADO, UM, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTION RIGHT HERE WITH REGARD TO DEED RESTRICTIONS.
CAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PUT A MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN PLACE WHILE ALL THIS IS BEING DEBATED? DEED RESTRICTIONS WISE? DEED RESTRICTION WISE, I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE ON THERE.
'CAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD, I MEAN, THEY WOULD BE COUNTER TO ONE ANOTHER IS MY POINT.
IF THEY PUT MINIMUM LOT SIZE ORDINANCE IN PLACE, SO SPECIAL, THEY COULD PROVIDE IT.
HOWEVER, AS THIS IS AN ACTIVE APPLICATION, THIS WOULD PREDATE THE APPLICATION OF THE SPECIAL LOT SIZE.
THAT WOULD NOT RESTRICTIONS APPLICATION.
THEY COULD MAKE AN APPLICATION WHICH WOULD PUT A HALT ON ANYTHING NEW COMING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THOSE OTHER 18 LOTS.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE, MR. SAD, I WANT TO VERIFY.
ARE YOU THE APPLICANT? ARE YOU THE APPLICANT? CE THE OWNER? OH, WE CAN.
SO MR. SILLA, MAYBE GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE NEED TO HELP ME.
UM, SO SINCE THIS HAS BEEN DEFERRED TWICE, THE ONLY THING WE CAN DO TODAY WOULD BE WE WOULD TAKE ACTION.
WE COULD LOOK AT, WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTION.
WE COULD END UP DENYING IT, OR AS THE APPLICANT, YOU COULD ASK FOR AN EXTENSION, A 30 DAY EXTENSION.
HAVE YOU DONE THAT? UH, WE ALREADY EXTENDED IT.
IT WAS NOVEMBER, UH, 13 AND THEN WE EXTENDED.
[00:40:01]
WAS A DEFERRAL.YEAH, BUT YOU ONLY GET TWO DEFERRALS.
AND AFTER YOU FINISH TWO DEFERRALS, THEN THEY HA THEY COMMISSION HAS TO TAKE ACTION AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW.
THEY'LL PROBABLY HAVE TO DENY IT BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY QUESTIONS GOING AROUND.
WHAT I'M ASKING YOU IS YOUR ONLY OTHER OPTION IS A 30 DAY EXTENSION.
NO, WELL EXTEND IT, BUT WE, WE PROVIDE ALL THE INFORMATION, ALL THE RESTRIC, THERE'S NO DEED RESTRICTION.
WE, WE PROVIDE ALL THE INFORMATION.
SO I I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT OUR LEGAL, WHO IS, WHO REPRESENTS US IS, UM, SEEING SOME QUESTIONABLE INFORMATION.
AND SO AS IT STANDS TODAY, SHE'S NOT AGREEING THAT THERE ARE NO DEED RESTRICTIONS, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT JUDGMENT THAT WE CAN DO THIS AFTER.
DO YOU WANT TO REQUEST A 30 DAY EXTENSION? YEAH, WE'LL REQUEST FOR EXTENSION.
YOU NEED TO DO IT IN WRITING BEFORE WE TAKE A, A MOTION.
I, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER, WHO ARE WE SPEAKING WITH? DID YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF? UM, KAREEM DHI.
AND YOU'RE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? YES, HE'S THE OWNER.
OKAY, SO OTHER QUESTIONS WHILE WE WAIT.
CAN, CAN WE GET CLARIFICATION ON THE RULES REGARDING THE NOTICE AND THE TAPING OF SOMETHING ONE INCH WIDE? HE'D HAVE TO REDO IT.
YEAH, YOU'D HAVE TO REDO IT, RIGHT? YEAH, IT DID.
IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE NOTICE, IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE NOTICE.
THE, UH, THE TEXT DOES IN MY OPINION AND IN, I THINK IN LEGALS THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT IT IS LEGIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.
THIS IS KIND OF UP INTO INTERPRETATION.
THE PICTURE OF COURSE HERE IS, UH, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE SLIDE.
SO IT KINDA HARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT IT IS.
OF COURSE THE REST OF IT IS CERTAINLY, I BELIEVE THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED LEGIBLE.
BUT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO CHALLENGE THAT, THAT'S MORE OF A SUBJECTIVE ASPECT FOR SOMEONE LIKE ME, IT WOULD NEVER BE LEGIBLE.
SO WE COULD DENY IT BASED ON THAT FACT.
OR IF HE'S ASKING FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION, WE COULD GRANT THAT ALSO.
THAT GIVES ME TIME TO REDO NOTIFICATION AND, YES.
SO, MADAM CHAIR, COMMISSIONER CAR, 'CAUSE WE'RE UP IN THE AIR, UH, MOMENTARILY.
DO WE WANT TO POST, MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT ONE.
ACTING ON THIS ITEM FOR MM-HMM
DOES THE COMMISSION AGREE? YEAH, I THINK CONSENSUS IS GOOD.
OKAY, SO WE'LL MOVE ALONG TO 89.
THE SITE IS THE HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS WEST AT THE INTERSECTION OF BELL GREEN DRIVE AND AUTHUR STREET EAST OF GRAND BRI GREENBRIER AVENUE.
THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE ONE LOT REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT.
ARE THOSE FILED SEPARATELY? STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM.
THERE ARE NO BEARING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 89 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
DID I HAVE A SPEAKER? YES, I DID.
UM, MS. OWENS, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK OR JUST QUESTIONS? MADAM AVAILABLE.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. OWENS? OKAY.
CORPORATE LIMITS THE SITE, I MEAN SOUTH, I'M SORRY, ALONG EAST 43RD STREET, EAST OF OXFORD AND, AND MAIN AND MAIN STREETS.
THE REASON FOR REPLANT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND INCREASE THE DENSITY FROM TWO DWELLING UNITS TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS.
THE PLAT WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION AWAITING LEGAL REVIEW.
LEGAL HAS REVIEWED THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND HAS INDICATED THAT THIS PLAT WILL VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS FILED SEPARATELY.
THE RECOMMENDATION STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DISAPPROVE.
THE PLAT STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCE COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
MADAM CHAIR, IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 90 HAS CONTINUED.
[00:45:01]
APPLICANT WHO'S HERE TO SPEAK.IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REQUEST A 30 DAY EXTENSION FOR THE PLAT.
HAVE YOU DONE THAT IN WRITING? NOT YET.
SIR, DO, WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH IN THIS 30 DAYS? DO YOU HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD IMPLY THAT THIS LEGAL DEPARTMENT WAS NOT CORRECT? BECAUSE WE DON'T WANNA WASTE ANYONE'S TIME.
UM, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO UNDO DEED RESTRICTIONS.
UM, HE SENT ME HERE WITH, UH, A FEW MINUTES OF TIME TO SHOW UP.
UH, SO JUST GRASPING ITS STRAWS YEAH.
I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE ONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO? ALL RIGHT, SO I AM GOING TO, SO MADAM CHAIR? YES.
SO WE'RE GONNA BE VOTING ON THE EXTENSION OF THE 30 DAY VERSUS A DISAPPROVAL, CORRECT? YES.
SO THERE'S THE MOTION IS NOT I'LL MOVE TO DISAPPROVE.
I SEE NO REASON TO EXTEND WHEN THERE, THERE'S NO VALID REASON TO EXTEND WHEN OUR LEGAL IS WEIGHED IN AND THE OWNER HIMSELF DIDN'T HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL TO COME HIMSELF.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE THE 30 DAY EXTENSION AND THE APPLICATION.
AND THE SECOND WAS BY MODEST COMMISSIONER.
ITEM 91 IS RIVERWOOD ON EAST TC JESTER BOULEVARD, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE.
THE SITE IS IN HOUSTON, CORPORATE LIMITS NORTH OF EAST TC JESTER BOULEVARD AND WEST OF WEST 14TH STREET.
THE REASON FOR RELA IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A LOT TO TAKE VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM A 30 FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT IN LIEU OF PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE OWNERSHIP AND LOCATION OF THE ACCESS EASEMENT REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT, UH, DOES NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED, I'M SORRY, STAFF HAS RECEIVED ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
UM, THE QUESTIONS AND THE COMMENTS WERE CONCERNING ABOUT THE, UH, THE SMALL LOT THAT, UH, THAT'S BEING THE ADDITIONAL SMALL LOT THAT IS BEING CREATED.
SO THEY'RE OPPOSED TO THE SIZE OF THE NEW LOT THAT THAT'S BEING CREATED.
UM, STAFF HAS NOT STAFF HAS RECEIVED THE ADVANCED COMMENTS.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
MADAM CHAIR PLEASES THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN FOR ITEM 91.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY.
I WILL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND I BELIEVE BEFORE WE VOTE, I HAVE AN ABSTENTION COMMISSIONER CARROLL.
SO SHE'S GONNA ABSTAIN FROM THIS ITEM.
SO WE HAVE, UM, UM, A RECOMMEND WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION? BOTH.
ITEM 92 IS ROCKTON CITY HOMES.
THE ITEM WAS DEFERRED LAST CYCLE TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO COORDINATE WITH LEGAL.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS SOUTH OF ALONG ROCKTON ROAD BETWEEN MORNINGSIDE AND GREENBRIAR DRIVE.
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 REQUIREMENT.
REQUIREMENTS REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STEPH HAS, STEPH HAS RECEIVED A HANDFUL OF COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MEMBERS OF THE HOA STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
I HAVE, LET'S SEE, TWO OR THREE SPEAKERS.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS VICTOR LUS.
AND I SEE THERE'S TWO NAMES ON HERE.
ONLY ONE PERSON CAN SPEAK AT A TIME.
WHICH ONE WANTS TO GO FIRST? MAY I GO AFTER THE POA AFTER? WHO'S THE POE? OUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
WELL, WHO IS THAT? WHO ARE YOU? YEAH, WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT IS
[00:50:01]
RAY FRIERSON? OKAY.STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
I AM A, UH, I'M A RESIDENT OF SOUTH HAMPTON EXTENSION.
I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT FOR THE OVER 40 YEARS.
THE, UH, I'M ALSO ON THE BOARD OF, OF THE POA AS A, AS A BOARD MEMBER OF THE SOUTHAMPTON EXTENSION, POAI URGE THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION TO DELAY FOR THREE MONTHS, ANY RULING ON THE REPLANTING REQUEST BY THE OWNERS OF 2337 ROCKTON TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE COMPLETION OF ONGOING POA ACTIONS WITH THE CITY.
IN 2004, THE CIVIC CLUB CHANGED ITS STRUCTURE TO POA WITH WIDESPREAD COMMUNITY SUPPORT.
THE POA ADMITTED ITS DEED RESTRICTIONS IN 2019.
SOME OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO 2337 ROCKTON ARE MINIMUM SIDE EASEMENT OF FIVE FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
MINIMUM FRONT AND BACK SETBACKS 25 FEET AND THREE FEET RESPECTIVELY.
MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT OF 38 FEET.
THE CITY HAS ENFORCED POA DEED RESTRICTIONS SINCE THE POA FORMATION IN 2004.
SHOULD THE COMMISSION EVENTUALLY APPROVE THE REQUESTED REPL OF THE 50 FOOT WIDE 6,000 FOOT LOT, EACH RESULTING PROPERTY WOULD HAVE A BUILDABLE WIDTH OF ONLY 15 FEET.
THE POA ASKS THAT THE COMMISSION MAKE CLEAR IN ANY RULING THAT EACH SUCH RE PLATTED PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO DEED RESTRICTION ENFORCEMENT.
THE POA INTENDS TO USE ALL LEGAL REMEDIES TO ACHIEVE ENFORCEMENT.
A COMPLIANCE STRUCTURE LIKELY WOULD DEGRADE NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTY VALUES.
ROCKTON AND SURROUNDING RESIDENTS ARE HERE TODAY ENFORCED TO PROTEST THE IMPACT OF THIS REPL ON THEIR PROPERTY VALUES.
THE POA HAS ALSO PURSUED SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE BLOCK.
I NEED YOU TO WRAP UP PRETTY QUICKLY.
SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE BLOCK DESIGNATIONS FROM THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.
TO DATE, FIVE OF ITS EIGHT STREETS HAVE BEEN SO DESIGNATED.
THE POA IS IN THE PROCESS OF SEEKING CITY APPROVAL FOR ITS REMAINING STREETS, INCLUDING ROCKTON.
SUCH DESIGNATION WILL PRECLUDE THE REPL REQUESTED HERE BY 2337 ROCKTON.
ANY QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER MAREZ.
SO HAVE Y'ALL SUBMITTED IN THE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL MINIMUM SIZE ON THIS, UH, BLOCK FACE YET? OR ARE YOU JUST IN THE, I GUESS GETTING IT STARTED ON YOUR END? UM, WE'RE JUST PROTESTING IT FROM OUR END.
ON THE APPLICATION ITSELF, YOU SAID YOU'RE IN THE PROCESS OF APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING THE STREET THAT HAD THE UH, RIGHT.
WE, UH, FIVE OF THE, FIVE OF THE EIGHT STREETS HAVE ALREADY DONE THE DESIGNATION.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE? CORRECT.
FIVE OF THE EIGHT STREETS THAT'S BEEN DONE.
WE'RE JUST HAVE THREE, THREE MORE TOGETHER.
WAS OXTON ONE OF THEM? THAT'S WHAT SHE'S ASKING.
I I GUESS I'M ASKING WHAT, WHAT'S THE STATUS OF OXTON RIGHT IN PROCESS? HAS IT BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY? HAD IT BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY? UH, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, NO.
IF IT HAD IT, I THINK IT WOULD'VE IMPACTED THIS CASE, BUT IF IT HADN'T, UNFORTUNATELY, MAY NOT.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, CAN WE GET LEGAL TO WEIGH IN ON THESE SIDE SETBACKS AND THE FRONT SETBACK? 'CAUSE YES.
MS. HOWARD, ARE YOU READY TO WEIGH IN? OKAY.
I'LL TAKE THE NEXT SPEAKER, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
SO ARE YOU THE NEXT SPEAKER? YES, I, THE NAME IS MICHAEL MASSEY.
I AM ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE POA FOR SOUTHAMPTON EXTENSION OUTTA ORDER.
I'M GONNA SAVE THE, UH, COMMISSION A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, BUT RELY ON WHAT, UH, RAY JUST READ TO YOU.
BUT I WANNA MAKE ONE THING CLEAR.
UM, IF YOU MAKE A PRE MATURE APPROVAL OF THIS, UH, SUBDIVISION OF THIS PROPERTY AT THE, AT THE MOMENT, NO PROPERTY ON ROCKTON IS LESS THAN 6,000 SQUARE FEET, AND SOME OF THEM ARE LARGER THAN THAT.
AS WE GO THROUGH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE APPLICATION, WHICH I GUARANTEE YOU BASED ON THE, THE LEVEL OF COMMITMENT THAT WE'RE GETTING FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, WE WILL BE FACING THE CALCULATION OF EXACTLY WHAT MINIMUM LOT SIZE SHALL BE FOR THAT STREET.
PUTTING TWO 3000 FOOT PROPERTIES SUDDENLY IN THE MIX IS GONNA GREATLY DOWNGRADE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE THAT
[00:55:01]
THEY'LL BE ABLE TO ACCEPT FROM THE CITY.UH, THAT'S CLEARLY GONNA HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE, ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS OVER A HUNDRED YEARS OLD.
IT REMINDS ME OF THE DISCUSSIONS YOU'VE BEEN LISTENING TO FOR A NUMBER OF THESE DISCUSSIONS.
UH, THE, THE DEVELOPER IS A CALIFORNIA DEVELOPER, HAS NO IDEA WHAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS.
ALL WE'RE ASKING IS THAT YOU WAIT LONG ENOUGH TO SEE WHETHER THERE IS CONSENSUS, WHICH I'M QUITE SURE THERE IS.
YOU'LL HEAR IT IN THE NEXT SPEAKERS.
UH, AND COME TO A DECISION TO GIVE ROOM TO THIS STREET TO PROTECT ITSELF.
IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, UH, WE'RE GONNA GET OVERRUN BY THE SAME THINGS THAT I'VE LISTENED TO IN THIS HEARING SINCE I GOT HERE.
IT'S AN INVASION OF DIVISIONS AND SUBDIVISIONS TO THIS LOT WILL BE 15 FEET WIDE OF BUILDING PROPERTY.
IF YOU CAN JUST IMAGINE REGULAR STREETS IN YOUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A 15 FOOT WIDE PROPERTY, IT'S UNBELIEVABLE.
ANY COMMISSIONERS? ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS VICTOR LU.
GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
I'M A RESIDENT OF, UH, ON, ON ROCKTON STREET, UH, AS NEIGHBORS.
WE, UM, WHO LIVE ON THIS PARTICULAR BLOCK, 2300 A BLOCK OF ROCKTON.
WE WANT IT TO BE NOTED THAT WE ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO DIVIDING THE LOT INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS.
WE'RE CONCERNED IT WILL UNDERMINE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR OWN PROPERTY, WHICH IS OUR GREATEST ASSET.
WE WORRY THAT DIVIDING IT WILL VIOLATE THE ARCHITECTURAL, UH, INTEGRITY.
THE, IT WILL, UH, DEGRADE THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED.
THE DIMINISHED, THE NEIGHBORHOOD APPEAL THAT ATTRACTED US TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'VE LIVED THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
WE'VE LIVED HERE FOR MOST OF OUR PROFESSIONAL LIVES, RAISED OUR FAMILIES THERE.
WE PLAN TO RETIRE HERE AND OUR SENTIMENT REFLECTS THE STRONG OPINIONS OF OUR NEIGHBORS ON THIS SAME BLOCK.
THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO COULD NOT ATTEND, HAVE REGISTERED THEIR CONCERNS, VOICE THEIR OPPOSITIONS.
IN THE ATTACHED SIGNATURES THAT I HAVE HERE, THE SIGNATURES REPRESENT 75% OF PROPERTY OWNERS WHO DO ACTUALLY LIVE ON THIS PROPERTY BLOCK OF ROCKTON LIKE US.
THEY'RE EQUALLY INVESTED IN WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY WORRY THAT DIVIDING THE PLOT INTO TWO LOTS WILL ERODE THE, UH, COMMUNITY CHARACTER THAT WAS ESTABLISHED WITH THAT SOUTHAMPTON EXTENSION.
WE DO NOT AS RESIDENTS WANT TO LOSE THE APPEAL OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, NOR DO WE WANT TO DIMINISH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT WAS DESIGNED.
IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND LEAVING THAT, THE SIGNATURES WITH STAFF.
I LIVE NEXT DOOR TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
UM, WE HAVE CANVAS THE ENTIRE BLOCK AND EVERYBODY THAT WE'VE TALKED TO, WHICH IS 75% OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE VOICED OPPOSITION TO THIS, AS DO WE.
AND I THINK THERE'S SOMEBODY ELSE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SPEAK.
OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF PEOPLE COULD NOT BE HERE TODAY.
I MYSELF PLAN TO RETIRE AND AGE IN PLACE IN MY HOME, AND THIS IS NOT A GOOD TIME TO HAVE MY PROPERTY VALUE DIMINISHED OR THE CHARACTER OR INTEGRITY OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD AFFECTED.
SO I THINK WE ALL FEEL SIMILARLY.
IF THERE'S ANY WAY WE CAN MANAGE THIS WITH EITHER A DEFERRAL OR WHATEVER IT TAKES, UH, EVERYBODY THAT WE'VE TALKED TO IS IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH US.
SO WE JUST APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN? AT SOME POINT, I JUST WANNA WEIGH INTO THE NEIGHBORS.
BUT TO BE CLEAR, THE LAW DOESN'T GRANT US THE ABILITY TO JUST DEFER THIS FOR 90 DAYS.
IF IT MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA, THEN WE'RE BOUND BY STATE LAW THAT SAYS WE MUST APPROVE IT.
IF WE CAN PROVE THAT IT VIOLATES SOME DEED RESTRICTION, THEN THAT WOULD GIVE US SOME RECOURSE, WHICH I'M ASSUMING LEGAL'S WEIGHING IN.
BUT IF IT, IF IT THERE, THERE'S NO PROHIBITION AGAINST SUBDIVIDING, IT CAN BE SUBDIVIDED.
WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO NOT GRANT THEM THE ABILITY TO SUBDIVIDE.
IT WOULD HAVE THOSE SIDE SETBACKS, LIKE YOU'RE SAYING.
I GUESS THEY COULD BUILD A 15 FOOT WIDE STRUCTURE.
BUT I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, WE DON'T HAVE THE LATITUDE TO JUST DO WHAT WE WANT NOW.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
[01:00:01]
MS. HOWARD, ARE YOU READY TO WEIGH IN? YES.I'M GONNA ASK THAT IN A MINUTE.
YOU NEED ANOTHER MINUTE? I REALLY DON'T HAVE ALL.
MADAM CHAIR, MR. CALHOUN, WE'VE ALREADY HAD ONE DEFERRAL BECAUSE OF THE THANKSGIVING CYCLE, WE CANNOT DEFER AGAIN.
WE HAD A THREE WEEK CYCLE, SO WE CAN, WE CAN ONLY DEFER ONCE.
CAN YOU COME FORWARD PLEASE? HE HASN'T ALREADY SPOKEN.
I REALIZE WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY IS IN DIRECT CONTRAST TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
UM, BUT I WANNA AT LEAST GIVE MY OWN WORDS.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS ALWAYS BEEN DEFINED BY ITS CHARACTER.
MODEST, WELL KEPT TWO STORY HOMES, TREELINE STREETS IN A SENSE OF CONTINUITY THAT HAS LASTED FOR GENERATIONS.
IT'S NOT JUST THE BUILDINGS, IT'S THE FEELING OF STABILITY, OF KNOWING THAT THE PLACE WE CHOSE TO RAISE OUR FAMILIES WILL LOOK AND FEEL THE SAME TOMORROW AS IT DID YESTERDAY.
THAT STABILITY IS NOW BEING THREATENED BY THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD MULTIPLE THREE STORY HOUSES RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A STREET THAT HAS MADE UP ENTIRELY OF OLDER TWO STORY HOMES.
LET'S BE HONEST ABOUT WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS KIND OF CHANGE.
IT'S THE FAMILIES WHO LIVE, WHO, IT'S NOT THE FAMILIES THAT LIVE HERE.
IT'S THE RESIDENTS WHO CARE ABOUT MAINTAINING THE SAFETY, CONSISTENCY, AND CHARM OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO STAND TO GAIN ARE THE BUILDERS OUTSIDERS WHO WILL PROFIT FROM THE CONSTRUCTION AND THEN MOVE ON, LEAVING US TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.
A PAIR OF OVERSIZED OUT OF SCALE HOUSES DISRUPTS THE ARCHITECTURAL RHYTHM OF THE ENTIRE STREET.
THEY BLOCK LIGHT, THEY INTRUDE ON PRIVACY.
THEY CREATE A VISUAL IMBALANCE THAT ERODES THE HISTORIC CHARACTER THAT MAKES OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHAT IT IS.
ONCE WE OPEN THE DOOR TO THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, IT BECOMES HARDER TO CLOSE IT AGAIN.
LITTLE BY LITTLE, WE RISK TRANSFORMING OUR COMMUNITY INTO SOMETHING UNRECOGNIZABLE.
NOT BECAUSE RESIDENTS WANTED IT, BUT BECAUSE DEVELOPERS SAW AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAXIMIZE PROFIT.
WE ARE NOT AGAINST GROWTH AND WE'RE NOT AGAINST PROGRESS.
BUT GROWTH MUST MAKE SENSE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY LIVE HERE.
PROGRESS SHOULD ENHANCE A NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT OVERSHADOW IT.
WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED DOES NOT SERVE THE COMMUNITY.
SO I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER WHAT'S AT STAKE.
WE'RE NOT JUST PROTECTING BUILDINGS, WE'RE PROTECTING THE CHARACTER, HARMONY, AND QUALITY OF LIFE THAT MAKE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HOME.
LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE, NOT THE PEOPLE THAT PROFIT HERE ARE THE ONES WHOSE VOICES MATTER MOST.
ANY QUESTIONS? I'M SORRY, SIR, BUT YOU CAN'T COME BACK UP AND SPEAK.
YOU ONLY HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY.
YOU CAN'T COME BACK UP AND SPEAK.
I WANT TO, YOU CANNOT COME BACK UP AND SPEAK.
I'M REALLY SORRY, BUT THAT'S THE RULES.
I I HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE RULES, SIR.
ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY.
MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
IF YOU WANNA COME UP AND SPEAK, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
I AM NOT A DEVELOPER FROM CALIFORNIA.
I'VE BEEN LIVING IN HOUSTON, TEXAS SINCE 2003.
I BUILD IN CALIFORNIA, BUT I BUILT MORE THAN 25 TO 30 CUSTOM HOMES IN WEST UNIVERSITY AND OTHER AREAS, UH, EVEN IN THE RICE VILLAGE.
SO I AM NOT A DEVELOPER FROM CALIFORNIA THAT CAME, SNATCHED THE LAND AND NOW WANT TO, UH, ABUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
NO, ACTUALLY TO ME IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO SEE THAT THE, UH, HOA, THEY ALLOW TO BUILD DUPLEXES, WHICH ARE KIND OF SUBSTANDARD HOMES INSTEAD OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN SMALLER PIECES OF LAND.
LIKE IN THIS CASE, IF WE REPL, UM, WE OF COURSE DO NOT WANT TO FIGHT ANYONE.
WE DON'T WANT TO VIOLATE ANY RULES.
IF THERE ARE RULES THAT WE HAVE TO ABIDE TO, WE WILL.
AND THEN INSTEAD OF TWO HOUSES, WE WILL BUILD ONE HOME AND NOT A PROBLEM.
I MEAN, WE ARE A BUILDER SO WE CAN BUILD ANYTHING THAT, UH, WILL BE GREAT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
NOW ABOUT THE CHARM AND ALL THIS THING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, MOST OF THE HOUSES ARE NOT REALLY WELL KEPT.
SO OF COURSE, BRINGING MODERN HOUSES IS GOING TO DISBALANCE, BUT ALSO GIVES OPPORTUNITY TO NEW FAMILIES THAT WANT TO LIVE IN THE, IN THE AREA, YOU KNOW? SO THIS IS HOW WE SEE IT.
UH, AND WE WILL ABIDE IF THE CITY ALLOWS US AND UH, AND WE SPLIT THAT AND WE CAN BUILD AND WE WILL BUILD TWO.
IF NOT, WE WILL BUILD ONE HOUSE.
MY ONLY QUESTION IS THAT ABOUT BUILDING LINES BECAUSE THE CITY HAS ONLY BUILDING LINES AT THE FRONT AND THAT WORKS FOR US.
BUT IF WE DIVIDE AND THEN WE HAVE TO ABIDE TO THE, TO THE HOA, WHICH WE NEED TO DO FIVE AND THEN FIVE, THEN THE 15, UH, THE 15 FEET WIDTH OF THE HOUSE, THAT'S, IT WILL BE A RIDICULOUS HOUSE.
SO WE'RE NOT GONNA BUILD THAT.
I CAN TELL YOU FLAT OUT IF THERE ARE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THAT MAKE ENFORCE FIVE FOOT ON EVERY SIDE.
[01:05:01]
TO IT.WE CAN'T OVERRIDE DE NO, NO, NO.
I MEAN QUESTION BECAUSE IF I REPL AND I GET THAT YES, BUT THEN I HAVE TO GO FIVE FEET PER, PER HOUSE, THEN IT DOESN'T WORK FOR ME.
SO BASICALLY I'LL BUILD THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW? RIGHT.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS MADAM CHAIR? YES.
WITH, WITH THAT, UH, YOU'RE STILL GONNA BE CONTENDING WITH POTENTIAL FIREWALLS IF YOU'RE LESS THAN FIVE FEET.
ONE AND A HALF HOUR FIREWALLS.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, YOU KEEP LOOKING LIKE YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING.
WELL, WHAT I WANNA DO IS MOVE THAT WE MOVE THIS ITEM BEYOND ITEM 96 TO GIVE MS. HOWARD JUST A LITTLE MORE TIME FOR, WE CAN WEIGH IN WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE THESE SIDE SETBACKS OR NOT.
'CAUSE I THINK THAT DETERMINES A LOT OF THINGS 'CAUSE WE COULD PLOT IT WITH THE FIVE FOOT SETBACKS.
YOU STILL BUILD ONE HOUSE ON THE TWO LOTS IF YOU DON'T WANT BUILD THE ONE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO IT DOESN'T, WOULDN'T DESTROY HIS ABILITY TO BUILD ONE HOUSE ON TWO LOTS.
BUT WE NEED CLARITY ON THE FIVE FOOT SETBACKS.
SO I MOVE THAT WE MOVE THIS ITEM PAST, WHAT WAS THE OLD 88? AFTER 96? THERE ARE, THERE ARE IN THE HOA BUT THERE IN THAT PARCEL.
SO I'M HOPING THAT WE DEFER THIS ITEM BUT PAST THE ONE THAT WE'RE GONNA DO AFTER 96 TO BE LEGAL.
ALRIGHT, SO WE'LL PUT THAT ONE BEHIND.
THE OTHER ONE THAT WE PUT BEHIND 96? YES.
ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
I THINK Y'ALL ARE JUST MESSING WITH ME 'CAUSE YOU'RE MAKING MY AGENDA A LITTLE DIFFICULT HERE.
OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO
[d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests (Aracely Rodriguez and John Cedillo)]
D SUBDIVISION PLATS WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS.THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY NORTH ALONG GRAND PARKWAY AND EAST OF DEER ONE LANE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANT ON SECTION 180 3 TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL LOT TO BE RE PLOTTED INTO AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLOT.
THE PROPERTY IS A PARTIAL RE PLA OF COOPER ESTATE SUBDIVISION THAT WAS RECORDED IN 1983 WHERE THIS LOT ARE RESTRICTED TO RESIDENTIAL YOUTH BY PLOT FIRST CHAPTER 42.
THE LOT ARE RESTRICTED TO RESIDENTIAL.
YOUTH CAN ONLY BE AMENDED TO CERTAIN USES WHEN THERE'S NO DEBT RESTRICTION.
THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANT TO ALLOW THE WE PLAT TO CHANGE THE YOUTH FROM LAW TO AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL SITE.
AT THIS TIME, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO DEFER THIS PLA TO ALLOW THE MORE TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO COORDINATE AND GET SUPPORT FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLA FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
THIS CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON 93? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A DEFERRAL TO HAVE A MOTION.
WHO WAS OVER HERE? I HEARD THIS.
SECOND BALL WENT ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
ITEM 94 NORTH AIRPORT LOGISTICS CENTER.
THE STITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY WEST ALONG FOUR ROAD AND NORTH OF FARM MARKET.
THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A VARIANT TO EXCEED THE INTERSECTION BASIN REQUIREMENT ALONG MEDIA COLLECTOR WAY FOUR STREET STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE DISTANCE ALONG WAY FOUR IS ABOUT 4,300 FEET.
THEREFORE, PER CHAPTER 42, THE APPLICANT MUST DEDICATE AN E WEST PUBLIC STREET THROUGH THE SITE.
THE PROPERTY IS INTENDED FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROVIDING THIS STREET DEDICATION WOULD INTRODUCE INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC INTO THE FUTURE RESIDENTIAL AREA TO THE WET.
CREATING CONFLICT BETWEEN INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES.
SO GRANTING THE VARIANT WOULD AVOID INDUSTRIAL VEHICLES FROM PASSING THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALSO, THE SUBSIDE AND THE SURROUNDING TRACK ALREADY HAVE ADEQUATE FOCUS AND ASSETS TO THE ASSIST IN PUBLIC STREET.
HARRIS COUNTY HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE, REQUEST THE VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLEDGE.
[01:10:01]
CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK FOR ITEM 94.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO COMMISSIONERS? ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, SO, UH, I NEED A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ITEM 95, ITEM 95 SOUTH AIRPORT LOGISTICS CENTER.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN HARRIS COUNTY EAST ALONG WAYPORT AND NORTH OF FARM MARKET 1960.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO NOT EXTEND OR TERMINATE CLEARFIELD LANE WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC STOP IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE PROPERTY IS PROPOSED FOR INDUSTRIAL USE WITH A DETENTION POND.
A LOCAL PUBLIC STREET CURRENTLY STOPPED INTO THE EASTERLY PROPERTY BOUNDARY.
SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO EXTEND THIS THREE TO MEET THE ORDINANCE.
SO GRANTING THE VARIANT WILL HELP TO AVOID INTRODUCING INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC INTO THE ASSISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EIGHT.
HARRIS COUNTY HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE VARIANT AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBSTITUTE THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 95.
IS THERE ANYONE WISHES TO OKAY, I THINK I HAVE A SPEAKER.
ALRIGHT, QUESTIONS? UH, QUESTIONS FROM ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION MAN.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMIT AT THE END OF STATUTE OF SOUTH TREE DRIVE IN LONG STREET WEST OF SHE DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTED A VARI TO ALLOW A 20 FOOT BORDERLINE INSTEAD OF 25 ALONG MAY 3RD.
STAB IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RE PLAT ONE LOT INTO A MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL MUR RESERVE TO DEVELOP A POSSESSION FRIENDLY PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MUR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
THE DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE FOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS BASED IN THE STREET WITH VEHICLE ASSETS AND PARKING LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE SITE.
WHILE THE MUR PERFORMANCE STANDARD ALLOW A 15 FOOT BORDERLINE ALONG MAY THOROUGHFARE WITH RIGHT AWAY OF 80 FEET OR LESS.
AND WIDTH, SALVI DRIVE IS 130 FEET WIDE AND DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR THIS BUILDING LINE REDUCTION.
HOWEVER, SALVI DRIVE CONSISTED OF TWO 50 WIDE TRAVEL LANE SEPARATED BY A 30 FEET, UM, DRAINING DITCH, CREATING A WIDE STREET CROSS SECTION PROVIDING SUBSTANTIAL SEPARATION BETWEEN THE VEHICLE OF TRAFFIC AND THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT.
SO ALLOWING THE PROPOSED 20 FOOT BORDERLINE WILL STILL MEET AND PRESERVE THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE, PROVIDING ADEQUATE PEDESTRIAN REAL AND AMPLE BUFFERING ALONG THE STREET.
THE PER THE STIPEND, THE PEDESTRIAN REAL IS ABOUT 18 FEET WIDE WITH A MINIMUM 10 FEET SAFETY BUFFER AND A MINIMUM SIX FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK WITH NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO STOP VICTORY DRIVE.
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL BE LOCATED ABOUT 28 FEET AWAY FROM THE CURB.
CURB PROVIDING APPROPRIATE SEPARATION FROM THE TRAVEL LANES.
THEREFORE, STOP RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND PUT THE PLA SUBJECT TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION AND THAT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT IN EVENTS.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY.
YOU HAVE A MOTION OF GRANTING THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION GARZA.
[c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Ken Calhoun, Dorianne Powe-Phlegm, and John Cedillo) (Part 2 of 2)]
SO NOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE ALONG TO ITEM 88 88, WHICH THAT'S THE FIRST ONE WE PULLED.THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED IN WRITING AND VERBALLY REQUESTED A 30 DAY EXTENSION.
HOWEVER, AS WE ARE GOING INTO A THREE WEEK CYCLE FOR THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY, UH, THE EXTENSION WOULD ONLY GO TO DECEMBER 18TH, WHICH WOULD BE OUR NEXT COMMISSION.
SO THIS WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE A 30 DAY REQUEST, BUT ONLY EFFECTIVELY BE A TWO WEEK DEFERRAL.
[01:15:01]
FOR THE NOTICE? FOR NOTICE? WELL, FOR NOTICE FOR THIS, IT'S STILL AN ACTIVE APPLICATION, SO THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE TO UPDATE THE SIGN, WHICH THEY CAN'T DO THAT ON MONDAY.I THINK WE WOULD REQUIRE A PICTURE OF A REVISION AFTER THE SIGN BY END OF DAY MONDAY.
AND THEN MS. HOWARD, DID YOU WANNA WEIGH IN ON THE D RESTRICTIONS? I WOULD NEED TIME.
30 DAY EXTENSION MOTION BALDWIN FOR THE 30 DAY EXTENSION.
NOW WE'LL MOVE ALONG TO ITEM NUMBER 92.
AND CAN WE GET CLARITY ON THE
MS. HOWARD, ARE YOU READY TO HAVE INPUT ON THIS ONE? UM, ITEM 92, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT, UM, DO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS APPLY TO THIS LOT? CAN THEY SUBDIVIDE IT AND PUT TOWN HOMES ON IT? SORRY, SETBACKS.
I MEAN, IF THEY APPLY THEN YEAH, ALL OF THAT APPLIES.
OH, HE DID
CAN WE ENCOURAGE OUR APPLICANT TO MAKE A 30 DAY EXTENSION? CAN WE BRING THE APPLICANT BACK UP? WHERE'S THE APPLICANT? UM, THAT'S, I DON'T BELIEVE THE APPLICANT'S HERE FOR THIS ONE.
WHAT ARE THE SETBACKS THAT HE'S REQUESTING? OH, HE'S HERE.
SO SAY THAT, I'M SORRY, I'M GETTING CHATTER FROM EVERY DIRECTION.
MY ONLY QUESTION, AND AGAIN, WE DON'T WANT TO, UH, STEP ON ANYBODY ELSE'S RULES.
MY ONLY QUESTION IS THE FOLLOWING.
UM, IF WE REPL THE LOT INTO TWO LOTS, OKAY.
AND MY BILL LINES ARE AS IT WAS ON THE SCREEN, THAT WHAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY 10 TO START THE HOUSE, BUT WE HAVE A GARAGE IS 20.
SO BASICALLY MY BUILD LINE WILL BE 20 AT THE FRONT, NO BUILD, NO BUILD LINE IN THE BACK AND NONE ON THE SIDES.
WE DON'T, WE DON'T CONTROL THAT.
WHAT WOULD CONTROL THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING OUR LEGAL FOR ADVICE.
DO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS APPLY TO THIS LOT? EXACTLY.
WELL, WE CAN'T GUARANTEE YOU GO AHEAD.
SO ALL WE'RE LOOKING FOR TODAY YES.
THERE'S SOME QUESTIONABLE STUFF OUR LEGAL HAS BEEN LOOKING AT.
WE'RE ASKING YOU, ARE YOU REQUESTING IN WRITING FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION, WHICH WOULD BASICALLY TAKE YOU TO NO TIME IS MONEY, THEN I'M GONNA BE ONE HOUSE BECAUSE THIS IS, THIS JUST TOO MUCH TIME.
SO YOU UNDERSTAND THOUGH, IF EVEN IF WE APPROVE THIS AND IT VIOLATES THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, YOU'LL STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THEY'LL JUST FOLLOW LAWSUIT AGAINST YOU AND YOU'LL SPEND MORE MONEY? OH, NO, NO, NO.
IF I BUILD ONE HOUSE, IT'S, IT, IT, I DON'T, I DON'T, I WILL FOLLOW THEIR DEEP RESTRICTIONS.
YOU CANNOT BECAUSE ONE HOUSE, I HAVE ONE LOT RIGHT NOW, SO I CAN BUILD ONE HOUSE IN ONE LOT.
I CAN BUILD ONE HOUSE AND I'M OKAY WITH THE, THESE RESTRICTIONS OF FIVE FIVE WHEN I AM NOT.
AND IF, IF I BUILD TWO, BECAUSE THEN I WILL HAVE TO LEAVE FIVE FIVE.
SO MY HOUSES ARE NOT WIDE ENOUGH.
BUT I WANNA BE CLEAR, EVEN IF WE APPROVE THIS PLAT WITHOUT THE FIVE FOOT SETBACKS, AND IT'S DETERMINED TOMORROW THAT THEY REALLY ARE FIVE FOOT SETBACKS, YOU HAVE TO MEET THE FIVE FOOT SETBACKS.
YOU'LL JUST BE IN A LAWSUIT WITH THE HOMEOWNERS.
I THINK WHAT HE JUST SAID, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, IS HE WOULD MEET IT WITH ONE HOUSE.
WELL, YES, HE WOULDN'T DO THE REPL IF YOU APPROVE RIGHT NOW I DON'T REC RECORD AND THERE THE JURISDICTION APPLY.
I DON'T RECORD THE PLA AND I HAVE ONE PROPERTY, ONE HOUSE, AND EVERYBODY'S HAPPY.
SO, SO YOU DO, YOU WOULDN'T RATHER WAIT FOR A DEFERRAL? NO, REALLY WAIT TOO MUCH.
I ALREADY DEFERRED IT ONCE AND IN ORDER TO, TO KNOW MORE AND TO GET TO KNOW THEM.
I'M NOT FROM CALIFORNIA, SO, UH, I, I BUILD A HOUSE, UH, BUILD HOUSE.
SO, YEAH, I MEAN, YOU DO UNDERSTAND THIS COULD GET DENIED.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THE COMMISSIONERS ARE GONNA VOTE,
[01:20:01]
SO NO, IF IT GETS DENIED, I BUILD ONE HOUSE AND I'M HAPPY.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MAREZ? YES.
COMMISSIONER MAREZ, NOT TO CONVOLUTE ANYTHING, BUT MY TAKEAWAY FROM THE COMMENTS EARLIER ON THE APPLICATION WERE THAT THOSE AREN'T IN PLACE YET.
THAT'S WHY THEY ASKED FOR THE 90 DAY SIZE THAT'S NOT IN PLACE THE MM-HMM
AND THEY'RE, AND THEY DO HAVE, WE DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN HOWARD, EXCUSE ME, BUT THE RESTRICTIONS HAVE A 25 FOOT FRONT SET BACK, SIX FEET ON THE SIDE, PROPERTY LINES, AND 10 FROM THE SIDE STREET LINES.
AND HE'S ASKING FOR SOMETHING CONTRARY TO THAT, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
WE DENY THE APPLICATION BASED ON, BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION THAT FROM THE LEGAL, THE DEPARTMENT SAYS IT HAS SETBACKS THAT HE'S NOT WILLING TO REVIEW.
UM, CAN WE, I NEED TO, I NEED CLARIFICATION IF WE CAN DO THE MOTION THAT WAY.
UM, CAN WE MAKE A MOTION THAT SAYS WE'RE GONNA DENY AN APPLICATION BECAUSE HE STATES VERBALLY THAT HE IS NOT GONNA APPLY, COMPLY WITH THE, WHICH WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SETBACKS THEY ARE, QUITE FRANKLY.
WELL, WE DO, ARVIS SAID THEY DO, BUT IF HE'S SAYING THAT HE'S NOT GOING TO COMPLY.
I THOUGHT HE SAID HE WAS GONNA COMPLY WITH ONE HOUSE THAT HE COULDN'T COMPLY WITH.
TWO IF THE FIVE FOOT ALL AROUND APPLIED, HE CAN'T, HE CAN'T DO THAT.
SO HE SAID IF THAT WAS THE CASE, HE WOULD DO ONE HOUSE ON BOTH THE LOT, BUT ITS APPLICATION IS ASKING FOR I UNDERSTAND.
SO THAT'S WHAT'S BEING DENIED.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
UM, SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL BY COMMISSIONER BALDWIN.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND SYKES.
I DIDN'T HEAR WHO IT WAS IN ALL THE COMMOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? I'M GONNA OPPOSE.
PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER GARZA OPPOSES.
AND I, I DO WANT, I JUST WANNA STATE WE'RE NOT TRYING TO BE MEAN UP HERE AND NOT LET PEOPLE COME BACK AND SPEAK, BUT THERE ARE RULES AND WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THEM.
AND SO I DO HAVE TO CALL FOR ORDER WHEN WE GET OUT OF ORDER.
SO I APPRECIATE UNDER EVERYONE'S UNDERSTANDING MOVING ALONG TO F
[f. Reconsiderations of Requirement (John Cedillo)]
RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENTS.THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A NEARLY ONE ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS SOUTH ALONG CANAL STREET, SOUTHEAST OF NAVIGATION BOULEVARD AND WEST OF DELANO STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A COMMERCIAL RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO NOT DEDICATE FIVE FEET OF WIDENING AND TO ALLOW A ZERO FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG NORTH LIVE.
OAK STREET STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A COMMERCIAL RESERVE, UH, SORRY.
THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO REHAB THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND TO CREATE A HOTEL SITE WITH 96 ROOMS. THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE IS INTENDED TO BE, BE A COVERED SINGLE STORY GARAGE WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING BUILT TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
ELEVATIONS SHOW THE MAIN STRUCTURE WILL BE REVISED, BUT THERE WILL BE ADDITIONS MADE ON TOP OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE EXISTING 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE ENCROACHMENT.
THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENTS AT THE GROUND LEVEL, BUT THE BUT TO DO, DO THE ADDITIONS, THE APPLICANT MUST REQUEST A REDUCED ZERO FOOT BUILDING LINE.
NORTH LIVE OAK ITSELF IS ONLY TWO BLOCKS IN LENGTH BEING SPANNING 775 FEET BETWEEN COMMERCE AND TUS.
PAYMENT ALONG NORTH LIVE OAK ITSELF IS 35 FEET, PROVIDING SUFFICIENT MEANS FOR INGRESS INGRESS FOR THE PROPOSED USE WITHOUT ADDITIONAL WIDENING.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 97.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, I'LL SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AND WE'RE DOING NUMBER, UH, 98 AND 17 TOGETHER.
OKAY, ITEM 98 IS FAIRBANKS LANDING GENERAL PLAN AND 17 IS FAIRBANKS LANDING SECTION ONE.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS AN OVER 124 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION EAST ALONG FAIRBANKS, NORTH HOUSTON ROAD AND NORTH OF WEST ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A GENERAL PLAN, OH, SORRY.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A GENERAL PLAN AND IS REQUESTING ADVANCE TO NOT PROVIDE ANY NORTH SOUTH STREETS TO THE PROPERTY.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE PROPERTY ITSELF HAS MULTIPLE EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT HINDER THE EXTENSION OF A NORTH SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY.
THERE IS 170 FOOT WIDE HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND EASEMENT THAT BLOCKS THE EXTENSION OF RIGHT OF WAYS WITHIN THE WESTERN HALF OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
COMMERCE PLAZA AT FAIRBANKS AND FAIRBANKS INDUSTRIAL ARE PLAS TO THE SOUTH THAT WERE BOTH GRANTED THE SAME INTERSECTION SPACING, VARIANCE TEND NOT PROVIDE NORTH SOUTH STREETS, SO ANY RIGHT OF WAY EXTENSION SOUTH OF THE SITE WOULD HAVE NO OPTIONS FOR CONNECTION.
[01:25:01]
NORTH HOUSTON CENTER GP TO THE NORTH DID CREATE THREE STUBS BEARING SOUTH TOWARDS THE SUBJECT SITE, ONE OF WHICH IS THE EXTENSION OF THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE OF HOLLISTER ROAD, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DEDICATED TO THE RIGHT OF WAY BY THE SITE.THE OTHER TWO STUBS ARE BLOCKED BY A LARGE DETENTION POND AND EXISTING HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL CHANNELS THAT HINDER ANY CONNECTION TO THE NORTH FROM THE SUBJECT SITE.
THE GENERAL PLAN DOES PROVIDE AN EAST WEST STREET THAT CONNECTS FAIRBANKS NORTH HOUSTON TO HOLLISTER ROAD.
ONCE FULLY DEDICATED HOLLISTER ROAD WILL PROVIDE A STRONG CONDUIT FOR TRAFFIC AND CONNECTIVITY.
HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE VARIANCE RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON 98 AND NUMBER 17.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY.
HEARING NONE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS.
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I WILL NEED A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ITEM 99 IS KATIE AQUATIC TEAM FOR YOUTH INCORPORATED.
THE SEPTIC SITE IS A FIVE ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION EAST ALONG PEAKS ROAD AND SOUTH OF BECKENDORF ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING AN EAST, WEST STREET THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE I IS PROPOSED TO BE AN AQUATIC SWIMMING CENTER FOR YOUTH WITH AN EASTERN THIRD OF THE PROPERTY INTENDED FOR DETENTION.
THE SITE IS ONE OF FEW PROPERTIES THAT CAN PROVIDE AN EAST WEST CONNECTION ON PEAK ROAD AS OTHER SITES AROUND THE AREA HAVE BEEN APPROVED WITHOUT AN EAST, WEST STREET.
AND OPTIONS FOR A VIABLE EAST WEST CONNECTION ARE LIMITED.
HOWEVER, THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY TO THE EAST HAS MULTIPLE EXISTING HOMES AND STRUCTURES SHOWN IN LIGHT BLUE SQUARES.
AND FURTHER EAST IS A TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR WITH EXISTING TOWERS, UH, SHOWN IN DARK BLUE CIRCLES, ALL OF WHICH GREATLY HINDER AN EXTENSION OF A RIGHT OF WAY EAST OF THIS LOCATION.
THE VARIANCE WAS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED TO THIS SITE IN 2018, BUT WAS NOT RECORDED.
THE PROPERTIES TO THE IMMEDIATE SOUTH COULD PROVIDE A BETTER OR MORE APPLICABLE OPTION FOR AN EAST WEST STREET THAT COULD CONNECT TO OTHER RIGHT OF WAYS FURTHER TO THE EAST WITHOUT THE IMPEDIMENT OF EXISTING HOMES OR TOWERS.
HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE VARIANCE.
RECOMMENDATION IS A GRANT, THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCP C 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM, THIS CONCLUDES THE LAST PRESENTATION.
I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS ANDREW MOND.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
MY NAME'S ANDREW MOND FROM BEACON LAND SERVICES.
I THINK WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THE MERITS OF THE VARIANCE.
I WILL ASK IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO LEAVE THE UNRESTRICTED DESIGNATION.
SO YOU'LL GET TO HEAR FROM THE OWNER HERE IN A SECOND.
UH, THEY'RE A NOT-FOR-PROFIT SWIMMING BASED ACADEMY AND AS THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT, GO TO SEEK FUNDING, IT'S OBVIOUSLY A LOT EASIER TO GET FUNDING AND GO THROUGH THE MECHANICS OF TITLE IF YOU HAVE AN UNRESTRICTED PROPERTY.
UM, AND SO BECAUSE THE STAFF, IF, IF THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT DENSITY COMING INTO PLAY LATER, LIKE IF, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD.
IF THE PROPERTY WAS TO GO INTO LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY CONFIGURATION, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A REPL AND THEN THAT REPL WOULD HAVE TO BE FILED WITH THE COMMISSION AND THAT WOULD GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO THEN UPSIZE THE STREET AND DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO ON THAT REGARD.
SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY A MERIT FOR DESIGNATING IT AS A COMMERCIAL RESERVE AND IT DOES THE APPLICANT SOME GOOD.
AND SO I THINK BOTH SIDES ARE ADDRESSED AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE'RE ASKING.
UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS OTHERWISE ARE FINE, BUT JUST LEAVE IT AS AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE.
ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, MS. HOWARD, IS THAT POSSIBLE FOR US? YES.
DID YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING MR. CILLO? I HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER.
YOU, SO YOU'RE, UM, PAUL TRAVIS SANDER? CORRECT? I'M THE DIRECTOR FOR THE THE YOUTH FORCE ORGANIZATION.
UM, WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND EVERYTHING AND, UM, IF WE'RE ABLE TO KEEP THAT, UH, THAT'S JUST WHAT MY BOARD WAS ASKING ME.
YOU YOU MAY SAID MORE THAN HELLO
UH, PAUL SANDER FOR KATIE AQUATICS.
UM, MY BOARD HAD ASKED ME TO COME AND BE HERE IN CASE WAS NEEDED.
UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE I MAY NOT BE NEEDED AND I APPRECIATE THE, UH, YOU GUYS LOOKING AT IT AND IF WE CAN KEEP THAT UNRESTRICTED DESIGNATION, THAT'D BE GREAT.
ANY QUESTIONS? YES, ONLY FOR MR. STAFF.
MR. DO TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE MAKE THE MOTION WE CAN IN FACT DO THAT.
SO, UH, WE HAD ASKED THEM, UH, IN REVIEW TO CONSIDER THE POTENTIALITY OF CONVERTING TO COMMERCIAL AS THEY HAVE SUBMITTED AS, UH, UNRESTRICTED IN COORDINATION.
WE REALIZED, UH, YOU KNOW, IF THEY DO HAVE THE OPTION TO MAINTAIN THAT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY, UH, OTHER GROUNDS.
'CAUSE WE DO HAVE CONCERNS, NOT SO MUCH WITH CONVERTING TO MULTIFAMILY, BUT TO I, NOT TO CONVERT ANY SINGLE FAMILY, BUT TO MULTI-FAMILY.
IF THERE'S AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, WE WANT POTENTIALITY FOR OTHER CONNECTIONS THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR FIRE SAFETY AND OTHER ASPECTS.
HOWEVER, IF THE ONLY THING THAT WE COULD CONVERT TO WOULD BE COMMERCIAL, THAT INFECT WOULD STILL ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY IN THE, IN THE ETJ.
SO IT WOULD EFFECTIVELY NOT DO MUCH AT THIS POINT.
SO WE'RE OKAY WITH LEAVING IT AS IT WAS SUBMITTED WITH AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE.
SO WE AREN'T CHANGING IT OR LEAVING IT AS IT IS.
[01:30:01]
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? ALL RIGHT.
WELL, COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF YOU FOR APPROVAL.
GRANT THE REQUEST, REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION GARZA.
THAT DOES INCLUDE JUST LEAVING IT AS UNRESTRICTED.
SORRY, I HAVE A LOT OF SECONDS.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS AN OVER NINE ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMIT WEST ALONG MCKAY DRIVE NORTH OF WILL, CLAYTON ROAD AND EAST OF PROPOSED BOL PARKWAY.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTIONS FACING BY NOW, PROVIDING AN EAST WEST STREET THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
SAVAGE SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST, THE SITE IS PROPOSED TO BE A WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER TAKING DIRECT ACCESS FROM MCKAY DRIVE.
THE SITE IS OVER 2,600 FEET AWAY FROM AMBO WESTFIELD TO THE NORTH AND LESS THAN 1400 FEET AWAY FROM MCKAY CENTER DRIVE TO THE SOUTH.
THIS INDICATES THERE WOULD BE BETTER PLACEMENT FOR AN EAST WEST RIGHT OF WAY FURTHER TO THE NORTH TO MEET INTERSECTION SPACE REQUIREMENTS FROM BOTH BOL, WESTFIELD AND MCKAY CENTER.
BROADMOOR HEALTH GENERAL PLAN AND MCKAY INTERNATIONAL TRADE CENTER WERE BOTH APPROVED WITH MARKUPS TO PROVIDING EAST WEST STREET THROUGH THEIR SITES AS EXTENSIONS OF WAREHOUSE CENTER DRIVE TO THE WEST.
EFFECTIVELY PLACING THIS AS SHOWN IN THE AD ALIGNMENT.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCP C 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS INTENDING THEN EAST WEST STREET TO BE PROVIDED FURTHER NORTH TO COINCIDE WITHIN THE OVERLAPPING INTERSECTION SPACING WINDOW FROM BOTH UMBA, WESTFIELD AND MCKAY CENTER.
STILL MEETING CHAPTER 42, INTERSECTION SPACING.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF YOU TO HAVE A MOTION.
I WANNA SAY YOUR NAME RIGHT, SIR.
[Platting Activities g - j]
EXTENSION OF APPROVAL.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS GHI AND J AS ONE GROUP? YES, PLEASE.
SECTIONS G EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEM 1 0 1 THROUGH ONE 16 SECTION H.
NAME CHANGES CONSIST OF ITEM ONE 17 SECTION I.
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CONSISTS OF NO ITEMS AND SECTION J ADMINISTRATIVE CONSISTS OF NO ITEMS. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTIONS GHI AND J.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? UH, MADAM CHAIR.
I NEED ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS 1 0 5 AND 1 0 8, 1 0 5 AND 1 0 8.
DO Y'ALL WANT TO LEAVE THE ROOM OR YOU WANT TO STAY? WE COULD STAY.
SO DO WE HAVE TO, UM, WE HAVE TO PULL THOSE OUT.
NO, NO, WE JUST, YEAH, THAT'S TRUE.
SORRY, I'M A LITTLE TIRED FROM ALL OF THIS TODAY.
UM, OKAY, SO WE HAVE GH AND IJJ, WHICH HAS NOTHING.
AND SO WE ARE GOING TO NOTE THAT, UH, SHEPHERD AND HY ABSTAINING FROM 1 0 5 AND ISH FROM 1 0 8.
UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION MOTION.
[k. Development Plats with Variance Requests (Geoff Butler)]
OKAY.DEVELOPMENT PLA WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM ONE 18, UH, 2250 BARTLET STREET.
THIS SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF SOUTH, SOUTH OF SOUTHWEST FREEWAY ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF GREENBRIAR DRIVE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BARTLETT STREET AND GREENBRIAR DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT SETBACK.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
THE CORNER LOT WAS PLATTED WITH THE CHEVY CHASE SUBDIVISION IN 1928.
THE SUB THE SUBJECT SIDE HAS FRONTAGE ALONG BOTH
[01:35:01]
BARTLETT STREET AND A LOCAL STREET AND GREENBRIER, UH, THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL SIT APPROXIMATELY 34 FEET FROM THE BACK OF CURB, UH, ALONG GREENBRIAR, WHICH WILL ALLOW, WHICH WILL NOT HINDER ANY SIDE VISIBILITY AND WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND OR WELFARE.
THE PROPOSED 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG GREENBRIAR DRIVE IS KEEPING WITH THE, IS IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS MANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE AREA ARE SET BACK CLOSER THAN 25 FEET BUILDING LINE.
GREENBRIER DRIVE IS A ONE WAY NORTH STREET THAT IS, UM, FURTHERMORE, THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL SITE, HAS REVISED THE ORIGINAL SITE, AND IS, UH, NOW TAKING ACCESS FROM THE LOCAL STREET STAFF.
RECOMME RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG GREENBRIAR DRIVE A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT CO, UH, COORDINATES WITH, UH, HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS TO, UH, TO PROVIDE A, UH, UH, SIX FOOT, UH, SIDEWALK AND THEN CLOSE THE EXISTING CURB CUT ALONG GREENBRIAR DRIVE.
SORRY, WHAT I MEANT ABOUT, UH, HPW WAS THE, UH, THE CURB CUT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
UH, OUR, WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGN.
MS. POOLE, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK OR ARE YOU JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS? JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
SO YOU HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? DO I HAVE A, EXCUSE ME? I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION BALDWIN SECOND MAREZ.
THAT IS, UH, 1 2 2 3 0 BOHAM STREET.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HOUSTON CORPORATE, UH, LIMIT ALONG, UH, GESNER, UH, SOUTH OF KATY FREEWAY AND NORTH OF MEMORIAL DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG GESNER DRIVE.
RATHER THAN A 25 FOOT REQUIRED FOR A MAJOR THOROUGH STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF GESNER AND BOIM WITH A WITHIN THE MEMORIAL COMMUNITY.
THE SITE CONSISTS OF A HOME FRONTING THE IN INTERNAL CUL-DE-SAC WITH A SECONDARY FRONTAGE ALONG BOHEME AND GESNER.
THE HOME MEETS THE SETBACKS SHOWN ON THE PLAT, WHICH INCLUDES A 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG GEER DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALTER THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WITHIN THE EXISTING SETBACK INSTEAD OF, UH, ABIDING BY THE 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE REQUIRED FOR A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
THE SUBDIVISION PREDATES CHAPTER 42 AND HAS NUMEROUS OTHER HOMES WITHIN WITH A SIMILAR SETBACK.
IN ADDITION, THE HOME WILL RETAIN VEHICLE ACCESS FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC, ALLOWING GASNER, UH, PEDESTRIAN REALM TO STAY INTERRUPTED.
THE STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE BUILDING LINE REQUIREMENT AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
I DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED ON ITEM ONE 19.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO, WERE YOU RAISING YOUR HAND? NO, WE HOMEOWNERS WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
OKAY, SO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION JONES SECOND FAM.
IT WAS ACTUALLY DEFERRED ONES 4 59 FA LANE.
UH, THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS SOUTH OF WEST, SOUTH AND SOUTH AND WEST OF MEMORIAL AND EAST OF BELWAY EIGHT.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE CORNER.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR A SIDE FACING GARAGE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF BROKEN BOW DRIVE AND FALLS LANE WITHIN THE MEMORIAL BEND COMMUNITY.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS SUBDIVIDED WITH 25 FOOT BUILDING LINES AND 10 FOOT SETBACKS FOR THE CORNER PROPERTIES.
THIS COMMUNITY FEATURES SIDEWALKS ALONG FA AND THE OTHER STREETS WITH, UH, PRIMARY FRONTAGE BUT NO SIDEWALKS ALONG THE, UH, CROSS STREETS.
THE, UH, APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW TWO-STORY HOME ON THE CORNER PROPERTY AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO MAINTAIN THIS DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
UH, CHAPTER 42 REQUIRES A DEEPER SETBACK FOR GARAGE AND CARPORTS DUE TO VEHICLE CONFLICTS WITH PEDESTRIANS.
[01:40:01]
ALLOWING THE GARAGE ENTRY TO REMAIN ALONG THE SIDE TO BE ALLOWED, UH, SINCE, UH, THE ONLY SIDEWALK AFFECTING THE PROPERTY IS ALONG THE PRIMARY FRONTAGE.IN ADDITION, THE SIDE SA 17 FOOT, UH, BACK OF CURB DISTANCE TO BROKEN BOW PAVEMENT, ALLOWING THE, ALLOWING FOR SUFFICIENT DISTANCE IF THE SIDEWALK WERE INSTALLED AT A LATER TIME.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF CHAPTER 42 AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL STAFF RECEIVE COMMENT FROM PUBLIC, UH, EXPRESSING CONCERNS OVER THE IMPACT ON UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE.
STAFF HAS ALSO RECEIVED NO OBJECTION FROM MEMORIAL BEND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW COMMITTEE.
OKAY, THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
UM, AGAIN, MS. POOLE, ARE YOU HERE JUST FOR QUESTIONS? OKAY.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? WELL FOR STAFF? YES.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN FOR STAFF? YES.
LET'S JUST BE CLEAR ON BROKEN BOWEL.
NO, BUT IF THERE WERE TO BE ONE, THERE WOULD ONLY BE 18 FEET FROM THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK TO THE DEAL.
I MEAN, THAT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR A PICKUP TRUCK.
UM, HOWEVER, I, I, UH, HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT.
I BELIEVE THEY'RE SUBMITTING A SIDEWALK MODIFICATION, WHICH WILL, UM, KEEP THE, UM, THE, IT WOULD KEEP WITH THE, UM, ALIGNMENT OF THE SAFETY BUFFER THAT RUNS, UH, AS, AS TO BE PROPOSED.
SO IS A PART OF OUR MOTION, ARE WE SURE THAT THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST 20 FEET DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE GARAGE DOOR? 17 FEET? IS THAT THE REQUIREMENT? 17 FEET IS FROM THE CURB, ISN'T IT? IT'S FROM THE CURB, YES.
WELL, THE CAR BLOCKED THE SIDEWALK.
COMMISSIONER JONES, YOU HAD A QUESTION? I WANTED TO SHARE THAT THE MEMORIAL SUPER NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT OPPOSE THIS REPLY.
SO COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? DO I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION? I MEAN, I APPROVE.
ITEM 1 21, ITEM 1 21 53 43 INKERS STREET.
THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 10 AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TC JESTER AND INKER STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 12.5 FOOT, UH, BUILDING LINE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 25 REQUIRED.
UH, ALONG TC JESTER, A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, UH, THE, THE PLAN DEPARTMENT IS RECOMMENDING TO DEFER FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO RESPOND TO CONCERNS OVER SAFETY AND THE STATE OF HARDSHIP.
DID YOU WANNA SPEAK OR DID YOU, UH, JUST BE HERE FOR QUESTIONS? COME ON UP.
DID I? OH NO, YOU PUT THE RIGHT ONE.
SO I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON 1 21.
IS THERE ONE THAT WISHES TO, OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF DEFERRAL.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION BALDWIN.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 1 22 IS FIVE 19 WEST 30TH STREET.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG THE SIX 10 NORTH LOOP ON WEST 30TH STREET BETWEEN SHEPHERD AND YALE.
THE SITE CONSISTS OF A SINGLE FAMILY LOT WITHIN THE GARDEN OAK COMMUNITY.
THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND IS REQUESTING A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
THE SITE IS CONSTRAINED BY A 50 FOOT DE RESTRICTED FRONT BUILDING LINE.
THE PROPOSAL WOULD LEAVE APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET FROM THE CLOSEST PART OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT.
THE EXISTING HOME AND SUBDIVISION PREDATE THE FEEDER ROAD AND THE 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE REQUIREMENT.
THE SITE BACKS UP TO A CONCRETE SOUND BARRIER THAT SEPARATES THE SITE FROM TRAVEL LANES OF THE FREEWAY.
THIS ALLOWS FOR SMALLER STRUCTURES TO BE BUILT WITHIN THE 25 FOOT SETBACK WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH TRAFFIC OR PUBLIC SAFETY.
THE APPLICATION ACHIEVES A SIMILAR RESULT TO THE CHAPTER 42 PROVISION, ALLOWING FOR ONE STORY CAR GARAGES TO BACK UP TO A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
A PORTION OF THE HOME WILL ALSO BE WITHIN THE 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE.
THE REQUEST IS SIMILAR TO VARIANCES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN THE AREA AND IS IN LINE WITH MANY OTHER STRUCTURES BUILT PRIOR TO THE 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE REQUIREMENT.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.
NOW DID YOU WANNA SPEAK OR JUST QUESTIONS? I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUICK.
[01:45:01]
ANY QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL IN FRONT OF YOU.DO I HAVE A MOTION BALDWIN? MOTION BALDWIN.
[IV. Establish a public hearing date of January 8, 2026]
TO, OKAY.I HAVE TO DO MY PUBLIC HEARINGS FIRST, IF I CAN OPEN THE PAGE.
ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 8TH, 2026 FOR BAYOU TRAIL REPL NUMBER ONE, CATO ESTATES, COPPERWOOD WATER PLANT RESERVE, REPLANT NUMBER ONE AND EXTENSION ESTATES AT WOODING STREET.
FERNWOOD ESTATES GULF WAY TERRACE PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE, MILWAUKEE VILLAGE, PAPALOTE PARK, TIDWELL SQUARE, AND WINDSOR PLACE.
ADDITION PARTIAL REPL NUMBER FOUR.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION? HI, SECOND.
[V. Consideration of an Off-Street Parking Variance for 5317 Inker Street (Ed Buckley)]
CONSIDERATION OF AN OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE FOR 53 17 ANCHOR STREET.ROMAN NUMERAL FIVE IS 53 17 ANCHOR STREET.
THE SITE IS LOCATED EAST OF TC JESTER BOULEVARD AND WEST OF TEETERING STREET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ANCHOR STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONVERT A WAREHOUSE TO A GYMNASIUM AND IS REQUESTING TO PROVIDE MORE THAN 25% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING AT AN OFFSITE LOCATION MORE THAN 500 FEET AWAY, TO PROVIDE A PARTIAL PEDESTRIAN PATH TO THE OFFSITE PARKING, WHICH WILL BE MITIGATED BY PROVIDING SHUTTLE SERVICE AND TO PROVIDE A TOTAL OF 79 ON AND OFFSITE PARKING SPACES IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 88 PARKING SPACES.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER ITEM FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW.
OKAY, SO I HAVE SOME SPEAKERS.
MY FIRST SPEAKER IS DEMARCO HOWARD.
MR. HOWARD, IF YOU'D STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD PLEASE.
UH, MY NAME IS DEMARCO HOWARD.
I AM THE OWNER AND FOUNDER OF THE ARTS.
I'M ALSO PART OWNER OF THE STRUCTURE OR FACILITY.
UH, WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING THAT THE PARKING SPACES ON OUR SITE BE, UH, SMALLER SO THAT WE CAN USE A PARKING GARAGE, WHICH WE HAVE A LEASE WITH, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT OVER THE DISTANCE THAT IS REQUIRED.
UH, THE, WE HAVE A LEASE WITH THEM.
WE ALSO HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BUILDING THAT IS TO THE WEST, UH, THAT WE JUST GOT A VERBAL COMMITMENT WITH YESTERDAY TO USE THEIR PARKING AS WELL.
UM, WE HAVE, UH, ABOUT A THOUSAND STUDENTS THAT WE, UM, HOUSED OVER THE YEAR.
UH, WE PROVIDE PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES FOR THEM TO DO OUTSIDE OF, YOU KNOW, PLAYING VIDEO GAMES, RUNNING THE STREETS.
SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DO SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BALDWIN? WHAT'S THEIR AGE? WHAT'S THE AGE GROUP OF THESE CHILDREN? UH, WE HAVE FROM THREE TO 103.
THE AGE OF THEM, ARE THEY 18 YEARS OLD WITH CARS OR ARE THEY 12 YEARS OLD? UH, SO MOST OF OUR STUDENTS ARE DROPPED OFF.
UM, SO IN THE FRONT OF OUR FACILITY WE HAVE A U-TURN.
SO THEY DROP THEM OFF, THEY LEAVE, THEY COME BACK, PICK THEM UP.
THE TYPICAL AGE, TYPICAL AGE IS FROM FIVE TO 12.
WE DO HAVE SOME TEENAGERS WHO HAVE LIKE ONE OR TWO CARS, BUT THEY PARK IN THE GARAGE.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS TERRY STOUTER.
UH, CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS RANISHA COBB, JUST IN CASE THAT'S NEEDED FOR THE RECORD.
UM, I AM A RESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, WHERE THE OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE IS SUBMITTED FOR THE ARTS FACILITY, UH, LOCATED ON INKER STREET.
UM, I RESPECTFULLY SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST VARIANCE AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
UM, THE REQUEST VARIANCE RELIES ON ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES LOCATED AT 5 2 2 5 NODER STREET OR 5 2 17 NODER STREET.
BOTH WERE MENTIONED IN THE VARIANCE.
UM, I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE IS, UM, THE VALID ONE, BUT I ALSO HEAR THAT THERE'S GONNA BE SOME PARKING TO THE WEST THAT WAS ALSO MENTIONED EARLIER BY THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER.
THE OWNER, UH, NEVERTHELESS OF WHICH GARAGE OR SPACES INTENDED, THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS OR ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN PATHS FULLY CONNECTING THOSE PARKING AREAS TO THE ARTS PROPERTY.
IN ADDITION, THE ARTS FACILITY ITSELF LACKS A COMPLETE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING REQUIRING PEDESTRIANS.
SO THAT INCLUDES CLIENTS, CAREGIVERS, AND
[01:50:01]
STAFF TO WALK THE IN STREET TO REACH AND EXIT THE ARTS ENTRANCE.THIS PRESENTS SIGNIFICANT AND ONGOING SAFETY HAZARD FOR PEDESTRIANS CLIENTS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE WITH DISABILITIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED PHYSICAL AND COGNITIVE.
UM, THE SURROUNDING STREETS ALREADY EXPERIENCE FREQUENT CONGESTIONS, ESPECIALLY ON WASTE, UH, COLLECTION DAYS, UM, AS WELL AS DURING AN EVENTS WHERE NEARBY HOUSES AND BUSINESSES, UM, UH, HAVE ACTIVITIES.
THERE IS ALSO A PLANNED HOTEL DEVELOPMENT ON THE SAME BLOCK, UH, NOA STREET AS REFERENCED FOR THE PARKING GARAGE.
AND THAT'S GONNA FURTHER INTENSIFY THE AMOUNT OF VEHICLES IN THE AREA.
ENSURING CLEAR UNOBSTRUCTED STREET ACCESS IS ESSENTIAL TO THIS SO THAT EMERGENCY VEHICLES LIKE FIRE, POLICE, MEDICAL RESPONDERS, AND CITY SERVICES LIKE WASTE MANAGEMENT TRUCKS CAN MOVE FREELY AT ALL TIMES.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, THIS VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT INCLUDE MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING ON STREET PARKING, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY OR THE PICKUP DROP OFF LINE.
ACCESS FACILITIES OF THIS TYPE TYPICALLY GENERATE SIGNIFICANT PICKUP LINE QUEUING.
YOU GUYS PROBABLY KNOW THAT FROM LIKE SCHOOL, UM, AREAS, UH, WHICH ADDS TO ADDITIONAL CONGESTION.
ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU MS. COBB.
THE LAST SPEAKER I HAVE SIGNED TO SPEAK IS ERIC KIM.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON AND, UH, THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
I LIVE ON THE IN ANCHOR STREET AND I, I KNOW HOW THE TRAFFIC IS EVERY DAY.
SO MY MAIN THING IS WE HAVE A RAILROAD RIGHT IN FRONT OF US AND, UM, FROM THE I 10 TC GESTURE TO, UM, UH, THE RAILROAD IS REALLY NARROW.
UH, WHEN WHENEVER RAIL PASSES, THE TRAFFIC GOES ALL THE WAY AROUND FROM THERE TO I 10 FEEDER ROAD.
SO I MEAN, PEOPLE REALLY CANNOT MOVE ANYTHING AROUND.
AND RIGHT NOW THE PARKING SITUATION ALREADY IS, WE HAVE A BAR ACROSS THE STREET AND ANOTHER WORKUP FACILITY.
WE HAVE SUCH A NARROW STREET, BUT PEOPLE PARKING ON THE STREET AND STREET PARKING'S ALREADY, UH, SCARE AND THEY HAVE A LITTLE SPOT IF YOU ALLOW IT.
UH, WE HAVE A LITTLE SPOT ON THE RAILROAD TRACK NEXT TO THERE'S JUST AN EMPTY, UH, GRAY SPOT.
THAT, UH, IS THE PLACE MOST, I I MOST LIKELY A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE PARKING THERE.
AND TO GO TO THAT FACILITY, YOU HAVE TO CROSS THE MAJOR TCS ROAD, WHICH IS LIKE FOUR-WAY LANE.
IT'S ALSO QUITE DANGEROUS TOO.
AND MY REALLY MAIN CONCERN IS LIKE IT'S GOING TO MAKE, UH, CREATE A LOT OF A TRAFFIC JAM THERE.
I MEAN, WHICH WE ALREADY EXPERIENCED ANYTIME WE PASSES IT.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S GONNA ADD UP ANOTHER TIME, DROP UP TIME AND PICK UP TIME AND ALL THAT.
AND SO THEY NEEDED SOME KIND OF WAYS TO, UH, GENERATE MORE PARKINGS WITHOUT, UH, RESIDENT BEING, UH, SO MUCH TROUBLE.
'CAUSE I I, I'M RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THERE.
I MEAN, I CAN WALK THERE IN TWO MINUTES AND I SEE HOW IT IS EVERY DAY.
ANY QUESTIONS? UM, I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. BUCKLEY.
UM, THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE PARKING ON THE STREETS, BUT ARE THOSE NO PARKING SIGNS? UH, SEVERAL OF THE SURROUNDING STREETS HAVE PROHIBITED ON STREET PARKING.
UM, I I THINK THAT THE MAIN FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT FROM THE RESIDENTS IS THAT PICK UP AND DROP OFF OUR CONCERN.
SO THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE GONNA BE DISCUSSING WITH THE APPLICANT IS HOW TO MITIGATE THAT.
IN THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS, MR. HOWARD, YOU'RE THE APPLICANT, RIGHT? YES, MA'AM.
YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK UP AND CLARIFY IF YOU'D LIKE.
SO NONE OF OUR CLIENTS EVER PARK ON THE STREET.
THERE'S PHYSICALLY NO SPACE TO PARK ON THE STREET.
ALL OF OUR CLIENTS PARK IN OUR LOT, WHICH IS THE DIAGRAM THAT I JUST SHOWED YOU, OR THAT IS ON THE SCREEN OR AT THE PARKING GARAGE.
UM, LIKE SHE MENTIONED ON TRASH DAYS, TRASH CANS LINE THE STREET.
THERE'S NO PHYSICAL WAY FOR US TO PARK IN THE STREET.
NONE OF OUR CLIENTS EVER WALK ACROSS TC JESTER BECAUSE WE PAY FOR A PARKING GARAGE, UM, ON KNOW THE STREET FOR THEM TO PARK AT.
WE DO NOT HAVE OUR CLIENTS WALK TO OUR FACILITIES.
WE HAVE FOUR VANS THAT WE PURCHASED TO TRANSPORT THEM.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? OKAY.
YOU HAVE, UH, YOU WANNA RESTATE THE MOTION? PLEASE GIMME THE RECOMMENDATION.
YEAH, RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FURTHER REQUEST FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW.
AND WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE STUDYING? IN REVIEWING SEVERAL THINGS, UM, AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THEY, UM, MAY HAVE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH A DIFFERENT NEIGHBOR, WHICH WOULD CHANGE THEIR REQUEST, ALLOW THEM TO PROVIDE MORE PARKING AT A OFFSITE SOLELY THAT DOES MEET THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND I MEAN THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THE PRIMARY THING.
[01:55:01]
SOME OPTIONS FOR CIRCULATION DURING PICKUP.THAT'S NOT DIRECTLY UNDER THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S PURVIEW, BUT IT COULD BE RELATED TO PARKING.
SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANNA ADDRESS.
COMMISSIONER CARROLL, UH, WHAT ARE THE HOURS OF OPERATION IN THE DAYS? SO WHEN DOES PICKUP AND DROP OFF TYPICALLY OCCUR? I'LL DEFER TO THE APPLICANT ON, ON THAT IF THAT'S OKAY.
SO DURING THE DAY WE HAVE MAYBE FIVE OR SIX STAFF MEMBERS.
WE DON'T START OUR OPERATIONS UNTIL THREE O'CLOCK WHEN SCHOOL GETS OUT.
SO FROM THREE TO EIGHT IS OUR NORMAL OPERATING TIMES.
OUR PICKUP TIMES ARE FROM FIVE TO FIVE 30 AND THEN SEVEN 30 TO EIGHT.
AND AGAIN, WE ARE ABLE TO MOVE THOSE WINDOWS TO MORE ACCOMMODATE TRAFFIC.
AND THIS MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY OR MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.
MONDAY, FRIDAY, UH, ON SATURDAYS WE OPERATE FROM NINE 15 TO TWO O'CLOCK.
AFTER TWO O'CLOCK WE HAVE BIRTHDAY PARTIES, BUT ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE PARK IN THE GARAGE.
ARE, ARE YOU IN BUSINESS NOW AT THIS LOCATION? YES.
YOU, YOU, YOU'RE, YOU'RE CURRENTLY WORKING, RIGHT? YES.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING DIFFERENT? WHAT ARE WE, WHAT, WHAT IS DIFFERENT? UH, DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS THERE OR, YEAH, I MEAN, SO IT WAS A TOOL, UM, DISTRIBUTION CENTER.
BUT YOU'RE ALREADY RUNNING YOUR CAMP THERE ALREADY? ALREADY, ALREADY.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE DOING IF YOU'RE ALREADY DOING THIS.
SO I GUESS THE ONLY REQUEST GETTING IN COMPLIANT, THE ONLY REQUEST WE'RE ASKING IS TO ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO USE THE GARAGE AND NOT HAVE, I GUESS THE LIMITS FOR PARKING THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.
THE, I FORGOT WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY BEFORE THAT, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO OPERATE SO THAT WE CAN USE THAT GARAGE.
AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN OPERATING IN THIS LOCATION? SINCE MAY.
MR. BUCKLEY, HELP ME CLARIFY WHAT BROUGHT THIS ABOUT.
WE'RE REALLY KIND OF WORRIED ABOUT THIS SIGN OVER HERE.
THE SHORTEST ANSWER THAT I CAN GIVE IN, IN FACT, THE, THE ONLY ANSWER THAT I REALLY HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO GIVE IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CHANGE OF USE OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU'VE GOT A RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF YOU TO DEFER FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW.
MOTION HINES SECOND, UH, BALLARD.
[VI. Consideration of an Off-Street Parking Variance for 10750 Westview Drive (Geoff Butler)]
OKAY, NOW WE'RE MOVING ALONG TO ROMAN NUMERAL SIX CONSIDERATION OF AN OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE FOR 1 0 7 5 0 WESTVIEW ROMAN NUMERAL SIX IS TEN SEVEN FIFTY WESTVIEW DRIVE.THE SITE IS LOCATED NORTH OF I 10 NORTH OF WESTVIEW DRIVE IN WEST OF BELTWAY EIGHT.
THE SITE CONSISTS OF AN EXISTING BIG BOX RETAIL STORE WITH A PLANNED EXPANSION OF THE PICKUP AREA.
THE PROPOSAL WILL INCLUDE A STRUCTURAL ADDITION AND NEW LANDSCAPING.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE TO PROVIDE 588 PARKING SPACES RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 632.
THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WILL INCREASE THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH INCREASES THE PARKING REQUIREMENT BY ORDINANCE.
AND PROPOSED LANDSCAPING WILL REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ON SITE.
THE EXISTING STORE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE MID 1980S PRIOR TO THE OFF STREET PARKING ORDINANCE.
THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WILL BETTER FACILITATE PICKUP SHOPPING AND IS EXPECTED TO REDUCE DEMAND FOR PARKING OVERALL AS PATRONS PICKING UP ONLINE ORDERS WILL SPEND LESS TIME AT THE SITE.
THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL USES AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARES, REDUCING THE POSSIBILITY THAT SPILL OVER PARKING WILL DISRUPT RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
STAFF FINDS REQUEST TO BE A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE, STRICT INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 26 AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
DOES, IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO YES.
HELLO, MY NAME IS ADAM BARNES.
I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS COMMISSIONER BALDWIN? NO.
I'M JUST GONNA COMMENT FOR COMMISSIONER MORRIS AND THOSE THAT ARE NEW, IF THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING, WALMART GOES BROKE, THEY'LL FIND SOMEPLACE ELSE TO GO.
IT'S CALLED MARKET BASED PARKING.
KIND LIKE THE DEAL WITH THE KIDS CENTER OVER THERE.
THE MARKET DICTATES HOW MUCH PARKING THEY NEED AND WALMART'S.
WAS THERE PLENTY OF PARKING WITH MY DAUGHTER AND IT'S CHRISTMAS SHOPPING AND THERE HALF THE PARKING LOT WAS EMPTY.
OKAY, ANYTHING ELSE? ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT, SO COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A MOTION, A RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF YOU.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION JONES
[02:00:01]
SECOND BALDWIN.[VII. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Special Minimum Lot Size Block Re-Establishment for Washington Terrace Subdivision, Ordinance 2005-1287 – MLS 129REN (Tonya Sawyer)]
UH, ROMAN NUMERAL SEVEN.I'M NOT GONNA REPEAT THAT WHOLE THING.
LET STAFF DO THAT WHEN THEY COME UP.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS TANYA SAWYER WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
HAS RECEIVED AN APPLICATION TO RENEW A 5,775 SQUARE FOOT SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THE AREA LOCATED IN THIRD WARD, THE TWENTY FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED BLOCK OF CLEBURNE STREET SOUTH SIDE BETWEEN EMANCIPATION AVENUE AND LIVE OAK STREET.
THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE ORDINANCE FOR THIS BLOCK WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 22ND, 2005.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARD THE APPLICATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
ACCORDING TO OUR ANALYSIS, THE APPLICATION AREA CONSISTS OF EIGHT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS REPRESENTING 80% OF THE TOTAL AREA.
A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 5,775 SQUARE FEET IS EXIST ON FIVE LOTS IN THE APPLICATION AREA.
EVIDENCE OF SUPPORT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR RENEWALS PER ORDINANCE.
SECTION 42 DASH ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WERE PROVIDED NOTICE STATING THAT A PROTEST OF THE APPLICATION MUST BE FILED WITHIN A 30 DAY PERIOD.
ONE PROTEST WAS FILED AND WE ALSO RECEIVED AN EMAIL LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 24 0 6 CLEBURNE.
THE APPLICATION AREA IS LOCATED IN WASHINGTON TERRACE SUBDIVISION, WHICH WAS PLANTED IN 1925.
STAFF WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE RENEWAL.
MEANING THE APPLICATION IS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT THE ORDINANCE BE EXTENDED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 20 YEARS BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL DESIGNATION WAS ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 10TH, 2007.
THE RENEWAL DOES NOT INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY RESTRICTION.
STAFF RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARD THE APPLICATION FOR CITY COUN TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
WITH THAT MADAM CHAIR, WE ARE READY TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CONTINUED FOR RUM NUMERAL SEVEN.
UH, MADAM CHAIRMAN AND TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UH, I'M HERE BECAUSE I HAD FILED AN APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
I HAD ONE, GOT A LETTER SAYING I HAD A PROTESTOR, SO I WAS HERE TO COME.
SO WE RECOMMENDED THAT THE ALL WE WANNA DO IS PRESERVE THE LOT SIZE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU FOR COMING IN, COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? NO.
MY NAME IS ERNEST JOHNSON AND I'M A PROPERTY OWNER ON 24 0 6 CLEBURNE.
I'M IN FAVOR OF THE APP APPLICATION ALSO TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF, UH, HI HISTORIC THIRD WARD ALSO.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION, UH, PUBLIC HEARING.
AH, NEED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF TO APPROVE.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WANTS TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? EIGHT.
OH, DID I SKIP EIGHT? OH, I'M JUST IN A HURRY.
[VIII. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Special Minimum Lot Size Block for East Sunnyside Court Subdivision Section 3 – MLS 889 (Jacqueline Brown)]
ALONG TO ROMAN NUMERAL EIGHT PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL LOT, MINIMUM LOT SIZE BLOCK FOR EAST SUNNY SIDE COURT SUBDIVISION SECTION THREE.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
STAFF IS REQUESTING THAT THIS APPLICATION BE DEFERRED FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
[02:05:01]
TIME TO NOTIFY RESIDENTS THAT THE PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE HAS CHANGED FROM 6,947 TO 6,820 SQUARE FEET.THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A 6,820 SQUARE FOOT SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE BLOCK FOR THE 4,900 TO 5,000 BLOCK OF MAYFLOWER STREET NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES BETWEEN COFFEE STREET AND CHANGE STREET.
THE APPLICATION IS LOCATED IN THE EAST SUNNYSIDE COURT, SECTION THREE SUBDIVISION AND STAFF IS REQUESTING THAT THIS APPLICATION BE DEFERRED FOR TWO WEEKS.
WITH THAT MADAM CHAIR, WE'RE READY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ROMAN NUMERAL EIGHT IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY.
I WILL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DEFERRAL.
CAN WE GET CLARITY THOUGH? THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION, NO ONE FILE, NO PROTEST.
AND WHAT DO WE NEED THE TWO MORE WEEKS FOR? JUST TO NOTIFY THAT THE CALCULATION HAS CHANGED SINCE WE SENT A NOTIFICATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, LETTING THEM KNOW THAT IT WAS A SPECIFIC VALUE.
AND SINCE THAT'S CHANGED, WE WANNA LET THEM KNOW OF THE, THE NEW VALUE.
DOES IT OPEN BACK UP THE PROTEST PERIOD? DON'T BELIEVE SO.
OH, DOES IT OPEN THE PROTEST PERIOD BACK UP? YES, IT WOULD, RIGHT? YES.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER? MOTION.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY, THEN I AM GOING TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 4:39 PM THANK YOU EVERYONE.