* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] FROM CITY HALL ANNEX, IT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RIGHT HERE ON HTV CHAIR OF THE HOUSTON [CALL TO ORDER] PLANNING COMMISSION, AND I'M CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 2:43 PM ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18TH, 2025. THIS IS AN IN-PERSON MEETING TAKING PLACE IN THE CITY HALL ANNEX AT 900 BAGBY. YOU MAY ALSO MONITOR THE MEETING BY VIEWING VIA HTV SPEAKERS. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AN ITEM, PLEASE FILL OUT THE SPEAKER'S FORM BEFORE THE ITEM IS CALLED AND TURN IT INTO STAFF NEAR THE FRONT DOOR. CONSENT AND REPEAT SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED ONE MINUTE. NEW SPEAKERS ARE TIMED FOR TWO MINUTES. SPEAKER RULES ARE FOUND ON THE TOP PORTION OF THE SPEAKER'S SIGN IN FORM, WHICH ARE ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA. COUNCIL MEMBERS SPEAKING ON AN ITEM ARE NOT TIMED. APPLICANTS HAVE THEIR ALLOTTED TWO MINUTES TIME AS WELL AS REBUTTALS AND NON APPLICANTS OR GENERAL SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED. TWO MINUTES TIME. THERE'S NOT AN OPTION FOR A REBUTTAL, EVEN IF YOU DID NOT USE YOUR FULL TWO MINUTES AND YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK AGAIN AND THAT TIME CANNOT BE ALLOTTED TO ANOTHER SPEAKER TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM. I'M GOING TO CALL THE ROLE CHAIR CLARK IS HERE. VICE CHAIR GARZA. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN BALDWIN. HERE. COMMISSIONER BALLARD. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CAROL? PRESENT. COMMISSIONER HINES AND ISHA? NOT HERE. COMMISSIONER JONES? HERE PRESENT. JONES. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MAREZ? NOT HERE. UH, COMMISSIONER NARANJO? HERE. COMMISSIONER FAM FA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER PIERCE. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER POROUS PERLE. RIS PERLE PRESENT. COMMISSIONER M PRESENT? DID I, DID I SARM. OKAY, SIR. OKAY. I WILL GET IT RIGHT. I PROMISE YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER SHEPHERD IS NOT HERE. COMMISSIONER SIGLER SIGLER PRESENT. COMMISSIONER SYKES. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER VICTOR VICTOR PRESENT. COMMISSIONER GARCIA PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MANDE PKA IS NOT HERE. AND SECRETARY VON TRAN TRAN AT PRESENT. 16. THANK YOU. WE HAVE 16 MEMBERS, SO WE HAVE ESTABLISHED OUR QUORUM. OKAY. I WANNA, BEFORE WE GET STARTED TOO FAR IN, I WANNA LET YOU GUYS KNOW THERE'S SOME WITHDRAWALS TODAY. ITEM 43, BROAD OAKS GROVE 94 OAK VIEW FARMS ESTATES AND ONE 19 NAVIGATION BOULEVARD WILL NOT BE, UH, HEARD OR, UH, ACTIONS TAKEN ON THOSE ITEMS. AND NOW I'LL CALL FOR [Director’s Report] THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR CLARK, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF, AND THE PUBLIC. I AM VON TRAN, SECRETARY OF THIS COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. WELCOME. I'D LIKE TO SHARE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE UPCOMING 2026 MTFP. WE WILL BEGIN SCHEDULING THE MANDATORY PRE-SUBMIT CONFERENCE WITH STAFF STARTING JANUARY 6TH. THIS PRE-SUBMIT SUBMITTAL CONFERENCE WILL RUN THROUGH FEBRUARY 20TH. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE MTFP PROCESS, YOU MAY CONTACT OUR PLANNER, JEFF BUTLER. IN CLOSING, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CAN BE REACHED AT (832) 393-6600 OR YOU CAN CALL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNER OF THE DAY AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 6 2 4. YOU MAY ALSO VISIT, UM, OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM. THIS CONCLUDES MY REPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR TRAN. UH, NOW WE NEED TO TAKE [Consideration of December 4, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes] A LOOK AT THE MINUTES THAT WERE ATTACHED TO YOUR AGENDA, THE MINUTES OF, UH, DECEMBER 4TH, 2025. DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? MOTION GARZA. MOTION GARZA. SECOND BALLARD. SECOND BALLARD. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. OKAY, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO ROMAN NUMER ONE PLATING ACTIVITY. UH, WANNA MAKE SURE. DO WE HAVE ANY ABSTENTIONS FROM ANYONE? GO AHEAD. MARK. OH YEAH. NUMBER 95. UH, EAST T CJE. THANK YOU. SORRY. THAT'S IT. I THINK THAT'S IT. MM-HMM . YEAH. SO DID YOU HEAR THAT NUMBER? 95. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. IT, UH, SYKES ON 100. SYKES ON 100. OKAY. ANY OTHERS? ALL RIGHT. [00:05:01] VERY WELL. DO I HAVE ANYONE PRESENTING ROMAN [Platting Activities a & b] NUMER? ONE. ONE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS MARIA TOVAR. SECTIONS A AND B ARE PRESENTED AS ONE GROUP, WHICH INCLUDES CONSENT AND REPLAT. ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION. SECTIONS A AND B ARE ITEMS ONE THROUGH 89 SECTION A. CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 37 AND SECTION B REPL ITEMS ARE NUMBERS 38 THROUGH 89. NO ITEMS NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND IF THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MADAM CHAIR, IF THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSENT AND RE REPLY ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION. THANK YOU. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS. UM, I DO HAVE THE ONE ABSTENTION, WHICH IS, UM, NUMBER 95. COMMISSIONER CARROLL. SO I'LL NEED A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. SAVE AND ACCEPT ITEM 95. UM, WE'RE NOT THERE YET. WE'RE NOT THERE YET. YEAH, 95 IS, AM I JUST MOVING ALONG? YOU, YOU MEAN TO 89? OH, 95. YOU'RE RIGHT. OKAY. I WAS LOOKING AT THE HUNDRED AS BEING PASSED, BUT ALL RIGHT. I HAVE NO ABSTENTIONS FOR A AND B. DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? MOTION BALDWIN. MOTION BALDWIN. SECOND. SECOND, VICTOR. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. NOW WE'LL MOVE ALONG. [c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Ken Calhoun, Dorianne Powe-Phlegm, John Cedillo, Aracely Rodriguez)] SEE? YEP. PUBLIC HEARINGS TO SEE PUBLIC HEARINGS. GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS KEN CALHOUN. ITEM 90 IS ASLAN PLACES. THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED LAST CYCLE TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO COMPLY WITH THE RESTRICTIONS. THE SUBJECT SIDE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS NORTH ALONG MADERA ROAD BETWEEN THORN AND TRUMPET. THE PURPOSE OF THE REPLAY IS TO CREATE FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO RESERVES. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FALL SEPARATELY AS LONG AS THE FINAL PLAT SHOWS THE THREE FOOT INTERIOR SIDE BUILDING LINES ALONG, UM, ALONG EACH LOT AND 25 FOOT FRONT BUILDING LINE ALONG, UH, THE RIGHT OF WAY. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENTS REGARDING THE APPLICATION. STATUTE RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS AND APPLICABLE DEED RESTRICTIONS. MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK FOR ITEM 90. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY. HEARING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION GARCIA SECONDED. SOM SECOND SOM. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ITEM 91. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS DORIAN FLM. ITEM 91 IS CATO PINES. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, CORPORATE LIMITS NORTH OF CATO ROAD, WEST OF GREENWOOD STREET AND WAYSIDE DRIVE. THE REASON FOR REPLY IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OF THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM. CONDITIONS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM. MADAM CHAIR PLEASES THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 91 IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION SEGLER. MOTION SEGLER. I I HEARD ONE OVER HERE. GARCIA? YEAH. SECOND GARCIA. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 92. ITEM 92 IS GATEWAY VILLAS. THE SITE IS IN HOUSTON, CORPORATE LIMITS NORTH ALONG MOUNT CARMEL STREET, EAST OF ROOK BOULEVARD, WEST OF UH, BELFORT STREET. THE REASON FOR REPLY IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON A FACE OF PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE C BBC 1 0 1 FORM. CONDITIONS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM. THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM. MADAM CHAIR, IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION. YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING [00:10:01] FOR ITEM 92 IS OPEN. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION POROUS PER MOTION. POROUS PER SECOND. SYKES. SECOND SYKES. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ITEM 93. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JOHN PHILLIPS . ITEM 93 IS LOCK LOCKETT MANOR. THE SUBJECT SIDE IS NEARLY 8,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF LOCKETT AVENUE AND VAN ETTEN STREET NORTH OF OLD SPANISH TRAIL IN EAST OF ALAMEDA ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUEST WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. STAFF HAS RECEIVED MULTIPLE ADVANCED COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS STATING THE PROPOSED PLAT VIOLATES ACTIVE DEED RESTRICTIONS. THIS IS A PLT OF LOT 13 BLOCK THREE OF CENTRAL CITY SUBDIVISION. THE PLAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED AND GRANTED A 30 DAY EXTENSION TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION. TODAY FOR CONSIDERATION. UH, THE SITE PLAN AND RENDERED ELEVATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT SHOW THE INTENT TO CREATE A THREE STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON EACH LOT WITH EACH HOME TAKING ACCESS, ONE FROM LOCKETT AND ONE FROM VAN TON STREET. UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS PER THE PREVIOUS LEGAL REVIEW IT THAT IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RESTRICTIONS IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS LESS LEGAL. HAS UH, COMMENTS REGARDING THE PLAT? YOU SAID LEGAL HAS COMMENTS? MIGHT, MIGHT HAVE. OKAY. YOU DO? YES. OKAY. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ALL OF THE INFORMATION CONCERNING OWNERSHIP AND INFORMATION THAT IS MISSING MAY IMPACT THE ULTIMATE OPINION WITH RESPECT TO THIS REPL. SO THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED, UM, THIS MORNING, SO I NEED TIME TO GET IT AND THEN TO REVIEW IT. OKAY. DOES STAFF HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT? ARE WE GONNA, HAVE WE BEEN REQUESTED TO DO ANOTHER 30 DAY OR THAT WOULD BE AT THE OWNERS OR THE PROPERTY OWNERS OR THE APPLICANT'S B. OKAY. BUT YOU HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING IN WRITING? WELL, WE JUST KINDA CAME TO, UH, INFORMATION. OKAY. JUST AS COMMISSION. SO I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL I DO HAVE SOME SPEAKERS. OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS DANIEL GOLDBERG. HELLO EVERYONE. HI. SO, UM, YOU HEARD MY THOUGHTS THE LAST TIME. I WON'T ADD TO THOSE. UM, I'LL JUST STATE WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE GOING ON IN TERMS OF HOW WE REACH THE THRESHOLD NUMBER NEEDED FOR THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS TO BE ACTUALLY ENFORCEABLE. AND IF YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION, THEN YOU CAN WALK BACKWARDS AND SAY, THEREFORE THIS APPLICATION FOR THE RE PLATTING IS INDEED IN VIOLATION OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. WE WORKED UNDER 2 0 1 0.006 B OF THE PROPERTY CODE, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A SIMPLE MAJORITY COUNT OVER 50% OF ALL OWNERS OF SEPARATELY OWNED PROPERTIES. SO IT'S NOT A COUNT OF ALL LOTS, IT'S INSTEAD A COUNT OF ALL OWNERS, WHICH THE LEGISLATOR CREATED TO NEGATE THE POWER THAT OWNERS OF MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES HAD. WE DID A, GO AHEAD AND JUST WRAP UP QUICKLY. WE DID A CONTEMPORANEOUS TITLE SEARCH IN 2022 THAT REVEALED THAT THERE WERE ONLY 66 DIFFERENT OWNERS. AND OUT OF THAT WE THEN GOT MORE THAN THE SIMPLE MAJORITY NECESSARY. IF THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT INFORMATION YET TO PROVE WHAT WE ARE TELLING Y'ALL WE'RE REQUESTING FROM Y'ALL DO NOT APPROVE THIS. YOUR APPROVAL HERE WILL RESULT IN A FOREVER CHANGE TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD JUST BASED UPON, WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING QUITE YET. UM, WHICH WE ARE IMPLORING YOU TO NOT ALLOW THAT TO BE THE CAUSE FOR APPROVAL. IF ANYTHING, IT SHOULD BE THE CAUSE OF DISAPPROVAL. THE DEVELOPER DIDN'T COME UP WITH ANY INFORMATION. THE DEVELOPER PUNTED THIS DECISION. YOU NEED TO GO AHEAD AND WRAP UP TWO SEPARATE TIMES ONCE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T PUT UP PROPER NOTICE THE NEXT TIME BECAUSE HE HEARD OUR OBJECTIONS, HE USED UP HIS TWO DEFERRALS. AND NOW AT THIS JUNCTURE WHEN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT MIGHT NOT HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT'S NECESSARY, WE SHOULDN'T BE THE ONES THAT ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE AND TOLD WELL, BECAUSE WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION AND THERE ISN'T ENOUGH INFORMATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE, WE GET THE POINT. WE, I APPRECIATE IT. I HATE TO CUT YOU OFF BUT WALK AWAY. WALK AWAY BACKWARDS. YEAH. DOING THE WAVE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF Y'ALL GOT THEM. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS PAUL SALA. [00:15:01] GOOD AFTERNOON. IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD PLEASE. YES MA'AM. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR. AND MY NAME IS PAUL SALA. I'M A RESIDENT OF, UH, CENTRAL CITY. AND UH, THEN BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF CUE MY 2 CENTS SAYING THAT WE ARE HAVE, AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE KNOW THE TECHNICAL DETAILS PER SE IN TERMS OF LEGAL LEGALITY AND AS SUCH, BUT I'M JUST BEING A NORMAL RESIDENT CONSIDERING THE HAD RESTRICTIONS THAT WE HAVE. AND BASED ON WHAT I KNOW, EVEN WHEN I WAS BUILDING MY HOUSE, IT'S MEANT FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND WE WERE TRYING TO KIND OF KEEP OUR ENVIRONMENT THE SAME WAY. NOT TO CHANGE IN ANY FASHION BECAUSE IT'S A SMALL SUBDIVISION AND WE WANTED TO KINDA KEEP THE PEACE AND TRANQUILITY OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE DON'T WANT HAVE TOO MUCH TRAFFIC AND WHATNOT. AND ALSO WE HAVE SOME FAMILIES WITH THE YOUNG KIDS AND WHATNOT. SO JUST OPENING IT UP TO THE PUBLIC, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA THE NEIGHBORHOOD GONNA TURN INTO. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE KIM A TWO SENSE SAYING THAT APPRECIATE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE TECHNICAL DETAILS AS TO MAKE A DECISION, UH, WHILE DOING THAT, ONCE YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION AND UM, MAKING THE DECISION, JUST KEEP IN MIND THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, SINGLE FAMILY AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING IN THERE KIND OF HAS A BIG IMPACT. WHATEVER THE DECISION NEEDS TO BE MADE HERE AND I DO EXPECT IT TO HAVE A DUE COURSE IN MAKING THE DECISION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MA'AM. THANK COMING IN. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CORINA ROSALES. HELLO, MY NAME IS CORINA ROSALES AND I SERVE AS THE HA VICE PRESIDENT. I'M HERE ALONG WITH MY, THE REST OF THE RESIDENTS, UM, TO OPPOSE A REPLYING ON 69 0 4 VAN EATON. AS PER THE APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS ARGUMENTS, UM, IN THE LAST MEETING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT HAVE DEED RESTRICTIONS AS CATEGORICALLY FALLS. WE HAVE PROVIDED DOCU, WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED DOCUMENTS BY LEGAL THAT INCLUDED ALL DEED RESTRICTIONS AS WELL AS OUR NEW ACTIVE DEED RESTRICTIONS. THEREFORE, THERE IS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS DO IN FACT EXIST. UPON SPEAKING TO THE DEVELOPER, UM, THAT WAS HIRED BY THE APPLICANT, THEY ALSO COMMENTED THAT THEY WERE NOT ASCERTAINING WHETHER THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS EXISTED. WHAT THEY WERE SAYING IS THAT THEY DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM. ALSO FURTHER, UM, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THESE DUE RESTRICTIONS DO INDEED APPLY. AS FOR ANY INVESTORS INTEREST OR INTEREST IN PARTIES BUYING, UH, PROPERTIES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MONUMENT CLEARLY STATES. AS I WILL SHOW YOU IN THIS PICTURE, THAT THIS IS A DEED RESTRICTED DOCUMENT. CAMERA PLEASE. ALRIGHT, GO AHEAD. CONTINUE HERE. THIS IS A DEED RESTRICTED, UH, COMMUNITY. WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS FOR LEGAL TO REVIEW OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS AND CONFIRMED THAT DE RESTRICTIONS DID AND DO INDEED APPLY TO THIS PROPERTY. THE ONE FUNDAMENTAL CONFORMING DEED RESTRICTION IN OUR CURRENT, UH, RESTRICTIONS IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING. OUR ACTIVE DEED RESTRICTIONS HAVE A GRANDFATHER CLAUSE 3.4 FOR NONCONFORMING, UH, STRUCTURE SUCH AS DUPLEXES THAT EXIST AT THE TIME OF FILING. I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER THIS PICTURE INTO EVIDENCE THAT THIS WAS INDEED A DUPLEX, UM, WHEN THIS, UM, PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO THE APPLICANT. HOWEVER, WHEN HE TORE DOWN THIS DUPLEX, THAT GRANDFATHER CLAUSE IS NO LONGER APPLIED TO THIS APPLICANT AND THE LOT IS THEN, UH, SUBJECT TO THE SAME DEED RESTRICTIONS AS ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES, WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING. UM, GO AHEAD AND WRAP UP REALLY QUICKLY. MM-HMM . AND I JUST WANNA MENTION THAT THE REC, THAT THERE WAS AN EXCLUSION RECORD ADDED, UM, UP FOR THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THIS PROPERTY LAST TIME. AND THAT WAS FOR A PROPERTY ON, UM, 20 29 32 PAYSON THAT HAS NO BEARING ON THE PROPERTY AT 64, UH, 69 0 4 VAN EATON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS PETER AES. MR. AES. HI, I AM PETER AES, RESIDENT OF CENTRAL CITY. HELLO AGAIN. UH, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE CURRENTLY BEING CHALLENGED IN A SUIT, ONE OF THE DISTRICT COURTS IN HARRIS COUNTY IN A SUIT THAT THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION BROUGHT TO ENFORCE THESE RESTRICTIONS AND PENDING A DECISION. UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY I BELIEVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS DONE EVERYTHING PROPER AND APPROPRIATE. WE'VE HIRED LAWYERS, WE'VE HIRED LAW FIRMS, WE'VE FOLLOWED ALL THE, UH, RULES THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW BY THE CITY TO MAKE SURE ALL THESE DEEDS ARE IN PLACE. UM, I DON'T FEEL IT'S UPON US TO HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY AREN'T ENFORCEABLE. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE UPON THE DEVELOPER WHO'S WISHING TO DO THIS. UH, AND JUST IN SUMMARY, I'M JUST GONNA SAY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU REJECT THIS APPLICATION, YOU AFFECT THE LIFE OF ONE BUSINESSMAN. HE SELLS THE LAW, HE TAKES HIS PROFIT, HE TAKES HIS WRITE OFF, HE MOVES ON. IT'S DONE, [00:20:01] NEVER HAS TO DEAL WITH IT AGAIN. UM, IF YOU APPROVE THIS APPLICATION, YOU AFFECT THE LIVES OF 60 RESIDENTS AND YOU'RE GONNA ALTER THE CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR ALMOST A HUNDRED YEARS. UM, AGAIN, IF LEGAL DOESN'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION, I REQUEST THAT THEY SHOULD DELAY THIS AND NOT FIND IN, IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT. TO ME, THAT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A FAIR THING TO DO. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU MR. AES. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ALFONSO PICCO. IF I PRONOUNCE IT INCORRECTLY, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. OOH, JOHN, CAN YOU LOWER THAT PLEASE? GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ALFONSO PICO AND I HAVE BEEN A PART OF, OF THIS COMMUNITY FOR 25 YEARS. I FEEL THAT TO DIVIDE THIS LOT INTO TWO LOTS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. CENTRAL CITY IS BASED ON SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING IN TODAY. MY NEXT SPEAKER IS VINNE CHANDRA. SHANDRA. I'M SURE I BUTCHERED THAT ONE, SO PLEASE CORRECT ME. . GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, MY NAME IS VINNE CHANDRA. I AM OPPOSED TO REPLANTING IN CENTRAL CITY. THE LOTS ARE MINIMUM LOTS ARE 7,000 SQUARE FEET AND ABOUT UP TO 14 AND A HALF SQUARE FEET. CREATING REPL WOULD CREATE TWO LOTS DISPROPORTIONATE SIZE COMPARED TO OTHER LOTS. AND ALSO IT'S A CLEAR VIOLATION OF OUR DE JURISDICTION. IT USED TO BE A DUPLEX BEFORE IT WAS DEMOLISHED AND IT WAS GRANDFATHERED THAT TIME AS A NON-CONFORMING LOT. AFTER DEMOLITION, IT LOST ITS GREEK GRANDFATHER CLAUSE. IT'S A GRANDFATHERED STATUS AND OUR DICTION SECTION 3.4, CLEARLY STATES ANY LOT THAT WAS GRANDFATHERED LOST, LOSES ITS GRANDFATHER STATUS. IT CANNOT BE REPLANTED. AND IT'S A CLEAR VIOLATION OF OUR DICTION. I'M OPPOSED TO IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING IN TODAY. AND THE LAST SPEAKER I HAVE SIGNED IS GERARDO GAETAN. YES. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND THANK YOU COMMISSION. I WAS HERE LA LAST ONE, LAST HEARING. WOULD YOU MIND STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD PLEASE? THIS IS GERARDO GAAN. THANK YOU. I AM A RESIDENT IN CENTRAL CITY. I WAS HERE LAST IN THE LAST HEARING AND ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMISSION IS FOR US TO PURSUE, UM, AND EXPLORE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, UH, A SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE APPLICATION. WE HAVE SUBMITTED THAT AND THAT HAS ALREADY PROGRESSED. UH, SO THAT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. SO WE'RE IN THAT PROCESS. IF, UH, THAT DOES NOT HELP IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UH, IT DOES SHOW, UH, THE SUPPORT AND THE OPPOSITION BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF ACTING QUICKLY IN ORDER TO PREVENT THIS FROM BEING SUBDIVIDED AS ALL THE OTHER SPEAKERS HAVE SAID. UH, THERE ARE DEEP RESTRICTIONS THAT APPLY AND IT PROHIBITS, UH, SUBDIVIDING THE SLOT. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. AND GOOD JOB ON THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE. IT WILL NOT AFFECT THIS APPLICATION, BUT IT WILL HELP YOU, UH, IN EVERYTHING IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. YES. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN. OH, I THOUGHT YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE GONNA SAY? OKAY. THAT'S THE LAST SPEAKER I HAVE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO PLEASE COME FORWARD AND IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN. MY NAME IS JILL YAI AND THE LAST NAME IS Y LIKE YELLOW, A-Z-I-J-I. I AM VERY USED TO SPELLING MY NAME ALL THE TIME. THANK YOU . UM, YOU HEARD FROM ME LAST TIME, AND I'M HERE SIMPLY TO REITERATE THAT WE HAVE PROPERLY RECORDED AND ENFORCEABLE DEEDS. WE KNOW ONE THING AND THAT'S THE QUESTION REALLY BEFORE US TODAY, AND THAT IS WHEN THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE, THAT PROPERTY WAS NON-CONFORMING UNDER THE DEED RESTRICTIONS IN THE SENSE THAT IT HAD A DUPLEX, WHICH MY COLLEAGUE, A NEIGHBOR, HAD ALREADY ENTERED IN EVIDENCE. IF YOU DON'T MIND, DOCUMENT, CAMERA PLEASE. THAT PARDON? OH, HE'S TALKING TO THE, YEAH, I'M SORRY. AUDIO VISUAL PEOPLE. AND, UM, THAT DUPLEX WAS GRANDFATHERED UNDER PROVISION 3.4 OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WHEN THE APPLICANT CHOSE [00:25:01] TO TEAR DOWN THE DUPLEX, HE LOST THAT STATUS OF BEING GRANDFATHERED AND THEREFORE THAT PARTICULAR LOT CANNOT BE SUBDIVIDED. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HEARING US TODAY. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOU COMING IN. I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO TWO? OKAY. HEARING NONE. THANK YOU. CHAIR. YES, COMMISSIONER GARZA. UM, UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, UM, THERE'S, UH, UH, LEGAL HAS ASKED FOR, UH, A DEFERRAL ON THIS AND RESEARCH HAS SAID THAT ACCORDING TO TEXAS LAW, WE CAN, UH, WE CAN DEFER AGAIN FOR A TOTAL OF 20 DAYS. NOW AGAIN, THIS HAS TO BE DONE WITH LEGAL'S REQUEST AND THEY HAVE REQUESTED A DEFERRAL FOR MORE INFORMATION. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. THERE MAY BE MORE DISCUSSION, BUT I, WHEN IT'S TIME WILL MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND FOR 20 DAYS SO THAT LEGAL CAN GET MORE INFORMATION AND WE CAN MAKE A MORE JUDICIOUS DECISION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE COULD DENY AT THE SAME TIME, CORRECT? THERE'S NOTHING THAT PROHIBITS US FROM DENYING AND THE APPLICANT'S NOT HERE AND THAT'S STILL AN OPTION, CORRECT? THE PROPERTY OWNER IS CURRENT. OH, THE OWNER IS OKAY. YEAH, THEY JUST DID NOT SIGN UP TO SPEAK. NOW I, NOW I SEE. YES. COMING UP BEHIND. JOHN, COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? YEAH, KAREEM DHE. THANK YOU. YES. AND UH, SO I WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND BECAUSE IF THEY, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH LEGAL INFORMATION, UH, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION. OKAY. SO, SO WHILE WE GET ALL THE DOCUMENT AND THEN, AND THEN I GUESS THEN, OKAY, YOU, YOU COME UP WITH THE DECISION. OKAY. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE YES. UM, I UNDERSTAND FROM THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER, SIR, THAT UH, YOU FEEL THAT UH, THE DEED RESTRICTIONS DO NOT APPLY. COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOU FEEL LIKE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS DO NOT APPLY OR YOU RELYING ON THE GRANDFATHER? WELL, WE'RE RELYING ALL, I MEAN ALL THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, WE CHECK ALL THE DE RESTRICTION AND ALL. THERE WAS A RESTRICTION BUT IT WAS LAPSED. LAPSED EXPIRED. I MEAN IT EXPIRED. YEAH. SO IT HAD EXPIRED. EXPIRED IS WHAT YOU SAID. OKAY. AND SO YOU FEEL LIKE NOW THERE ARE NO DEED RESTRICTIONS IN THE CAR? THERE'S, YES. ARE YOU RELYING ON THE GRANDFATHERED FROM THE DUPLEX? NO. NO. HE'S JUST RELYING ON THE FACT THAT HE BELIEVES THEY EXPIRED. OKAY. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? DOES ARVA HAVE SOMETHING? ARVA, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK UP? ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE LAWSUIT'S BEEN FILED? ARVA ARVA, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, EXCUSE ME FOR CLARIFICATION. THERE ARE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT EXPIRED, BUT THERE ARE CURRENTLY FILED DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT, UH, WILL EXPIRE IN 2035 AND THEN AUTOMATICALLY RENEW EVERY 10 YEARS. THE STATUTE, UM, IS NOT BASED ON AS WHAT PEOPLE WERE ASSUMING THE UH, MAJORITY OF LOT OWNERS OR EACH LOT, IT'S BASED ON INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNERS. SO SOMEONE CAN OWN 20 LOTS AND THAT'S ONE VOTE. OKAY. THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS OLD AND IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IT, ALAMEDA ROAD AND OST, THEY ORIGINALLY WERE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, BUT THEY'RE NOT THAT WAY NOW. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHO OWNS THOSE LOTS TO SEE IF THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES THAT THEY'VE GOTTEN IS SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME IT. ORIGINALLY THERE WERE 129 LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION. THEY BELIEVE IT'S 99. NO, IT'S 1 29 BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE PLAT SAYS. SO I HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL THIS OWNERSHIP INFORMATION. HCA HAS CHANGED THIS FORMAT AND IT IS, YEAH, IT'S DIFFICULT, CHALLENGING TO SAY THE LEAST IT IS. SO, UM, HAVING TO GO THROUGH THAT AND I GOT THE INFORMATION JUST A FEW DAYS AGO. OKAY. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN. OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, I HAVE A QUESTION. SO DO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS RESTRICT SUBDIVISION OF LOTS? IT DOES REFERENCE OUR GRANDFATHER CLAUSE. OKAY. BUT FOR THAT TO TRIGGER, THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF SIGNATURES TO MAKE THEM VALID FOR THAT TO TRIGGER. AND THEN WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF WHAT THEY, UM, ARE CALLING SINGLE FAMILY. AND IT MAY NOT BE AS CONSISTENT AS UM, I WOULD LIKE, BUT IT, IT'S JUST LOOKING AT EVERYTHING ALTOGETHER IN CONTEXT AND THEN COMING UP WITH, UH, HOPEFULLY THE CORRECT CONCLUSION. OKAY. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. [00:30:01] I KNOW YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION. I DO, YES. ? UH, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE AS WELL THAT THE UH, PROPERTY OWNER HAS GIVEN ME A WRITTEN, UH, REQUEST FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION. OKAY. THE 20 DAY EXTENSION REFERENCE WOULD NOT GET US TO THE NEXT COMMISSION 'CAUSE IT IS IN 21 DAYS. OKAY. SO JUST, UH, AN AWARE 20 DAYS SO WE CAN SO ARE YOU, ARE YOU STATING 30 DAY EXTENSION OR I'M SAYING THAT THAT IS WHAT THE, OF MAYOR IS REQUESTING. OKAY, SO MY, UM, SORRY, MY QUESTION IS LEGALLY CAN WE ASK FOR 21 DAYS OR IS IT RESTRICTED TO 20 OR DO WE GO BACK TO 30? SO, UH, IN, IN THE 30 DAYS OF THE EXTENSION, THE ONLY UH, UH, COMMISSION THAT WE WOULD HAVE WOULD BE THE ONE IN 21 DAYS. SO THAT JUST AS THIS WAS THE ONLY COMMISSION WITHIN 30 DAYS AND THIS IS ONLY TWO WEEKS AGO, SO YES, IT WOULD BE FINE FOR THE, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ADHERING TO TEXAS LAW. YES, AND MS. BANDY WANTS TO, MS. BANDY HAS A MAKE A COMMENT I THINK. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. SO BANDAID DIVISION MANAGER, UH, JUST WANTED TO SAY, STATE CODE ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF 30 DAY PERIODS OF EXTINCTIONS. OKAY. SO, UM, YOU CAN ASK FOR 20, YOU CAN ASK FOR 21 OR 27, BUT THE MAXIMUM IS 30 PERIODS OF MULTIPLE EXTINCTIONS CAN HAPPEN. GREAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO MADAM CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE OFFER ANOTHER EXTENSION, A DEFERRAL AS IT IS, UH, AS LEGAL IT NEEDS TIME TO GET MORE INFORMATION AND UM, MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THIS FOR ANOTHER 30 DAYS. SECOND. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY GARZA TO EXTEND FOR 30 DAYS A SECOND BY GARCIA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? A AND OPPOSED BALDWIN. BALDWIN. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. PLEASE NOTE ONE. ONE NAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, MOVING ON TO ITEM 94. WITHDRAWN. WITHDRAWN. THANK YOU. ITEM 95 RIVERWOOD ON EAST TC JESTER. I MADE THOSE. MOTION. ITEM 95 IS RIVERWOOD ON EAST TC JESTER BOULEVARD. PARTIALLY PLAT NUMBER ONE, THE SITE. I'M SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY, . ALL RIGHT. ITEM 95 IS RIVERWOOD ON EAST TC JESTER BOULEVARD. PARTIALLY REPL NUMBER ONE DECIDED IS IN HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS NORTH OF EAST, EAST T CJE 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 VEHICLE ACCESS FROM A 30 FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT IN LIEU OF PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST. THE LOT IS A REPL OF A LOT OF LOT TWO OUT OF A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION THAT WAS CREATED IN 2001 WITH THE RIVERWOOD ON EAST TC JESTER BOULEVARD SUBDIVISION. THE LOT HAS FRONTAGE ON PARK HAVEN COURT, A 28 FOOT PAE PERMANENT ACCESS EASEMENT PRIVATE STREET AND A 30 FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT. THE 30 FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT WAS CREATED IN 1949 AND IS A DIRECT EXTENSION OF WEST 14TH STREET OF KLEINS OF CLARK, CLARK PINES, I'M SORRY, CLARK PINES. AN UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION. THE LOT WAS SOLD BY MEETS AND BOUNDS IN 2021, CAUSING THE LOT TO HAVE TWO SEPARATE OWNERS AND BECOME TWO SEPARATE PARCELS. THE PROPOSED LOT TWO WILL TAKE SOLE ACCESS FROM THE 30 FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT. PRESENTLY FOUR LOTS TAKE ACCESS FROM THE EASEMENT. IT HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND IS MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO TAKE ACCESS FROM THE EASEMENT. THE PLAT WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION. HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST. REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF PLAT OR THOSE FILED. SEPARATELY, THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM. CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS RECEIVED ADVANCED COMMENTS CONCERNING THE SIZE OF THE OF LOT. TWO MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. MS. POE FLYNN. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CONTIN CONTINUED FOR ITEM NUMBER 95. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY. HEARING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION. MOTION [00:35:01] JONES SECOND FAM. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. NOW WE'LL MOVE ALONG TO D [d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests (Aracely Rodriguez, Geoff Butler, Devin Crittle and John Cedillo)] SUBDIVISION PLATS WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS. GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ELLI RODRIGUEZ ADAM 96 COOPER RESERVE. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY NORTH ALONG GRAND PARKWAY AND EAST OF DEER RUN LANE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTED A VARIANT ON SECTION 180 3 TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL LOT TO BE RE PLOTTED INTO AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE SITE IS A PARTIAL REFL OF COOPER STATE SUBDIVISION THAT WAS RECORDED IN 1983 WHERE THE LOTS ARE RESTRICTED TO RESIDENTIAL USE BY PLOT FIRST CHAPTER 42. THE LOT RESTRICTED TO RESIDENTIAL YOUTH CAN ONLY BE AMENDED TO CERTAIN USES. THEREFORE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE WE PLOT OF THIS RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL SITE. FROM THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT, THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA HAD CHANGED DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION OF THE GRAND PARKWAY. SO THE SITE LOCATED AT A PROMINENT INTERSECTION AND DIRECTLY ABUSED THE GRAND PARKWAY MAKING THE PROPERTY MORE SUITABLE FOR COMMERCIAL YOUTH THAN FOR CONTINUED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO STAFF ALSO COORDINATED IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY AND MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY COUNTY HAS EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION TO THE VARI REQUEST AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THE GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLA UPDATE TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK FOR ITEM 96. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY. HEARING NONE. I AM SEEKING A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION GARCIA MOVE GARCIA. MOTION GARCIA FAM. FAM. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? OH WAIT A MINUTE. I HAVE A SPEAKER. TONY LEWIS DID WERE YOU HERE JUST FOR I HAVE. I HAVE NOTHING TO SPEAK TO THE IT'S BEEN APPROVED. . OKAY, SO MOTION BY GAR GARCIA AND SECOND BY FAM. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 97. GOOD AFTERNOON MA'AM. CHAIR MEMBERS OF HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JEFF BUTLER. ITEM 97 IS KIRKENDAL VILLAGE, SECTION TWO. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ETJ WITHIN HARRIS COUNTY ALONG KIRKENDAL NORTH AND WEST OF THE GRAND PARKWAY. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH PRIVATE STREETS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCES TO ALLOW A 30 FOOT EASEMENT TO SERVE AS A SECOND POINT OF ACCESS FOR A 251 LOT COMMUNITY AND TO ALLOW A LIFT STATION TO BE ACCESSIBLE BY A 12 FOOT ACCESS EASEMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL PER HARRIS COUNTY'S REQUEST AND WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT. THANK YOU MR. BUTLER. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY. HEARING NONE. WE'RE SEEKING A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL. MOTION GARCIA SECOND VICTOR. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO ITEM 98. ITEM 98, I MEAN, YEAH, LAWNDALE RESERVE. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMIT ALONG LAWNDALE STREET AND EAST OF TELEPHONE ROAD NORTH OF I 45. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARI TO ALLOW A 10 FEET BUILDER LINE INSTEAD OF 25 ALONG LAWNDALE STREET STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A THREE STORY 18 UNIT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF LAWNDALE STREET AND HENNEGER STREET WITH PARKING LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE SITE. THIS PROJECT INCLUDES REQUIRED RIGHTWAY DEDICATION ALONG BOTH STREET. SO DUE TO THE SITE LIMITED DEPTH AND THE REQUIRED RIGHTWAY DEDICATION AND THE 25 FEET BUILDER LINE, WHAT WE DO WITH THE BIDDABLE AREA OF THE PROPERTY. SO LONGDALE STREET IS THE MAY 3RD FAIR. WE PLANNED RIGHT AWAY WITH UPT EIGHT FEET. CHAPTER 42 ALLOW A 15 FOOT BORDERLINE UNDER WHEN THE MAY 3RD FAIR IS LESS THAN 80 FEET. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANT TO REDUCE THE BORDERLINE 10 FEET TO ALLOW A FUNCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT [00:40:03] AND WITH THE PROPOSED BORDERLINE OF 10 FEET, THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE A MINIMUM FIVE FEET SAFETY BUFFER, A AND A SIX FUL SIDEWALK CREATING A PEDESTRIAN ROOM UP ABOUT 11 FEET UP TO THE FENCE, BUT THE BUILDING WILL REMAIN APPROXIMATELY 70 FEET FROM THE CURB MAINTAINING ADEQUATE DISTANCE FROM THE TRAVEL RANGE. THE APPLICANT HOUSE ALSO PROVIDED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBER WHO JOAQUIN MARTINEZ AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANT AND APPROVE THE PLAN SUBJECT TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM. CONDITION AND STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT IN ADVANCE. THANK YOU MS. RODRIGUEZ. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY, SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION SYKES. WOW. MOTION. IT WAS BALDWIN AND THEN SYKES . ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ITEM 90, ITEM 99. SORRY. THANK YOU. GET WINK AT ME OR SOMETHING. I'M LIKE, DID YOU FORGET WHAT YOU WERE GONNA SAY BUT IT WAS ME, . THANKS MR. BUTLER. ITEM 99, LAY IT LANDING. UM, STAFF NOTE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT IN YOUR MATERIALS IT SAYS RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER, BUT THAT HAS BEEN CHANGED TO RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT AND APPROVE. UH, THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG WEST TIDWELL ROAD, EAST OF WHEATLEY AND WEST OF ROSLYN. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE FAMILY SHARED DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT WITH THE NEW PUBLIC STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THREE VARIANCES. ONE TO ALLOW 15 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG TIDWELL FOR THREE PROPOSED HOMES. TWO, TO ALLOW DEDICATION OF A 40 FOOT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FOR PHILLIPS STREET INSTEAD OF 50 AND THREE TO ALLOW FOR A 15 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION FOR NEIMAN ROAD AS OPPOSED TO REQUIRED 20 FEET. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THESE REQUESTS. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY ONE BLOCK SOUTH OF THE ACRES HOME MOBILITY STUDY AREA LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD NORTH OF TIDWELL. THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN A RAPIDLY DEVELOPING AREA WITH LONG INTERSECTION SPACING INTERVALS. THIS PRESENTS CHALLENGES WITH ALLOWING FOR DEVELOPMENT WHILE PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION SYSTEM. THE APPLICANT IS ASSERTING THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ARE A PRACTICAL SOLUTION FOR THESE CHALLENGES. THE PROPOSED 35 LOT DEVELOPMENT ABUTS A 20 FOOT UNIMPROVED SEGMENT OF NEIMAN ROAD AND NORTH OF A RECENTLY EXTENDED SEGMENT OF PHILLIPS EXTENDING PHILLIPS THROUGH THE SITE WILL ALLOW FOR A COMPLETED STREET GRID SEGMENT IN AN AREA WITH DEFICIENT INTERSECTION SPACING. IN ADDITION, THE 20 FOOT SEGMENT OF NEIMAN HAS LONG BEEN UNIMPROVED AND HAS VARYING AMOUNTS OF INCREMENTAL WIDENING OVER THE YEARS. CONSIDERING THE VARYING WIDTHS AND THE RECENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA, WIDENING THE STREET TO 50 FEET IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. FURTHERMORE, THE THREE LOTS BACKING UP TO TIDWELL WILL FEATURE WALK-UP ACCESS FROM THE PEDESTRIAN REALM AND VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM THE SHARED DRIVEWAY. THIS WILL ALLOW FOR GROUND FLOOR ACTIVITY WHILE REDUCING VEHICULAR CONFLICTS. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH SOUND PUBLIC POLICY AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. UH, WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCED WRITTEN COMMENT. UH, THERE IS A CPC NOTE, UH, FROM FORESTRY ABOUT A PROTECTED TREE, BUT WE HAVE COORDINATED WITH THEM AND THAT TREATY IS ACTUALLY NOT AT THIS SITE. SO DISREGARD THAT NOTE. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE MS. VILLAREAL HERE FOR QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, HEARING NONE. UH, DO I HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS FOR ITEM 99? ALL RIGHT, SO YOU HAVE A MOTION IN FRONT OF YOU TO APPROVE THIS. UM, PLAT DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION FOR COURSE? I HEARD SOMEBODY OVER HERE. COMMISSIONER GARCIA. UH, SECOND POROUS PORTAL. ALL IN FAVOR OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU MR. BUTLER. MOVING ON. THERE IS NOTHING UNDER E UM, PLAS WITH SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, SO WE'LL MOVE TO [f. Reconsiderations of Requirement (Tammi Williamson, Devin Crittle, and John Cedillo)] F RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS TAMMY WILLIAMSON. I'M SORRY, I FORGOT TO SAY THAT COMMISSIONER SYKES IS ABSTAINING. THANK YOU MS. WILLIAMSON FOR YOUR PATIENCE. ITEM 100 IS IS ISAIAH DISTRICT SECTION EIGHT. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WEST OF US 59 AND NORTH OF FM 1314. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SUBDIVISION OF 21 LOTS AND IS SEEKING A RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT AND REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW MORE THAN 150 LOTS WITH ONE POINT OF ACCESS. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST IN MID-NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR. THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST WAS DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION PRIMARILY DUE TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY ENGINEERING NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. [00:45:01] ISAIAH DISTRICT SECTIONS ONE THROUGH FIVE WERE RECORDED BETWEEN 2015 AND 2017. IN LINE NORTH OF THE MAJOR COLLECTOR OF AZALEA BOULEVARD. SECTION SIX AND SEVEN WERE APPROVED AS PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS EARLIER THIS YEAR, PROPOSING A TOTAL OF 135 LOTS. THE INCLUSION OF SECTION EIGHT WITH ITS 21 LOTS PROPOSES TO HAVE 156 LOTS WITH SOLE ACCESS THROUGH FLOWERING CRAB. APPLE DRIVE TO AZALEA BOULEVARD. THE ORDINANCE PERMITS DEVELOPMENTS TO HAVE A SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS AS LONG AS THE LOT COUNT DOES NOT EXCEED ONE 50. OTHERWISE, AN ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC STREET PATH MUST BE PROVIDED. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT 20 FEET IN WIDTH THROUGH ONE LOT IN SECTION SIX TO CONNECT TO VALLEY RANCH PARKWAY. THAT WILL PROVIDE EMERGENCY ACCESS UNTIL EITHER SECTION NINE OR SECTION 10 IS RECORDED AT WHICH TIME A SECOND PUBLIC STREET CONNECTION WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THE EASEMENT IS NO LONGER NEEDED. THE APPLICANT COORDINATED WITH MONTGOMERY COUNTY ENGINEERING AND THE FIRE MARSHAL WHO NOW HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST. THEREFORE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW 156 LOTS WITH ONE POINT OF PUBLIC STREET ACCESS AND A TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT FOR THE SECOND POINT OF ACCESS AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. LISTED STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU MS. WILLIAMSON. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 100. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY. HEARING NONE. I'VE BEEN SEEKING A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. MOTION GARZA. MOTION GARZA SECOND FAM. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 1 0 1, ITEM 1 0 1 IS BLUE CREEK TRAILS SECTION FIVE. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN FORT BEND COUNTY, NORTHEAST AND ALONG STATE HIGHWAY 99 AND EAST OF PEAK ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SUBDIVISION OF 105 LOTS AND FIVE RESERVES AND IS SEEKING A RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT AND REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW EXCESSIVE INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG PROPOSED COLLECTOR MEADOW RANCH PARKWAY. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE PROPOSED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF MEADOW RANCH PARKWAY BETWEEN PROPOSED CLEMENTINE WIND DRIVE IN SECTION TWO AND INMAN CREST DRIVE IN SECTION FIVE IS APPROXIMATELY 1,795 FEET. A PREVIOUS VARIANCE WAS GRANTED TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG THE GRAND PARKWAY WITH THE JUSTIFICATION THAT IT IS A LIMITED ACCESS ROADWAY WITHOUT A FRONTAGE ROAD, THEREFORE REQUIRING AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC STREET WOULD NOT PROVIDE ANY FURTHER CONNECTIVITY THAN WHAT IS ALREADY PROPOSED WITH THE TWO SOUTHERN SECTIONS. ADDITIONALLY, THE TWO LOCAL STREETS ARE INTENTIONALLY PLACED TO BE APPROXIMATELY EQUIDISTANCE FROM ATTENDANCE LANE THAT PROVIDES CONNECTIVITY NORTHWARD TO THE SCHOOL SITE AND TO BENU STREET. INTERNAL CONNECTIVITY IS MAINTAINED THROUGH THE PROPOSED STREET CONNECTION BETWEEN SECTION TWO AND SECTION FIVE TO AID AND CIRCULATION. FORT BEND COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST, THEREFORE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. LISTED STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU MS. WILLIAMSON. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY. COMMISSIONERS. YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION JONES. MOTION JONES. SECOND. SECOND GARCIA. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ITEM 1 0 2. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS DEVON CRIDDLE. ITEM 1 0 2 IS FLIGHT LINE. SOUTH OF THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS SOUTH ALONG RANKING ROAD BETWEEN LEE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 59. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT EXTENDING TWO PUBLIC STUB STREETS. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST. THE SITE IS A VACANT TRACK PLAN FOR INDUSTRIAL USE ALONG RANK AND ROAD. THE SITE PLAN INDICATES THE SITE WILL BE USED FOR WAREHOUSE STORAGE REQUIRING LARGE 18 WHEELERS FOR TRANSPORT. THE SITE IS AFFECTED BY TWO PIPELINES TO THE, TO THE WEST AND REINHARDT BAYOU TO THE SOUTH. THERE ARE TWO PUBLIC STREETS STUBBING INTO THE SOUTHEAST SECTION OF THIS PROPOSED PLAT. THESE STREETS WERE CREATED WITH THE INTENT OF BEING EXTENDED WHEN THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE, REQUIRING THESE STREETS TO BE EXTENDED WOULD OPEN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC TO FLOW THROUGH THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. TO AVOID THIS, STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTED THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO NOT EXTEND THESE ADJACENT STUB STREETS. IF THE SITE IS EVER REDEVELOPED INTO A USE THAT'S RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE, THE REQUEST WILL BE REEVALUATED. ALSO, THE DEVELOPER, EXCUSE ME, THE DEVELOPER MET WITH THE COUNCIL'S OFFICE EARLIER THIS WEEK AND VOICED NO OBJECTION TO THIS [00:50:01] REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTED THE REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION REQUIREMENT AND VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU MR. CRILE. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? ALRIGHT. COMM, YOU HAVE A MO A RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT TO HAVE A MOTION. MOTION. MOTION FAM SECOND GARCIA. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM 1 0 3. ITEM 1 0 3 IS ANOVA EAST GENERAL PLAN. THE SUBJECT SIDE IS 102 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION SOUTH ALONG MAJOR COLLECTOR FOLEY ROAD AND WEST OF GOLF CLUB DRIVE. THE GENERAL PLAN IS INTENDING A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY AND DETENTION DEVELOPMENT AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING ANY SUBSTRATES ALONG ITS EASTERN BOUNDARY, NOR EXTENDING STEAM GAUGE WAY. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. IN 2015, THE UNION PARK GENERAL PLAN TO THE EAST WAS GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR INTERSECTION SPACING TO NOT PROVIDE ANY RIGHT OF WAY EXTENSIONS TO THE WEST, SAVE AND ACCEPT STEAM GAUGE WAY. THERE ARE RECORDED PLATS ON EACH SIDE OF THE SUBJECT SITE WITH AN APPROVED PLAT TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST CALLED UNION PARK WEST. THAT PLAT DEDICATED A PORTION OF STEAM GAUGE WAY, BUT THE PLAT ITSELF WAS NEVER RECORDED DUE TO THE EXISTING ALIGNMENT FURTHER EAST FROM THE UNION PARK GENERAL PLAN AND THE INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENTS, SEA GAUGE WAY MUST BE EXTENDED PER THE ORDINANCE. THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN IN COORDINATION WITH THE HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEER, THE HARRIS COUNTY PRECINCT AND THE HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL TO ABANDON THE EXISTING PORTIONS OF STEAM GAUGE WAY. DOING SO WITH THE INTENT TO ORCHESTRATE A DRAINAGE AND NETWORK, UH, DRAINAGE AND DETENTION NETWORK FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE STAFF. RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS. MA'AM, CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU MR. SEDILLO. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MOTION GARZA. MOTION GARZA. SECOND SERUM. SECOND SERUM. RUM. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. MOVING ALONG [Platting Activities g - j] TO G EXTENSION OF APPROVAL. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS AJU. IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS. GHI AND J IS ONE GROUP. YES. THAT WOULD BE GOOD. THANK YOU. UM, SECTION G EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 0 4 TO 112. SECTION H. NAME CHANGES CONSISTS OF ITEM 113 SECTION I. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CONSISTS OF ITEM 114 AND SECTION J. ADMINISTRATIVE CONSISTS OF NO ITEMS. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTIONS GHI AND J. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION. MOTION POURS. SECOND. SECOND, VICTOR. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ALONG TO KAY DEVELOPMENT [k. Development Plats with Variance Requests (Ramon Jaime-Leon, Geoff Butler, and Ed Buckley)] PLA WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS. GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS RAMON. ITEM ONE 15 LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 45 SOUTH OF GARDNER STREET AND ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF CORDELL STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 5.5 BUILDING LINE IN LIEU OF THE CITY OF, UH, CITY ORDINANCE REQUIRED OF 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR A RESIDENTIAL REMODEL. IN ADDITION, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER, TO REVISE THE SIGN AND REPOST. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO THE SIGN WASN'T POSTED OR IT WAS POSTED, BUT IT WAS UH, SITE VISIT. UH, RECENTLY THE SIGN WAS ON THE GROUND AND IT HAD THE INCORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF DEFERRAL. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION BALDWIN. MOTION BALDWIN GARCIA SECOND GARCIA. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM ONE 16. ITEM ONE 16. THAT'S, UH, 1 1 3 2 EAST SIX AND A HALF STREET. THE SITE IS LOCATED NORTH OF WHITE OAK DRIVE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF STUY WOOD STREET AND EAST SIXTH AND A HALF STREET. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND IS REQUESTING A 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE IN, UH, ALONG STU WOOD, A MAJOR FER IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE. THE THERE ARE NO PLAID BUILDING LINES. THE REQUESTED [00:55:01] 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE IS SLIGHTLY INCREASED, INCREASED SETBACK COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND WOULD LEAVE APPROXIMATELY 33 FEET FROM THE CLOSEST PART OF THE PROPOSED HOUSE TO THE STREET CURVE. IT IT IS COMPARABLE, UH, OR LARGER SETBACK THAN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO THE SOUTH AND IS IN LINE WITH THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, TO THE NORTH, MUCH OF WHICH, UH, PREDATES CURRENT ORDINANCE BUILDING LINE REQUIREMENTS. BECAUSE OF THE 20 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG STUDIO WOOD IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA AND IS A SETBACK FAR ENOUGH FROM THE STREET TO AVOID ANY POTENTIAL PUBLIC SAFETY AND VISIBILITY CONCERNS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS? MOTION BALL. ONE SECOND. SIGLER. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM ONE 17, ITEM ONE 17. THAT'S 1402. GLORY DRIVE. THE SITE IS LOCATED WEST OF RI ROAD ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF WESTVIEW DRIVE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GLORY DRIVE AND WESTVIEW DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE IN LIEU OF THE CITY OF ORDINANCE. REQUIRED 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG WEST VIEW DRIVE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE REQUEST TO ALLOW MORE, UH, TIME FOR STUDY AND REVIEW. THIS CONCLUDES MY . THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL? MOTION. MOTION. VICTOR SECOND GARZA. ALL IN FAVOR? HAVE A SPEAKER. OH YES, I HAVE A SPEAKER. SO SORRY. SAMANTHA DELEON, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SO HOLD THAT MOTION IN A SECOND. . SORRY. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS SAMANTHA DELEON AND I'M A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF SPRING BRANCH. I GREW UP OFF OF WORK IN WESTVIEW AND JUST, I'VE GROWN AND INVOLVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OVER 20 YEARS. THE NEIGHBORING SUBDIVISION OF MONARCH OAKS HAS CHANGED AS WELL. PERHAPS THE MOST NOTABLE CHANGE IS THE ONES NUMEROUS BUNGALOWS THAT MAKE UP MONARCH OAKS AND ARE NOW MIXED WITH NEW TWO STORY HOMES. THIS CHANGE IS ADMITTEDLY HARMONIOUS, ALTHOUGH THE SIZE OF THE HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD VARY. THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS HAVE KEPT MONARCH OAKS PROPORTIONAL. I SAY ALL OF THIS AS A SIDE SETBACK, UH, VARIANCE. THAT 1402 GLORY STREET IS REQUESTING THREATENS THAT BALANCE OF ALL THE CORNER LOTS THAT LINE WESTVIEW DRIVE, AND ARE ALSO LOCATED IN MONARCH OAKS. EVERY SINGLE HOME, WHETHER NEWLY CONSTRUCTED OR NOT MEETS THE 25 FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. EVEN 1401 GLORY, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, WAS JUST RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED AND MEETS THE 25 FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. GRACIOUSLY, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO NEW CONSTRUCTION ON AN INTERIOR LOT HAS ASKED FOR A SIDE, UH, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE IN MONARCH OAKS. I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT DECREASING THE SIDE SETBACK WOULD PUSH THE HOME SIGNIFICANTLY CLOSER TO THE SIDEWALK THAN ANY OTHER CORNER PROPERTY IN MONARCH OAKS. NARROWING AN AREA THAT MANY OF US RELY ON FOR DAILY WALKING, THE SIDEWALK IS ALREADY HARD TO WALK BECAUSE OF VEGETATION AND I WORRY THAT IT WILL BE IMPASSABLE IF THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS GRANTED. I BROUGHT A PHOTO DOCUMENT CAMERA. YOU MAY WANNA CONTINUE BECAUSE THE CLOCK'S TICKING. OH, THANK YOU. UH, I, I ASKED THE COMMISSION TO PLEASE CONSIDER DENYING THIS VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 1402 GLORY STREET TO MAINTAIN HARMONY IN MONARCH OAKS TO ENSURE THAT THE SIDEWALK IS NOT INFRINGED ANY FURTHER. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS PHOTO, WHICH IS VERY DARK, THERE ARE ALREADY A LOT OF TREES AND VEGETATION WHICH IS ALREADY CLUTTERING THE SIDEWALK, WHICH MAKES PEOPLE DA. DAILY WALKERS LIKE MYSELF ALMOST HAVE TO WALK ON THE CURB AND IN THE STREET. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING IN TODAY AND SORRY I ALMOST SKIPPED YOU. THANKS FOR STANDING UP, . THANK YOU. OKAY, REMIND ME WHO HAD THE MOTION? IT WAS VICTOR AND GARZA. OKAY. VICTOR AND GARZA. A RECOMMENDATION TO FOR DEFERRAL? YES. RECOMMENDATION FOR DEFERRAL. ALL ALL IN FAVOR. A AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ITEM ONE 18 I. ITEM ONE 18 IS 53 43 ANCHOR STREET. UH, THIS WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST MEETING AND MUST BE ACTED UPON TODAY. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT ALONG TC JESTER SOUTH OF THE KATY FREEWAY AND NORTH OF WASHINGTON AVENUE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 36 FOOT WIDE CORNER TRACT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A 15 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG TC JESTER AS OPPOSED TO THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FOR MAJOR THOROUGHFARES. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF INKER STREET AND TC JESTER. THE SITE CONSISTS OF A LOT AND PORTIONS OF A REMNANT [01:00:01] LOT WITHIN THE COTTAGE GROVE SUBDIVISION. STRICT INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 42 WOULD RESULT IN OVER TWO THIRDS OF THE PROPERTY BEING UNDEVELOPABLE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A 15 FOOT BUILDING LINE IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE PROPERTY. THE SITE WILL HAVE VEHICULAR ACCESS ALONG ANCHOR STREET, LEAVING THE TC JESTER PEDESTRIAN REALM WITHOUT PARTICULAR CONFLICTS. THE APPLICANT WILL ABIDE BY THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REQUIREMENT, ALLOWING FOR SAFE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC AT THIS INTERSECTION. IN ADDITION, STAFF FINDS THE BUILDING LINE REQUIREMENT TO BE A SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP CONSIDERING THE PROPO PROPORTION OF LAND THAT WOULD BE UNDEVELOPABLE IF APPLIED. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST TO BE JUSTIFIED AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND WE HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT. THANK YOU MR. BUTLER. I DO HAVE A SPEAKER. JOSE MENDOZA HAS NO QUESTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? OKAY. SO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. DO I HAVE A MOTION FA MOTION FAM MOTION SECOND BALDWIN. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ITEM ONE 19, NO. ITEM ONE 20. ITEM ONE 19 WAS WITHDRAWN. ITEM ONE 20, UH, 2 4 0 NORTH YORK STREET, LOCATED SOUTH OF NAVIGATION BOULEVARD AND WEST OF MELBY STREET AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF, UH, INTERSECTION OF NORTH YORK STREET AND EL GEEKY ENGELKE STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A TWO FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG EL GENKI STREET. IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 10 FOOT SETBACK LOCAL STREET FOR A NEW EXTERIOR STAIRCASE ON AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE PROPOSED WORK IS, IS TO CONSTRUCT STEPS TO THE SECOND FLOOR UNIT. THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN RECENTLY REMODELED AND STEPS HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO GO DOWN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM ITS, UH, FROM ITS, UM, PREVIOUS CONDITION BECAUSE OF ALL GROUND LEVEL ENCROACHMENTS ARE EXISTING AND THE OPEN STAIRS ADDITION IS ONLY ENCROACHING THREE FOOT OVER THE ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENT WITH OPEN STAIRS. AND CURRENT SIDEWALK IS AROUND SIX FEET FROM THE LANDING OF THE OPEN STAIRS AND IT WILL NOT DISRUPT THE EXISTING SIDEWALK. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT PLA VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A REDUCED BUILDING LINE. THANK YOU. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK FOR THIS ITEM. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL TO HAVE A MOTION. MOTION. MOTION. GARCIA SECOND GARZA. SECOND GARZA. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ALONG [II. Establish a public hearing date of January 22, 2026] TO ROMAN NUMERAL TWO, ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 22ND, 2026. OKAY, THAT SOUNDS FUNNY. UM, CENT HOMES AT FARMER CY-FAIR FIRE STATION NUMBER 15, HOMEWOOD ESTATES. MOORE STREET LIVING NEW HAVEN VILLAS PLAZA ESTATES AT NOBLE SHADOW CREEK ESTATES. LAGO WOODS, SECTION ONE PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE, SWIFT WATER ESTATE AND ROCK WALK ROCKTON ESTATE. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION JONES. MOTION JONES. SECOND GARCIA. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ROMAN NUMERAL THREE CONSIDERATION OF AN [III. Consideration of an Off-Street Parking Variance for 5317 Inker Street (Ed Buckley)] OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE FOR 53 17. IN 53 17 INKER STREET. UH, THE, IS YOUR MICROPHONE, SORRY, . THE SITE IS LOCATED EAST OF TC JESTER BOULEVARD AND WEST OF DETER STREET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF INKER STREET. THE, A APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONVERT A WAREHOUSE TO A GYMNASIUM AND IS REQUESTING TO PROVIDE MORE THAN 25% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING AT THE OFFSITE LOCATION. MORE THAN 500 FEET AWAY. THE PRO PROVIDE, UH, TO, UH, PROVIDE THE PARTIAL PEDESTRIAN PATH TO THE OFFSITE PARKING, WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS STATED WILL BE MITIGATED BY PROVIDING SHUTTLE SERVICES AND TO PROVIDE TOTAL OF 79 ONSITE PARKING SPACES AND OFFSITE SPACES IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 88 SPACES. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION SIGLER. MOTION SIGLER. SECOND GARCIA. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ROMAN NUMERAL FIVE PUBLIC COMMENT. DO I HAVE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY, MOVING ON TO ROMAN NUMERAL SIX. WHAT ABOUT FOUR? FOUR? DID I SKIP IT? FOUR. OH, I DID. YES. PUBLIC HEARING [IV. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Special Minimum Lot Size Block for East Sunnyside Court Subdivision Section 3 – MLS 889 (Tonya Sawyer)] AND CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL MINIMUM. LOT SIZE. THANK YOU. [01:05:01] GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS TANYA SAWYER WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A 6,820 SQUARE FOOT SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE BLOCK FOR THE 40 905,000 BLOCK OF MAYFLOWER STREET, THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES BETWEEN COFFEE STREET AND CHAIN STREET. THE APPLICATION IS LOCATED IN THE EAST SUNNYSIDE COURT. SECTION THREE SUBDIVISION STAFF IS REQUESTING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DEFER CONSIDERATION OF THIS APPLICATION FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE 30 DAY NOTIFICATION PERIOD TO PROPERTY OWNERS INFORMATION. WE ARE INFORMING THEM OF A MINIMUM LIFE SIZE SQUARE FOOT EXCHANGE FROM 6,947 TO 6,820 SQUARE FEET. PROPERTY OWNERS RECEIVE NOTIFICATION LETTERS WITH THE UPDATED LIFE SIZE CALCULATIONS ON DECEMBER 5TH. WITH THAT MADAM CHAIR, WE ARE READY TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CONTINUED FOR ROMAN NUMERAL FOUR. I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK. COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF DEFERRAL. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOVE GARCIA. MOTION GARCIA. SECOND. SECOND, VICTOR. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. YES. AND ARE WE CLEAR THAT THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS AT ALL? NO ONE, NO ONE OBJECTED, RIGHT? NO ONE PROTESTED. NO ONE PROTESTED AT ALL. ALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. PUBLIC HEARING IS CONTINUED. PUBLIC HEARING IS CONTINUED AND WE ARE, WE'VE DONE PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 3:50 PM AND I JUST WANNA SAY, I HOPE YOU ALL HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND IT FEELS STRANGE TO SAY I'LL SEE YOU IN 2026. BUT HAPPY HOLIDAYS. TO EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE, STAFF, I, I HOPE YOU HAVE A FEW DAYS TO REST AND GET PREPARED FOR NEXT YEAR. AND THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU DO. WE APPRECIATE YOU GUYS. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.