[00:00:03]
WELCOME[CALL TO ORDER]
EVERYONE.I'M THE CHAIR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION, AND I'M CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 2:32 PM ON THURSDAY, THE 19TH OF MARCH, 2026.
THIS IS AN IN-PERSON MEETING TAKING PLACE IN THE CITY HALL ANNEX AT 900 BAGBY.
YOU MAY ALSO MONITOR THE MEETING BY VIEWING THE VIA HTV SPEAKERS.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AN ITEM, PLEASE FILL OUT THE SPEAKERS FORM BEFORE THE ITEM IS CALLED AND TURN IT INTO STAFF NEAR THE FRONT DOOR.
CONSENT AND REPEAT SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED FOR ONE MINUTE.
NEW SPEAKERS ARE TIMED FOR TWO MINUTES.
SPEAKER RULES ARE FOUND ON THE TOP PORTION OF THE SPEAKER SIGN IN FORM, WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA.
COUNCIL MEMBERS SPEAKING ON AN ITEM ARE NOT TIMED.
APPLICANTS HAVE THEIR ALLOTTED TWO MINUTES TIME, AS WELL AS, BUT REBUTTALS, NON APPLICANTS AND GENERAL SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED TWO MINUTES TIME AND THERE'S NOT AN OPTION FOR REBUTTAL.
EVEN IF YOU DID NOT USE YOUR FULL TWO MINUTES, YOU'LL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK AGAIN, AND TIME CANNOT BE ALLOTTED TO ANOTHER SPEAKER.
TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM OF 11 MEMBERS, I'LL, I WILL CALL THE ROLE CHAIR CLARK IS PRESENT.
PRESENT, UH, COMMISSIONER BALLARD? PRESENT.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE FROM THE COUNTY.
AND SECRETARY VON TRAN TR PRESENT.
SO WE'VE ESTABLISHED OUR QUORUM COMMISSIONERS.
[Consideration of March 5, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ]
THE MINUTES FOR OUR, UM, MEETING ON MARCH 5TH, 2026.DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? MOTION GUARD.
[Director’s Report ]
CALL NOW FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR CLARK, COMMISSION MEMBERS, STAFF, AND THE PUBLIC.
I AM VON TRAN, SECRETARY OF THE, UH, OF THIS COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
I HAVE THREE ITEMS TO REPORT TODAY.
FIRST, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IS CONDUCTING A PLA TRACKER USER SURVEY TO GATHER FEEDBACK AND IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS.
THE SURVEY WILL REMAIN OPEN THROUGH MARCH, AND IT IS, UM, AVAILABLE ON THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S HOMEPAGE.
SECOND REVIEW OF THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND FREEWAY PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS IS UNDERWAY FOLLOWING THE MARCH 6TH DEADLINE.
WE HAVE SIX COMPLETE APPLICATIONS, UH, FOR STREET SEGMENTS WITHIN THE CITY, AND THE ETJ STAFF IS REVIEWING THESE APPLICATIONS IN ADVANCE OF THE MAY 14TH WORKSHOP, WHICH WILL BE HELD AT 1:00 PM AT THIS LOCATION PRIOR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
LAST PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING IS SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 26TH, NOON THROUGH 2:00 PM AT SIX 11 WALKER SIXTH FLOOR COMMISSIONERS.
PLEASE CONFIRM YOUR ATTENDANCE AND COMPLETE THE LUNCH SELECTION FORM, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE INVITATION.
IN CLOSING, FOR ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 6 0 0.
TO REACH THE PLANNER OF THE DAY, PLEASE CALL 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 6 2 4.
YOU MAY VISIT US ONLINE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM.
[Platting Activities a & b]
ALONG.WE'VE DONE THE MINUTES, SO WE'RE GONNA MOVE ALONG TO ITEMS A AND B CONSENT AGENDA.
GOOD AFTERNOON, 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 71 SECTION A.
CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 39 AND SECTION B REPL ITEMS ARE NUMBERS 40 THROUGH 71.
NO ITEMS NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MADAM CHAIR, IF THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS, THE PLANNING AND COMMISSION, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF
[00:05:01]
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSENT AND REPLAY ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION.I HAVE NO SPEAKERS SIGNED FOR ANY OF THESE ITEMS, BUT I DO THINK I HAVE SOME RECUSALS.
UH, COMMISSIONER HYS? YES, MADAM CHAIR, I NEED TO ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS FOUR THROUGH 8 26, 34, 35, 36, AND 44.
I WILL ABSTAIN SOME ITEMS. 25, 30, 40 AND 44.
SO I NEED A MOTION SAVE AND FOR ALL ITEMS UNDER A AND B, SAVE AND ACCEPT ITEMS FOUR THROUGH 8, 25, 26, 30, 34, 35, 36, 40 AND 44.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION SYKES.
NOW I NEED A, A MOTION FOR ITEMS FOUR THROUGH 8 25, 26, 30, 34, 35, 36, 40 AND 44.
[c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Aracely Rodriguez, Ken Calhoun, Devin Crittle, and John Cedillo)]
TO C RELAS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH NOTIFICATION.I I'M SURE YOU ALREADY CAUGHT IT, BUT DID YOU NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER FAM HAS, I MEAN, SARA HAS JOINED US.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS CELI RODRIGUEZ, ITEM 72, BROAD OAKS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMIT EAST OF STREAMING ROCK ROAD AND NOR OF WOODWAY DRIVE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLOT IS TO CREATE 21 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT AND ONE RESERVE FOR PARKING PURPOSES.
NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED.
WITH THIS ITEM, THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND PARALEGAL
WE, THAT WILL NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION.
STAFF RECEIVED MULTIPLE PUBLIC COMMENT IN ADVANCE, VOICING CONCERN MAINLY ON DRAINAGE, FLOODING, INCREASED DENSITY, TRAFFIC, AND PARKING.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLANS SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 INFORMED CONDITION.
MADAM JAR, TO APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
I'LL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 72.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS GARNEY GRIGGS.
IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
IT'S 2 0 2 6 0 0 9 8 51 EAST BROAD OAKS, BROAD OAKS RESERVE.
I AM GARNEY GRIGGS, PRESIDENT OF THE BROAD OAKS AREA CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
THIS PROPERTY IS IN OUR SUBDIVISION.
WE ARE NOT HERE TO OPPOSE THIS DEVELOPMENT.
WE OPPOSE THE DENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT BUILDING 21 HOMES ON A 2.5 ACRE TRACK WITH LIMITED AND INADEQUATE PARKING ON SITE AND NO PARKING ON THE STREET, PARTICULARLY ON A NARROW STREET THAT IS 18 FEET WIDE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT.
THE NUMBER OF LOTS IN THE PROJECT SHOULD BE APPROPRIATELY REDUCED TO PROVIDE MORE ONSITE AND ON STREET PARKING.
COUNCIL MEMBERS, COUNCIL MEMBER HUFFMAN AND COUNCIL MEMBER ALCORN HAVE SUBMITTED OPPOSITION LETTERS TO THIS PROJECT, TO THE COMMISSION.
I WOULD ASK ALL NEIGHBORS WHO ARE PRESENT TO OPPOSE THIS PROJECT TO STAND.
THERE ARE MANY WHO COULD NOT ATTEND, AND THEY HAVE SUBMITTED LETTERS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS COMMISSION.
ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, OUR NEXT SPEAKER, I MEAN, MR. GRIGGS.
MY WIFE AND I HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS OF PRODUCTS FOR FIVE YEARS.
I'M GONNA BE BRIEF 'CAUSE GEORGE FERNANDO WAS GONNA COVER, UH, THE POINTS THAT I WANTED TO COVER AND HE'LL DO IT BETTER.
I DID HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO ON A PROPERTY YESTERDAY.
THE FRONT HALF, I'M SORRY, THE, THE FRONT QUARTER OR PERHAPS THIRD OF THE PROPERTY IS A DEEP RAVINE.
I PERSONALLY WALKED DOWN THE FRONT.
HALF OF IT IS SIX TO SEVEN, UH, FEET BELOW GRADE STREET GRADE, AND THERE WAS A PORTION I COULD NOT GET TO THAT WAS A COUPLE OF FEET LOWER THAN THAT.
[00:10:01]
UH, THERE'S A SERIOUS DRAINAGE ISSUE, UH, THAT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED HERE.OTHERWISE, THE PROPERTY'S DOWNSTREAM OR GOING TO BE AFFECTED AND THE PROPERTIES UPSTREAM ARE GONNA HAVE SOME FLOODING PROBLEMS. UH, THERE ARE ALSO ISSUES WITH, UH, PARKING AND, UH, THE NARROWNESS OF THE STREETS, BUT OTHERS WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BILL PYLE.
UH, A LOT OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ARE, ARE MINE AS WELL.
IRONICALLY, I LIVE IN A DEVELOPMENT TO THE, TO THE SOUTH, VERY CLOSE TO CLOSER TO WOODWAY THAT FRANK LEW DEVELOPED.
AND IF HE WAS DEVELOPING THIS PROJECT IN SIMILAR SCOPE AND EFFORT WITH LOWER DENSITY, I WOULD, I I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT.
I, I DON'T DOUBT THERE'S A GOOD PROJECT TRYING TO BE BUILT, BUT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM I SEE IS THE, IT'S, IT ALL KIND OF STARTS WITH THE ROAD THAT'S BEEN IN DISREPAIR FOR 20 YEARS.
FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, IT'S PROBABLY LOST FIVE FEET ON EVERY, ON BOTH SIDES, BY ENCROACHMENT AND UNDERNEATH THAT, AS IN, IN SEWERS THAT WERE PUT IN DECADES AGO.
AND I THINK THE, IT, I THINK WE HAD 21 HOMES ON TOP OF WHAT? A SEWER SYSTEM TOWARDS BUFFALO BAYOU.
AND I THINK IF THE ROAD WERE TO BE BUILT, YOU PROBABLY COULD SOLVE THE PARKING PROBLEM BY YOURSELF IF YOU WERE TO PUT BETTER DRAINAGE UNDER IT.
SO I WISH IT WOULD BE DELAYED.
I WISH THE CITY WOULD TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS AND, AND, AND GET THAT STREET REBUILT.
UM, AND I HEAR THAT MIGHT HAPPEN, BUT I'VE BEEN HEARING THAT FOR THE 12 YEARS I'VE LIVED IN THE AREA.
BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING IN TODAY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS, IS THAT DEBBIE? DEBBIE LAYTON.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SHARE MY THOUGHTS WITH YOU.
TO PUT MY REMARKS IN PERSPECTIVE, I'M ONE OF THE ORIGINAL HOMES AND DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO NUMBER 51.
MY HUSBAND AND I MOVED HERE IN 19 91, 37 YEARS AGO.
AT THAT TIME, ALMOST WE NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE OTHER SIX HOMES IN OUR PLAT JUST TO CONVERT A CARPORT TO A GARAGE.
BROAD OAKS IS A BEAUTIFUL SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD KNOWN FOR SAFETY, PEACEFULNESS AND FRIENDLY NEIGHBORS.
THE PIECE OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION TODAY IS HEAVILY WOODED AND AND ON.
IT SITS THE ORIGINAL, UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOME OWNED BY THE WOES AND CRAFTS.
THEY LOVE THEIR SECLUDED LOCATION.
KNOWING IT WAS HOME THEN AND TODAY TO COUNTLESS RABBITS, TURTLES, POSSUMS, RACCOONS, ARMADILLOS, AND HONEYBEES AND SNAKES DEED RESTRICTIONS WERE ALLOWED TO LAPSE AROUND THE TIME WE MOVED IN TO ENABLE HOMEOWNERS TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR PROPERTY.
THE BUILDERS FROM THAT POINT AND UP TO NOW HAVE MAINTAINED THE OVERALL INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS ONE OF THE HOMES ADJACENT TO 51, WE WILL BE DIRECTLY IMPACTED DAILY BY THE CONSTRUCTION DISRUPTION AND LOSS OF NATURE.
IT'S INCREDIBLE TO ME THAT ANYONE WOULD THINK IT'S RIGHT OR EVEN A GOOD IDEA TO BUILD 21 HOMES ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THE NEIGHBORS ON MY PRIVATE DRIVE AND I HAVE SURVIVED THE LAST SIX YEARS.
SIX OF CONSTANT NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION, ONE HOME AT A TIME.
MANY DAYS WE COULD NOT GET OUT OF OUR DRIVEWAY AND WE WERE BLOCKED BY WORKERS WHO DISRESPECTED BASIC PARKING ETIQUETTE.
I CANNOT IMAGINE THE CHAOS INVOLVED IN BUILDING 21 HOMES.
WHERE WILL THE WORKERS PARK WHEN WE ARE DENIED ACCESS, WHICH WE WERE WHO WILL HELP US, IT WAS BARELY MANAGEABLE ON OUR STREET.
LEGALLY, YOU MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS, BUT TO ME IT IS WRONG TO THINK THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO DEVELOP A LOVELY PIECE OF PROPERTY.
WE LOVE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVE NO PLANS TO LEAVE.
ALL WE ASK IS CONSIDERATION FOR THE EXTREME DENSITY AND LOSS OF GREEN SPACE WHEN PLANNING.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING IN TODAY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LISA FRANCISCO.
I'M A 20 YEAR RESIDENT OF BROAD OAKS AND I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
I'M OPPOSED TO THE DENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND I FEEL THAT IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE, UH, TO ADD 20 HOMES.
I THINK NOW, UM, IT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE IMPORTANT NATURAL RAVINE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND THE ALREADY INSUFFICIENT ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE SECTION 42 43 OF CITY CODE STATES.
IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 42 41 APPLICATIONS FOR A PRELIMINARY CLASS, THREE PLAT
[00:15:01]
SHALL SHOW THE LOCATION AND APPROXIMATE WIDTH OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED WATER COURSES, RAVINES AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION PLAT BOUNDARIES.THESE ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE PLAT, ALSO NOT SHOWN OUR EXISTING STORM SEWER INLETS AND THE PAVING WIDTH OF EAST BROAD OAKS AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 42 56.
THE PROPOSED PLAT DOES NOT MEET CHAPTER 42 REQUIREMENTS IS INCOMPLETE AND SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED.
THE RAVINE SYSTEM ON THE PROPERTY IS PRESENT IN CITY CONTOUR MAPS AND IS CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AS ARE THE STORM SEWER INLETS.
ADJOINING DEVELOPMENTS WERE, WERE REQUIRED TO TAKE EXTRAORDINARY STEPS TO PRESERVE THE RAVINE SYSTEM.
A DIRECTLY ADJACENT HOME HAD TO LARGELY BE CONSTRUCTED ON ELEVATED, UH, PIERS, UM, UH, SORRY, UH, TO PRESERVE THE RAVINE SYSTEM, UM, AND ALLOW WATER TO PASS BENEATH.
CAN WE BE ASSURED THAT THE RAVINE AND ITS FUNCTION WILL BE MAINTAINED? UH, IT SEEMS DIFFICULT GIVEN THAT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY WILL BE PAVED OVER WITH FOUNDATIONS AND DRIVES AND THE ASSOCIATED RETENTION REQUIREMENTS.
OUR EXISTING ROADWAYS ARE APPROXIMATELY 16 TO 18 FEET WIDE, ON AVERAGE WITHOUT CURBS OR SIDEWALKS.
THEY'RE ASPHALT MANY YEARS OLD AND SUBSTANTIALLY DETERIORATED.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LEE ADE, AND I'M, I BUTCHERED THAT, SO PLEASE CORRECT ME WHEN YOU COME UP,
UM, HELLO, UH, MADAM CHAIRMAN, OTHER ESTEEM MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
I'M A RESIDENT OF 47 EAST PRODUCTS DRIVE.
MY HOME IS LOCATED FOR A FEW HUNDRED FEET FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AS MANY PEOPLE HAVE SAID.
AND I WOULD CON, UH, AGREE AS WELL.
WHEN I HEARD THAT FRANK LOU HAD PURCHASED THE TRACT, I WAS RELIEVED AS I WAS WELL AWARE OF THE QUALITY OF HOMES THAT HE BUILDS THROUGHOUT OUR CITY AND MANY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, CERTAINLY WE REGRETTED THE FACT THAT THE LAST REMAINING LARGE LOT IN THIS VERY SPECIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE GOING AWAY WITH THIS THICK TANGLE OF TREES AND SHRUBS AND IT'S SPONGE-LIKE CHARACTERISTICS IN HEAVY RAINS.
WE'D ALL HOPED THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE DEVELOPED WITH EIGHT TO 10 WELL PROPORTIONED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WHICH WOULD BE TOTALLY APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UNFORTUNATELY, OUR POSITIVE EXPECTATIONS WERE DASH WHEN WE LEARNED THAT THERE WOULD BE 21 HOMES SQUEEZED ONTO THE PROPERTY.
THE DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS TOTALLY OUTTA SCALE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE NARROW WIDTH OF EAST BROADS DRIVE, WHICH YOU'VE HEARD, IS ONLY 18 FEET, WHICH CANNOT HANDLE THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AND PARKING NEEDS.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE SOME UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, AS LISA'S JUST SAID, ABOUT THE DRAIN OFF DRAINAGE, DRAINAGE PATTERNS ON THE, ON THE PLOT.
SO MY REQUEST TO YOU, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN AND OTHER ESTEEM MEMBERS, IS FOR THE COMMISSION TO DEFER THE APPLICATION SIMPLY UNTIL A TRAFFIC STUDY CAN BE CONDUCTED AND A DRAINAGE PLAN IS SUBMITTED TO THE HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GEORGE FRANCISCO.
UH, GEORGE FRANCISCO, ALSO A 20 YEAR RESIDENT OF BROAD OAKS.
UH, I'LL JUST FINISH AGAIN ON THE, ON THE PARKING WITH THE NARROW STREETS, UM, ON STREET PARKING IS NOT VIABLE.
AND, AND WE WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO KNOW THAT THIS ONE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF HOMES THAT ACCESS, WHOSE PROPERTY IS ACCESSED OFF THAT SECTION OF EAST BROAD OAKS BY 40%, 40% IN ONE DEVELOPMENT.
AS, AS PEOPLE HAVE SAID, THIS IS A VERY NARROW, UH, AREA.
SO MY QUESTION IS, HAS THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS BEEN PERFORMED? WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE SHOWN THERE? HOW WILL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC BE MANAGED, BOTH THE LARGE TRUCKS AND THE WORKERS, UH, AND AND ONCE COMPLETED, HOW MUCH, UH, UH, ON SITE PARKING IS AVAILABLE FOR GUEST WORKERS AND OTHERS? BECAUSE AS, AS WE SAID, THERE'S NO ON STREET PARKING AVAILABLE.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JULIAN COY.
OH, FOR QUESTION? NO, THAT'S THE NEXT ONE.
DAVID WHITE WITH TOUCH LAND SERVICES APPLICANT, BOTH JULIE, YOU'RE NEXT AS APPLICANT AS WELL.
SO YES, WE'RE BOTH HERE AS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, UH, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE.
COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? HAS THE APPLICANT COMMISSIONER HINES, SORRY GUYS, I'M JUST GONNA REMIND YOU, DO A LITTLE HAND RAISE AND I'LL CALL YOU IN ORDER.
HAS THE APPLICANT MET WITH THE COMMUNITY? YES, UH,
[00:20:01]
ACTUALLY THE, UH, THE DEVELOPER, THE OWNER HAS MET WITH THE COMMUNITY.DIDN'T, WAS IT YOUR COMMISSIONER SYKES? YES.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR SYKES, UH, I'VE SEEN THE PROPERTY.
AND I'VE RECOGNIZED THE DRAINAGE SWALE AND EVEN RECOGNIZED THAT THAT SWALE FROM SOUTHWEST TO NORTHEAST MEANDERS UNDERNEATH THE THREE LOTS THAT WERE BUILT TO THE NORTH, UH, THAT THOSE THREE HOMES WERE ALL BUILT ON SIGNIFICANTLY SIZED PIERS.
SO I GUESS THIS IS REALLY A MATTER FOR PUBLIC WORKS AND THE PERMIT CENTER TO ADDRESS.
THIS ONE MAKES SURE FOR THE RESIDENTS TO KNOW THAT THERE IS ANOTHER DIVISION OR PART OF THE CITY THROUGH THE PERMIT CENTER AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT WILL DEFINITELY BE LOOKING AT THIS FOR THE DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION, UH, OF THE FLOW OF THAT WATER.
AND IN FACT, UH, POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, IMPEDANCE OF THAT WATER.
UH, THAT'S, IT'S MUCH AS REALLY THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO FROM THE PLATTING PERSPECTIVE, HORIZONTAL LINES ON A PIECE OF PAPER.
BUT THERE ARE OTHER DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE CITY WHO WILL DEFINITELY BE LOOKING AT THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR YOUR BENEFIT.
COMMISSIONER SYKES, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? YEAH.
DO YOU PLAN TO HAVE ANY ONSITE DETENTION ON THIS? 'CAUSE ALL I SEE IS LOTS AND THEN, UH, A SMALL LITTLE PARKING AREA UNDER THAT, THE, THE, FOR THE CIVIL ENGINEERING PLAN FOR DETENTION, THAT WOULD BE PART OF THEIR PLAN SET TO BE HANDLED AT PERMIT AT PERMITTING.
SO THE, THE PERMITTING, THE CIVIL ENGINEER WILL HAVE THAT PREPARED AND MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY OF HOUSTON PERMITTING FOR ANY DRAINAGE, DETENTION OR FLOW FOR THE SITE.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THESE, ALL THESE LOTS WILL STAY HERE, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A DETENTION, YOU'RE JUST GONNA PUT YOUR DETENTION IN THE STREET, OR? THAT'S CORRECT.
GEN GENERALLY, WHEN YOU'RE DOING THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, YOU'RE UNDERGROUND FOR DETENTION.
AND, AND THIS AREA IS OLD AND DOES NOT DRAIN VERY WELL.
TO START WITH, ARE YOU SAYING YOUR DEVELOPMENT'S GONNA IMPROVE? WELL, CERTAINLY THE CITY OF HOUSTON PERMITTING IS NOT GONNA ALLOW A DEVELOPMENT TO NOT MEET ANY STANDARDS THAT WOULD AFFECT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD AFFECT A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
SO ANY, ANY CALCULATIONS FROM IMPERVIOUS OR, OR PREVIOUS SHEET FLOW OR ANYTHING ELSE WILL BE HANDLED BY THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND THE DRAINAGE PLANS AND THEIR SUBMITTAL TO CITY PERMITTING WHO WILL ALWAYS DOES A VERY THOROUGH JOB TO MAKE.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S A BIG QUESTION FOR EVERYBODY IN THE CITY, RIGHT? FOR EVERY, ALL OF US THAT ARE PROPERTY OWNERS, MAKE SURE YOUR NEIGHBOR DOESN'T PUSH WATER YOUR WAY.
AND I THINK THE CITY OF HOUSTON PERMITTING DOES A REALLY GOOD JOB AND VERY THOROUGH IN REVIEWING THE PLANS AND MAKING SURE ANYTHING A CIVIL ENGINEER SUBMITS, UH, ESPECIALLY AFTER SEVERAL FLOODS, THAT IT ALL WORKS OUT WELL AND THERE'S NO ISSUES WITH NEIGHBORS AND IT KEEPS EVERYTHING MOVING IN THE APPROPRIATE DIRECTION AT THE CORRECT RATE.
SO YOU'VE, YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE THAT ARE AGAINST THIS.
AND SO HAVE YOU SHOWED THEM TO ALLE ALLEVIATE THEIR FEARS ABOUT DRAINAGE AND DETENTION? HAVE YOU SHOWED 'EM THESE PLANS OR ARE YOU JUST SAYING WE'RE GONNA, THE, THE DEVELOP, UH, THE, THE DEVELOPERS ARE, HE'S STILL WORKING THAT PLAN SET UP? YEAH.
AND SO, AND THEN, AND DEVELOPING DRAINAGE PLANS WHEN, YOU KNOW, HE'S GONNA WORK UP HIS DRAINAGE PLAN, HE'S GONNA SUBMIT THAT TO PERMITTING.
THERE'S GONNA BE A BACK AND FORTH.
AND SO ONCE THAT'S, ONCE THAT SETS IN, ONCE AGAIN, I'M SURE WHATEVER QUESTIONS THE NEIGHBORS HAVE BROUGHT UP WITH PERMITTING AND THE PERMITTING WILL BE VERY HAPPY TO, TO TALK TO HIM.
THE DEVELOPER, HE DONE A LOT OF PROJECTS ALL AROUND THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
EVERYONE'S VERY AWARE OF THESE TYPE OF ISSUES, VERY COGNIZANT OF HOW IMPORTANT THEY ARE.
I MEAN, CERTAINLY IF YOU'RE A DEVELOPER, YOU WOULDN'T WANNA PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T WORK, RIGHT? 'CAUSE THEN PEOPLE AREN'T GONNA BUY THOSE LOTS ON THERE.
SO, CLEARLY, VERY INTERESTED, VERY EAGER TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S WORKING PROPERLY AND THE NEIGHBORS ARE HAPPY WITH THE FINAL END PRODUCT, WHICH IS THE HISTORY OF HIS FIRM.
UM, BEFORE I CALL THE NEXT SPEAKER, I JUST, I KIND OF WANNA MAKE A FEW THINGS CLEAR.
SO THIS BODY JUST LOOKS AT PLATTING.
THIS IS THE VERY, VERY FIRST STEP FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY.
SO WE DON'T DO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, WE DON'T DO DRAINAGE STUDIES.
THAT ALL COMES AT THE NEXT PHASE WHEN IT GOES TO PUBLIC WORKS.
AND I SEE JOHN BROWN BACK IN THE BACK.
I'M GONNA HAVE HIM WALK OUT WITH YOU GUYS AND, AND ANSWER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS OF HOW THIS WORKS.
WHAT MIGHT TRIGGER A-A-T-I-A, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS PROJECT WILL, BUT MR. BROWN CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT.
YOU DON'T DO AN ANALYSIS UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE BUILDING.
AND SO THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATING STAGE TO KNOW THAT YES, WE CAN DO THIS.
AND SO NOW WE TAKE THEM, WE DO OUR CONSTRUCTION PLANS, OUR DRAINAGE PLANS, UH, LOOKING AT TRAFFIC IF, IF THAT'S AN ISSUE.
SO ALL OF THAT IS DONE AT A LATER STAGE.
AND I KNOW EVERYONE WOULD LIKE FOR US TO, YOU KNOW, DENY THIS OR HOLD IT UP, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT POWER.
THIS IS A SHALL APPROVE PLAT, WHICH MEANS BY STATE LAW WE HAVE TO APPROVE THIS.
UM, WE CAN QUESTION IT, WE CAN GIVE YOU ALL DIRECTION.
AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING MR. BROWN, HE CAN TELL YOU THE NEXT STEP AND HOW TO FOLLOW THIS ALONG THE WAY.
[00:25:01]
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO STAY DURING THE DISCUSSION WITH MR. BROWN SO YOU CAN HELP ANSWER QUESTIONS.UM, THINGS LIKE PARKING, IT WOULD BE REALLY GREAT IF YOU COULD TALK TO THEM ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT PARKING YOU'RE PROVIDING AND HOW YOU'LL CONTROL YOUR CONSTRUCTION CREWS AND ALL OF THAT.
SO I, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
SO OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS COMMISSIONER MAREZ.
UM, NOT A QUESTION, I REALLY JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT IT FOR THE RECORD.
UM, THE CENTERPOINT NOTES ON THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM IN CASE IT IMPACTS ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE DOING.
I'M GONNA ASK THE OBVIOUS QUESTION, WHICH IS WHY, WHY SO MANY? WHY, WHY THE DENSITY? IS THERE A REASON WHY YOU HAVE TO HAVE SO MANY? THE ARCHITECTURAL LAYOUT BELIEVE THAT THEY, THAT THIS WORKS WELL FOR THE COMMUNITY AND FOR THIS SITE
SO THE, THERE, JUST TO THE SOUTH OF IT, YOU HAVE SOME SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS.
COMMISSIONER CARROLL, IS THIS PROPERTY IN THE 100 OR 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN? IT IS NOT.
COMMISSIONER GARZA, UM, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ABOUT PARKING.
UM, SO ONE IS, I'M ASSUMING THAT BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF LOTS, GUEST PARKING IS NOT REQUIRED.
THIS IS YOUR BASIC SUBDIVISION, AND THE LOTS VARY FROM 50 PLUS TO 70 PLUS.
YOU ALSO HAVE A, I THINK IT'S A 28 FOOT PAE.
WHICH MEANS ON STREET PARKING WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO GUESTS WHO ARE VISITING.
I KNOW IT MAY BE TOO EARLY, BUT LIKE TWO CAR GARAGES IS WHAT THE PLAN IS.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE SEEN ALONG WITH THERE IS A PARKING RESERVE AS WELL.
AND, AND OH, THERE IS A PARKING RESERVE, SIR, BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE IT, IT ON HERE.
AND THEN BECAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE, UH, EVERY HOUSE, LIKE EVERY HOUSE IT'S BUILT TODAY HAS MAYBE A TWO CAR GARAGE AND SPACE FOR TWO MORE CARS.
PLUS A PARKING RESERVE AREA FOR YOU.
WHERE IS THAT PARKING RESERVE? CAN YOU IT'S ON THE NORTH NORTHWEST SIDE.
THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND HOW MANY CARS FIT IN THAT RESERVE? UH, I THINK THAT WAS MOVED UP TO FOUR.
NO, THEY MADE COMMISSIONER SYKES.
WHERE ARE TWO AND A HALF ACRES BUILT WITH 21 RESIDENTIAL LOTS? WELL, 21, I BELIEVE.
THE QUESTION WAS THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK JUST TO THE SOUTH, YOU'VE GOT A SHARED DRIVE.
YOU HAVE A SHARED DRIVE DRIVEWAY WITH SEVERAL HOUSES.
YEAH, JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THIS, BUT, BUT NOT ON TWO AND A HALF ACRE LOTS.
I MEAN, THIS, THIS IS LIKE A HUGE DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS AREA.
THE MOST OF 'EM ARE VERY PIECEMEAL WITH THREE OR FOUR LOTS.
AM AM I MISSING SOMETHING THERE? NO.
SO THE 21 LOTS ON TWO AND A HALF ACRES YOU'RE SAYING IS COMMON TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? WELL, THE, THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WITH THE SHARED DRIVEWAY IS OKAY.
THE, THE, THE OTHER QUESTION IS, IS FOR DENSITY, WHICH OF COURSE THEY MEET ALL THE RULES FOR THE CITY OF HOUSTON DENSITY REQUIREMENTS.
AND THE LOTS ARE ACTUALLY VERY SIZABLE COMPARED TO MOST DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS KIND.
AND I WILL SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT A SHALL APPROVE UNLESS THEY MEET THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 42, THEY MEET THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS.
DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER? JUST ONE QUESTION.
I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S THE SMALLEST, UH, LOT SIZE HERE.
COMMISSIONER HEINZ, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE? I I JUST WANTED, UH, TO, TO NOT MAKE AN ASSUMPTION.
THERE WERE TWO ACRONYMS WE USED AND I JUST WANTED YOU TO, TO SHARE WITH THE AUDIENCE WHAT THAT MIGHT MEAN.
THAT TIA OH, TIA IS A TRAFFIC.
AND THEN WHAT ELSE WAS IT? DIA? OH, PA PUBLIC ACCESS.
PRIVATE, PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT.
AND IF I SAID DIA, THAT'S A DRAINAGE IMPACT ANALYSIS.
SORRY, I'M USED TO USING INDUSTRY LAN LINGO, SO THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT.
WHO, UM, WHEN, WHEN YOU HELD THE COMMUNITY MEETING, WERE YOU PRESENT? WHO, WHO WAS PRESENT TO EXPLAIN THAT WAS, THAT WAS A DEVELOPER MEETING.
HE KNOWS MANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I BELIEVE SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT SPOKE TODAY.
SO THEY, WAS IT A POSTED MEETING OR WAS THE WHOLE COMMUNITY INVITED? I, I BELIEVE HE JUST MET WITH, UM, OR HE SPOKE TO RIGHT.
SEVERAL OF THE RESIDENTS WHO HAD CONTACTED HIM.
SO IT WASN'T REALLY A MEETING.
HE SPOKE TO SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO REACHED OUT.
WELL, WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD A ZOOM MEETING OR IN PERSON MEETING, I JUST KNOW THAT, THAT HE HAS SPOKEN TO AND I HAD RECEIVED CALLS THAT, THAT THEY HAD SPOKEN TO.
I'M SORRY, WE CAN'T HAVE ANYONE COME UP FROM THE AUDIENCE.
YOU CAN'T YELL OUT COMMENTS TO US.
IT'S OUR RULES FOR THE, UH, COMMISSION, BUT WE APPRECIATE IT.
I GUESS I DO HAVE A QUESTION THEN.
HOW DO WE FIND OUT IF IT WAS A PHONE CALL THAT ONE PERSON MADE, OR IF THE DEVELOPER TRULY DID HOLD A MEETING TO POSSIBLY GET AHEAD OF
[00:30:01]
THE DRAINAGE, THE DENSITY, AND JUST TO, TO REACH OUT AND BE A, A GOOD NEIGHBOR CAN? WELL, THAT LETTER THAT ONE OF THEM SENT, WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE, UM, THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS HERE WHO, AND THEY ACTUALLY MENTIONED THAT THEY HAD MET WITH FRANK LOU AND DISCUSSED THINGS RELATING TO DRAINAGE AND PARKING AND SO ON.AND THEY STILL HAD CONCERNS OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, BUT THEY DID MENTION THAT THEY, HE HAD SHOWN THEM, YOU KNOW, HIS PLAN, SOME OF HIS PLANS, OR AT LEAST HIS PRELIMINARY PLANS.
UM, DO WE HAVE A COPY OF THAT LETTER? IS IT IN THE PACKET? DO STAFF KNOW? I BELIEVE THAT WAS FORWARDED TO THE OFFICE PLANNING.
I BELIEVE THE LETTER WAS ADDRESSED TO THE PLANNING.
RIGHT? IT WAS SENT BY THE, YES, IT WAS SENT TO PLANNING.
IT WAS SENT TO PLANNING BY THE ASSOCIATION ACTUALLY SENT TO THE COMMITTEE.
IT WAS EITHER SENT TO ONE OR BOTH.
MR. RODRIGUEZ, DID WE PUT IT IN THE PACKET OR? I DON'T THINK SO.
UM, I BELIEVE I, I, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.
I TOOK OVER FROM DOM LAST CYCLE.
BUT, UM, I CAN DOUBLE CHECK OKAY.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO LEGAL OR TO THE CHAIR IS IF IT IS A SHALL APPROVE, I DO FEEL LIKE IT'S, IT'S A, A GREAT AREA.
I WOULD, IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY FOR COMMUNICATION, IS A DEFERRAL A POSSIBILITY TO, TO ASK FOR THE DEVELOPER TO SCHEDULE SOMETHING WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS? I BELIEVE THIS HAS ONLY HAD ONE DEFERRAL, CORRECT.
SO A A DEFERRAL WOULD BE POSSIBLE AT THIS TIME, IF, IF YOU WANTED THAT ADDITIONAL TIME TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? DO I HAVE ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE MATTER? I WOULD ADD THAT HASN'T SPOKEN.
ONLY PEOPLE THAT HAVEN'T SPOKEN.
I COULD SUPPORT A DEFERRAL IF, UM, IN THE INTERIM, UM, THE RESIDENTS MEET WITH MR. BROWN AND SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THERE'S A MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THE COMMUNITY.
I I WOULD VOTE FOR THAT IF THERE WAS A QUESTION.
I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS YOU'RE MAKING A RULE FOR, I'M SORRY, COURTESY.
SO, UM, I PERSONALLY WOULD NOT VOTE FOR THIS BECAUSE IT IS A SHALL APPROVE.
UM, I, BY THE, BY THE, WHAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE SAYING RIGHT NOW IS, UM, I DON'T THINK, AGAIN, MY OPINION THAT THERE'S NO PLACATING AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
I DON'T SEE THAT YOU COULD TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT A MEETING WITH THE APPLICANTS IS GONNA CHANGE THIS DRAMATICALLY.
I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WOULD, THE PLANS HAVE BEEN MADE.
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE GONNA BE INVESTED.
I WOULD DOUBT SERIOUSLY THAT ANYTHING WOULD BE CHANGING AT THIS POINT.
SO MY POINT IS, IT'S A SHALL APPROVE AND I WON'T VOTE FOR A DEFERRAL.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER WISE, JUST ONE MORE.
I, I THOUGHT WHAT COMMISSIONER GARZA WAS GONNA GET INTO, WHAT IS, WHAT HE USUALLY GETS INTO ABOUT MINIMUM LOT SIZES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THE COMMENT? NO, NO.
ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY.
UH, LET ME LET MS. RODRIGUEZ SPEAK AND THEN YOU CAN COME UP AFTER THAT.
WE RECEIVE A LETTER FROM THE VOTE CVS ASSOCIATION.
IT ACTUALLY IN THE PACKAGE ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT SPEAKER.
OKAY, SIR, YOU CAN COME FORWARD.
AND IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD WHEN YOU COME UP, I'D APPRECIATE IT.
I LIVE DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF THE DEVELOPMENT AT 35 EAST BROAD OAKS DRIVE.
I CAN SPEAK WITH ALL MY NEIGHBORS BEHIND ME AND SAY VERY CLEARLY.
THERE'S BEEN LITERALLY NO COMMUNICATION FOR MR. LU.
MR. LU MET WITH A SELECT GROUP OF FOUR PEOPLE, OF WHICH I WAS ONE OF THEM.
AND, UH, HE CAME AND HE SHOWED US A PLAT AND, UH, IT WAS KIND OF HIS WAY OF THE HIGHWAY.
AND, UH, HE INFORMED US THAT HE WOULD WORK WITH US AND BE AMENABLE, THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S OCCURRED.
UH, GARNEY GREG, WHO HAS SPOKEN, UH, I THINK HAS TRIED TO RALLY THE TROOPS.
AND, UH, I THINK A LOT OF US UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
AND I DON'T THINK WE UNDERSTAND SHALLOW VERSE, DEEP PROOF, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
BUT IT IS A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE.
UH, I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE TO LIVE THERE.
I WILL CONTINUE TO LIVE THERE.
AND, UH, I JUST THINK THIS, THIS IS NOT IN CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UH, WE'VE ASKED, UH, LOVETT AND MR. LOU TO CONSIDER THAT, THAT WE'RE NOT AGAINST COMMERCE, WE'RE NOT AGAINST CAPITALISM.
WE'RE NOT AGAINST MOVING FORWARD.
[00:35:01]
HOWEVER, WE ARE AGAINST THE DE DENSITY AS, AS PROPOSED.SO WHAT A SHALL APPROVE IS, IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A PLAT THAT COMES BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, PARDON ME, THAT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 42.
WHICH CHAPTER 42 IS THE ORDINANCE THAT CONTROLS DEVELOPMENT IN, IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
SO WHEN SOMETHING IS A SHALL APPROVE, THAT MEANS THAT WE AS A COMMISSION BY STATE LAW MUST APPROVE IT AND SEND IT FORWARD, UM, TO CITY COUNCIL.
SO THAT'S WHAT A SHALL APPROVE IS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP, PLEASE? YEAH.
I'M WITH, UH, 29 EAST BROAD OAKS DIRECTLY SOUTH AS WELL, AND I ECHO EVERYTHING THEY SAY.
UM, THIS CHAPTER 42, IT, IT SAYS IT'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE SEWER INLETS AND PAVING WIDTHS ON THE PLAT.
AND TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, WE DON'T SEE THAT THERE.
SO THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION THAT WE HAVE.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? WHAT WAS THE QUESTION AGAIN? UM, PER CHAPTER 42, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SHOW YOUR SEWER INLETS, PAVING, WIDTH, ALL OF THAT.
TYPE TWO P PERMANENT ACID EASEMENT IS A PRIVATE STREET, AND IT'S 28 FEET, WHILE IT HAS TO BE ENTIRELY PAVED AND THERE WILL BE NO PUBLIC UTILITY.
DID, DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR?
I'M THE ONE THAT CAN HELP ANSWER THIS.
WE JUST HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES.
UM, I GET MORE, I GET MORE OF MY TWO MINUTES, RIGHT? I NO, WOULD YOU, YOU TRY THOUGH.
IT'S A THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE EXPLANATION ON THE PAE AND HOW ALL OF THAT WORKS.
UH, SALLY, PERHAPS MAYBE REPHRASE YOUR ANSWER, BUT LET'S REPEAT THE QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE.
YEAH, SO I'M GONNA REPHRASE MY ANSWER.
SO, UM, A TYPE TWO MEAN IT'S A PRIVATE STREET AND, UM, THE ENTIRE WIDTH THAT IS SHOWN ON THE PLAT.
SO ALL THAT RIGHT AWAY THAT YOU SEE ON THE PLAT IS GONNA BE ALL PAVED.
AND WITHIN THAT, ON THAT DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE A PRIVATE STREET TYPE TWO, WE CANNOT ALLOW TO SHOW PUBLIC, UM, WATERLINE EASEMENT OR SUGAR LINE EASEMENT ON THE PLA.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY WILL NOT HAVE ANY, IT'S JUST THAT IT WILL BE A PRIVATE SYSTEM.
RIGHT? THAT'S A BETTER EXPLANATION.
WELL, MR. BROWN CAN HELP YOU OUT AT THE END OF THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING, UM, HE'LL STEP OUT WITH YOU AND, AND TRY TO ANSWER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS.
AND THEN THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM? OKAY.
ALRIGHT, SO, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? DID
TO DEFER FOR, UM, TWO WEEKS IN THE HOPES THAT TRULY WE, I THINK MOST OF US KNOW, AND NOT A LOT IS GONNA CHANGE, IF ANYTHING, BUT YOU MIGHT HAVE JUST SOME MORE ANSWERS AND, UM, GOODWILL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY SIGLER TO DEFER AND REQUIRE A MEETING WITH, UM, THE OWNER SECOND.
AND I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION.
SECOND, HIN, WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE DEFERRAL, UM, ALLOWING MORE COMMUNICATION, UH, YES, I UNDERSTAND DEVELOPERS ARE TRYING TO DEVELOP AND IT COSTS TIME AND SO ON TO DO THIS, BUT I THINK IT WOULD, UH, BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY.
UM, THERE'S SOME SUPPORT BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND WHAT I, I'M HOPING IN THAT INTERIM IS, UH, A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE DEVELOPER'S DOING, UH, AN UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR CONCERNS AND PERHAPS, UH, AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE DO VERSUS WHAT, UM, MR. BROWNBACK THERE DOES.
AND PERHAPS, UH, THAT JUST PROVIDES SOME CLARITY AND PERHAPS SOME CHANGE.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY SIGLER, A SECOND HINES TO DEFER AND IN HOPES THAT, UH, MR. LI AND COMPANY WILL MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, HOLLAND.
NOTE COMMISSIONER ISH AND COMMISSIONER GARZA ARE OPPOSED.
SO A ARE YOU DONE PRESENTING FOR RIGHT NOW? SO MAYBE YOU AND MR. BROWN COULD ACTUALLY I HAVE THREE MORE.
WELL, MAYBE MR. BROWN CAN START AND YOU COULD STEP OUT AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT PLATING AND HOW THIS WORKS AND ALL OF THAT.
JUST MENTION THAT IT'S DEFERRED.
[00:40:01]
YES.SO IT'S DEFERRED NOW FOR TWO WEEKS, SO WE'LL SEE YOU ALL IN TWO WEEKS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMIT NORTH OF WESTVIEW DRIVE AND EAST WORTH ROAD.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLOT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LODGE.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATE THAT THIS PLOT WILL NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION AND STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENT IN ADVANCE.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLA FOR THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
MADAM CHAIR IS THE PLEASE OF THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN FOR ITEM 73.
I DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY, SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ITEM 74, ITEM 74, ESTATE ON BRINKLEY.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON CITY LIMIT EAST OF SCOTCH STREET AND SOUTH OF BELFORT STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLA IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOT IN A FLAT LOT CONFIGURATION.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATE THAT THIS PLOT WILL VIOLATE SEPARATE FILE.
DUE RESTRICTION STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT.
IN EVENT AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLA PER THE APPLICANT REQUEST.
MADAM CHAIR, TO APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 73 IS OPEN.
I HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
I MEAN JUST DURING THE DEFERRAL, ARE YOU GONNA CHANGE YOUR
SO NORMALLY IT WOULD BE A NOT DENIED 'CAUSE IT'S NOT MEETING, UM, DEED RESTRICTIONS.
SO ARE THEY GONNA RE REVISE THE I BELIEVE THE PLAN BELIEVE SO THEY WILL HAVE TO BE ASSIGNED TO MEET WITH THE, UM, APPLICABLE BILL LINE RESTRICTION.
MR. ESPINOZA, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANNA ADD? HI, GOOD AFTERNOON.
CARLOS ESPINOZA WITH CJ PLANNING AND DESIGN.
UH, JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, UH, THE CHANGES WERE, UH, 15 FOOD SETBACK IN THE FRONT AND THEN FIVE FEET INTERIOR SETBACKS.
UH, WE WERE DESIGNED THAT, BUT UH, THE, A STAFF ASKED US FOR TWO MORE WEEKS SO LEGAL CAN REVIEW THAT.
THEY CAN'T JUST APPROVE IT ONE DAY IF WE CHANGE IT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, SO I CLOSED THE, I MEAN I CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION.
ITEM 75, POOL DEPOT SOUTHMORE.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMIT SOUTH ALONG SOUTHMORE BOULEVARD AND EAST OF DAY HIGHWAY 2 88.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLOT IS TO CREATE ONE UNRESTRICTED ASSURE.
NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS PER LEGAL.
THE PROPOSED WE PLOT WILL NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION.
THE STAFF HAS RECEIVED MULTIPLE PUBLIC COMMENT.
IN EVENT VOICING OPPOSITION TO THE WE PLA UM, STEP RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLA PER THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE YOLANDA JOHN REQUEST AND MADAM CHAIR TO PLEASE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 75 IS CONTINUED.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY.
HEARING NONE, I'LL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 76 IS GREENWOOD EDITION PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE.
UH, THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS, UH, IN THE GALLERIA AREA, UH, JUST SOUTH OF WESTHEIMER ROAD ALONG SIX 10 AND IVANHOE STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REPL IS CREATE TWO, EXCUSE ME.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO COMBINE TWO LOTS INTO ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT.
UH, THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
AND REVIEWED BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE, UH, SEPARATELY FILED DEED RESTRICTIONS,
[00:45:01]
BUT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO A 10 FOOT SIDE BUILDING LINE.STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
AND MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 76 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY.
HEARING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ITEM 77 IS HLB HOMES ON ALVIN.
UH, THIS SITE IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF LIMITS, UH, NORTH OF ALVIN STREET BETWEEN EDGAR AND DWAYNE STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN A FLAG LOT CONFIGURATION.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL VIOLATE SEPARATELY FILED DEED RESTRICTIONS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENTS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION.
AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO, TO DEFER THE PLAT PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASE THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS APPLICATION AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 77 IS CONTINUED.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
MR. ESPINOZA IS HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SAY? MR. ESPINOZA? OKAY.
SO I WILL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES ITEM 78.
ITEM 78 IS HLB HOME ON LOWER CO CO FL NUMBER ONE, THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMIT WEST OF HOMESTEAD ROAD AND SOUTH OF T RAILROAD.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLOT IS TO GRADE FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT.
NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS PER LEGAL.
THE PROPOSED PLA WILL VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION ON THE LOT ARE SUBSTITUTE, UM, DE RESTRICTED BUILDER LINES.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT PER THE APPLICANT REQUEST TO PROVIDE REVIVE INFORMATION BY LUKE.
NICK ONE DAY MADAM CHAIR IS A PLEASE TO THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 78 IS, UH, CONTINUED.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
I DO HAVE THE APPLICANT IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
SO COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, I'LL CONTINUE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ITEM 79 IS ISABELLA VILLAS OF THE SITES LOCATED IN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS IN THE THIRD WARD AREA NEAR EMANCIPATION ALONG ISABELLA STREET.
UH, THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ALONG A SHARED DRIVEWAY.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLATTER.
UH, STASH RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
UH, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM AND IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, UH, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS APPLICATION AT THIS TIME.
UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 79 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ALL IN FAVOR? A OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
UH, THIS APPLICATION WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, UH, THE SITE'S LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS, UH, EAST OF TC JESTER ALONG LARKIN STREET.
UH, THE PURPOSE OF THE RE PLAT IS TO CREATE ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE.
THERE ARE NO ANSWERS BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
UH, REVIEWED BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL VIOLATE SEPARATELY FILED DE RESTRICTIONS.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED, EXCUSE ME, THE APPLICANT HAS MET WITH STAFF AND HAS REQUESTED A SECOND DEFERRAL TO ALLOW TIME TO AMEND THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
UH, THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 80.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OH, I NEED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING? YES MA'AM.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY, SO I WILL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UM, YOU SAID AMEND THE DEED RESTRICTIONS NOT AMEND THE BLA.
POSSIBLE IN TWO WEEKS WE WILL.
BUT WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY.
[00:50:01]
I'M JUST MAKING SURE I HEARD GREG CLEANITEM 81 MONTGOMERY ENC CLAY, THE SITE IS LOCATED IN HOUSTON, ETJ IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, EAST OF US 59 AND NORTH NORTH PARK DRIVE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLA IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT.
NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT PER LEGAL
WE PLA WILL NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLA, SUBSTITUTE THE CPC 1 0 1 INFORMED CONDITION.
MADAM CHAIR, TO APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 81 IS CONTINUED.
I ONLY HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? COMMISSIONERS.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. OWENS? ALL RIGHT.
IF NOT, DO I HAVE A, A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 82 IS MORTON CREEK RANCH, SECTION 16 REPL NUMBER ONE AND EXTENSION.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS NEARLY 23 AND A HALF ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION EAST ALONG PEAK RIDGE ROAD JUST NORTH OF MORTON ROAD AND WEST OF GRAND 99 PARKWAY.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 108 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND NINE RESERVES.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS APPLICATION AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
SAF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION.
THIS IS A FULL REPLAT OF MORTON CREEK RANCH, SECTION 16 AND IT EXTENDS IN, UH, TO INCLUDE THE ACREAGE TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY.
WILL LIKE REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCP C 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MA'AM, CHAIR PLEASE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 82 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? WE'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS AN OVER 11,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF LOCAL STREET BELAFONTE BOULEVARD AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE GREEN BRIAR DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING TWO LARGE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AROUND 1500 5800 EACH.
THERE ARE NO RANGES REQUESTED WITH THIS APPLICATION AND IT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
UH, THIS IS A REPLAT OF LOTS 23, 22 AND THE REMAINING EASTERN PORTION OF LOT 21 IN BLOCK 15 OF BRASSWOOD EXTENSION REVIEWED BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS DOES NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT.
OF THOSE FILED SEPARATELY AND STAFF HAS NOW RECEIVED, UH, HAS RECEIVED ADVANCED COMMENTS REGARDING DEED OR CONCERNS OVER DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR THE SITE.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 83 IS OPEN.
I DO HAVE A SPEAKER AND I ALREADY KNOW I'M GONNA MESS YOUR NAME UP.
I CAN'T TELL IF THAT'S A D OR A T.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU THIS AFTERNOON.
UM, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OLD BRAYWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
I SERVE AS THEIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
AND THIS, UM, PLAT IS IN THE BRAYWOOD EXTENSION SECTION AS HE MENTIONED, UM, WHICH IS ONE OF THREE SECTIONS OF OLD BRAYWOOD.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND LOTS OF COMMENTS AND SOME FEARS, WHICH I JUST WANNA CONVEY TO YOU.
SO I'M REALLY NOT HERE TO OPPOSE THIS AT ALL.
BUT JUST TO PASS ALONG SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP THAT I THINK MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR FUTURE RELAS AND TO EASE THE PROCESS FOR THE ENTIRE CITY GOING FORWARD.
UM, SO WE WERE WORKING WITH THIS APPLICANT AS THEY DEVELOP PLANS FOR THE SITE.
WE'RE NOT OPPOSING IT, BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS CONCERNED ABOUT THE NAMING CONVENTIONS FOR RELAS IN SINGLE FAMILY DEED RESTRICTED NEIGHBORHOODS.
BECAUSE NOW THAT YOU NO LONGER HAVE TO HAVE THE NAME OF THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION IN THE REPL NAME, THERE IS CONFUSION, ESPECIALLY AMONG OUR RESIDENTS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WILL STILL APPLY.
WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ASSURE THEM THAT THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS.
THE RESTRICTIONS ARE STILL RUNNING WITH THE LAND, BUT IT DOES CREATE A LOT OF CONFUSION.
UM, SO THE SUBDIVISION NAME WILL NOT OVERRIDE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, BUT IT PLACES A BURDEN ON THE ASSOCIATION WHEN THE RESTRICTIONS ARE AMENDED.
[00:55:01]
A SUBDIVISION THAT'S A HUNDRED YEARS OLD AND THERE ARE A LOT OF ANTIQUATED THINGS IN IT THAT NEED TO BE UPDATED FROM TIME TO TIME.AND WE SEEM TO FIND THEM EVERY TIME THERE'S NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, SO IF THE REPL NAME IS OMITTED, THEN THE AMENDMENT TO THE RESTRICTIONS MAY ACCIDENTALLY, ACCIDENTALLY OMITTED IN THE NEW RESTRICTIONS.
THE, UM, THE REPLANTED PROPERTY MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENT.
AND THAT'S BEEN EXPERIENCED IN A COUPLE OF OTHER SUBDIVISIONS THAT I'VE WORKED WITH.
SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION AND SEE IF THERE'S A WAY YOU COULD REQUIRE IN THE FUTURE OR IF WE COULD WORK WITH SOME WING OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR CITY COUNCIL.
LET I FINISH, I'M ALMOST DONE.
UM, TO, TO SEE IF WE CAN GO BACK TO INCLUDING THAT NAME IN, IN REPL FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY DE RESTRICTED NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, UM, THE GOOD NEWS IS THIS APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO WORK WITH US AND THEY SAID THAT IN THE FINAL ITERATION OF THE PLAT THAT THEY FILE WITH YOU, THEY WILL HAVE OUR NAME IN IT.
UM, BUT I WAS ASKED TO CONFIRM THAT THERE WAS NO FEE TO DO THAT.
SO DOES ANYONE KNOW THE ANSWER, MR. SIO? UH, THERE'S NOT A FEE.
UH, NO FOR THE FACT OF BETWEEN THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL, THERE IS NO FEE TO CHANGE THE NAME.
IF IT WERE TO BE A FINAL APPROVAL RIGHT AT BEFORE RECORDATION, THEN THERE WOULD BE A NAME CHANGE AS THAT WOULD BE THE FINAL, UH, GRANTING APPROVAL.
SO THEY DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FREE, UH, TO CHANGE THIS WITH THE FINAL APPLICATION.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT EXPLANATION.
SO, YEAH, I'M SORRY, WERE YOU FINISHED WITH YOUR COMMENTS? YES, THANK YOU.
YEAH, BUT TO ADDRESS THOSE COMMENTS, THAT'S A REALLY VALID QUESTION.
'CAUSE WE'VE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE COME UP HERE AND SAY, IS THIS PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD? ARE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS? DOES THE CITY HAVE A SOLID LINE THAT SAYS WHEN YOU RENEW YOUR DEED RESTRICTIONS OR MAKE NEW DEED RESTRICTIONS, THAT THE NEW QUOTE, THE NEW SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION IS AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDED AND IT FOLLOWS THE LAND? DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ON PAPER OR WRITTEN OUT THAT WOULD HELP THE NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING? SO, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
UM, AS YOU'RE AWARE, DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE PRIVATE COVENANTS BETWEEN PROPERTY OWNERS.
AND SO THE CITY OF HOUSTON, ALTHOUGH IT HAS SOME LIMITED AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE DEED RESTRICTIONS, IT DOESN'T ADVISE COMMUNITIES OR REPRESENT NEIGHBORHOODS OR INDIVIDUALS IN THOSE COMMUNITIES.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE CITY OF HOUSTON IS ENFORCING DEED RESTRICTIONS, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE TITLE WORK FOR THE REAL PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS PULLED AS PART OF THAT ENFORCEMENT PROCESS.
SO OUR TITLE EXAMINERS ARE VERY GOOD AT PULLING THAT INFORMATION, UM, WHEN THERE ARE ISSUES.
AND I'VE WORKED WITH EVIL AND FOR MANY YEARS.
UM, SO HAPPY TO SEE YOU BACK THERE.
IT'S, WE WERE HAPPY TO, IT'S TO SEE YOU.
I'M GONNA HAVE TO GIVE YOU A HUG LATER.
UM, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S REALLY A PRIVATE MATTER IN TERMS OF HOW THAT'S CONTROLLED.
SO I WISH THAT THERE WAS AN EASY ANSWER.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS HOPING FOR, BUT NO, BUT MR. CILLO, YOU HAVE SOMETHING.
SO IN THE, UH, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND DEDICATION LANGUAGE OF EVERY PLAT AND MILO THAT WE HAVE IN, WHEN IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING, IE THERE ARE DE RESTRICTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED.
THERE'S A SPECIAL COMMENT WITHIN THOSE THAT'S, UH, A SPECIALIZED RE PLAT STATEMENT THAT WE USE AS AN IDENTIFICATION THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT DID HAVE TO GO THROUGH PUBLIC HEARING.
IE HAD SINGLE FAMILY RESTRICTIONS AT SOME POINT, AGAIN, BECAUSE PUBLIC HEARINGS, OF COURSE, ARE NOT FOR ACTIVE, NOT JUST ACTIVE SINGLE FAMILY RESTRICTIONS, BUT EVEN THOSE THAT HAVE EXPIRED OR NOTIFIED IF THERE WAS EVER A PROTECTION, THIS QUALIFIES FOR REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
SO THIS IS KIND OF ANOTHER GUARANTEED WAY THAT IS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT THAT ENSURES THAT THIS IS APPLICABLE TO THOSE RESTRICTIONS, AT LEAST THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
CAN I JUST, CAN I JUST ADD THAT YES, MA'AM.
IN THE PAST FOR A WHILE, AND I DON'T KNOW FOR WHAT PERIOD OF TIME IT WAS IN PLACE, THERE WAS A POLICY WHERE YOU HAD TO HAVE THAT SUBDIVISION ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION NAME IN THE REPL.
I'M NOT SURE WHY OR HOW IT CHANGED, BUT I'M JUST, I GUESS OUR REQUEST IS, COULD WE POSSIBLY GO BACK TO THAT? SO I THINK MR. SEDILLO, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT WOULD BE AN ORDINANCE CHANGE.
UM, AND SO THAT IS SOMETHING WHEN WE HAVE THESE ISSUES POP UP STAFF DOES MAKE NOTE OF THEM, AND WHEN IT'S TIME TO LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE, THOSE ISSUES ARE BROUGHT UP AND DISCUSSED.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT IT'S A CHANGE, IT WOULD BE RED LINED INTO IT FOR REVIEW.
WOULD, WOULD THAT BE CHAPTER 42? YES.
I WAS ABOUT TO GO INTO THAT, YES.
SO THERE WAS A CHANGE WITH THE LIVABLE PLACES, ALTERATIONS FOR CHAPTER 42, AND THIS BECAME A RECURRING ISSUE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE PILOT THAT ALREADY HAVE VERY LONG NAMES AND IN QUOTE THOSE LONG NAMES WITH PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE, RIGHT.
AND EXTENSION AND REPL NUMBER THREE, RIGHT.
KIND OF BECAME THE, SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT FIT WITHIN OUR LIMITED FIELDS FOR OUR PROGRAMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT CHANGED, BUT ALSO TO KIND OF MAINTAIN THE CONTINUITY OF WHERE WE CAN HAVE UNIQUE NAMES, BUT STILL HAVE THOSE KIND OF NOTES AND, AND COMMENTARY THAT DO PROTECT THOSE DEMON VICTIMS. RIGHT.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE, IT WAS KIND OF ISSUES ON BOTH SIDES.
UM, SO, BUT THEY WILL TAKE A LOOK AND, YOU KNOW, AS, AS THEY LOOK THROUGH CHAPTER 42 IN THE FUTURE, THEY BRING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS
[01:00:01]
BEFORE COMMISSION AND TAKE 'EM TO CITY COUNCIL.SO, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL MAKE NOTE OF IT.
WE'LL BE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEXT UPDATE OF CHAPTER 42.
THEY'RE ALWAYS VERY DIFFICULT.
YES, MS. BANDY, DID YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? GOOD AFTERNOON.
PLANNING COMMISSIONS VI BANDY.
I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT, UH, THE RECENT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 42 THROUGH LIVABLE PLACES, THE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS, UH, THE REQUIREMENT OF FOLLOWING THE NAME OF THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION WAS AMENDED.
SO IT'S AN OPTION THE APPLICANTS CAN CHOOSE TO CONTINUE THE NAME OF THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION, BUT THEY CAN ALSO CHOOSE TO HAVE A UNIQUE NAME.
REGARDLESS ALL RELAS, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO CARRY IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NAME OF THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION.
SO THEREFORE IT'S ALWAYS PART OF THE, THE REPL IS ALWAYS PART OF THE ORIGINAL, UH, DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THEY MUST COMPLY.
SO WHEN THEY'RE DOING DEED RESTRICTION AMENDMENTS, HOPEFULLY THEY'RE HAVING A TITLE COMPANY OR SOMEONE PULL THE LEGAL RECORDS AND SO THAT WOULD ALL FOLLOW THE LAND.
THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, HEARING NONE, I'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ITEM 84 IS VENTANA LAKES EAST JO SITE PARK.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS AN OVER 4.2 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AT THE CUL-DE-SAC INN OF PATRISSE STREET, NORTH OF CLAY ROAD AND WEST OF GRAND 99 PARKWAY.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A 42 1 93 VARIANCE REQUESTING A CHANGE OF LAND USE FROM LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE RESERVE TO LANDSCAPE, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION USE.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
UH, STAFF HAS ALSO NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCE COMMENTS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION.
THIS IS A RE PLAT OF RESERVE F AND A PORTION OF RESERVE C OF THE VENTANA LAKES EAST.
SECTION EIGHT SUBDIVISION REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THE PLAT DOES NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO ADDRESS THE CHANGE IN USE BUT TO VERIFY THERE WOULD NOT BE A NEED FOR THE VARIANCE TO HAVE INCLUDED THE RECREATIONAL USE ON THIS RESERVE IN THE ORIGINAL PLAT.
THE INTENT IS TO CREATE A PARK WITH A PLAYGROUND, A PAVILION, AND OPEN PLAY AREA WITH PARKING.
HARRIS COUNTY MUD IS PROPOSING TO CREATE THIS AMENITY FOR THE SUBDIVISION.
THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT WOULD ADD CONNECTING TRAILS TO THE EXISTING TRAIL SYSTEM SURROUNDING THE SUBDIVISION AND ITS DETENTION PONDS.
HARRIS COUNTY, HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE VARIANCE REQUESTS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT AND APPROVE THE SUBJECT GRANTED AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CCP C 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MA'AM CHAIR, IF YOU PLEASE THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 84 IS OPEN COMMISSIONERS.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, THE APPLICANT WILL, WILLIAM MOHAMMED IS HERE.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES.
COMMISSIONER CARROLL, I SEE THAT THE NAME OF THE SUBDIVISION SAYS EAST DRILL SITE.
IS IT, IS IT OPEN FOR DRILLING? SO THERE IS, UH, A, AN EXISTING, UH, DRILL SITE EASEMENT OVER THE AREA OF THE ORIGINAL FOUR ACRES OF RESERVE.
F UH, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A, THEY DID AN EXPLORATORY DRILL BACK IN 2010, BUT THERE IS NO DRILL ON SITE.
UH, THIS, THIS IS THE INTENT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO KIND OF TURN THIS OPEN SPACE INTO SOMETHING THAT'S VALID AND USABLE.
UM, THAT IN COORDINATION WITH THE APPLICANT, THEY DID STATE THAT IT WERE THERE TO BE ANY ATTENTION TO, FOR SOME REASON, TO START AT SOME KIND OF EXTRACTION PRO, UH, PROGRAM WITH THE AREA.
THE PARK WOULD BE CLOSED DOWN AND THEREFORE THERE WOULD BE NO CONFLICT OF, UH, TRAFFIC OR, YOU KNOW, ANYONE PLAYING THERE WHEN THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD COME INTO USE.
BUT THE, UH, THE OWNER OF THOSE MINERAL RIGHTS WOULD, WOULD NOT RELINQUISH THOSE RIGHTS.
SO THE MINERAL RIGHTS STILL, UH, ALLOW FOR DRILLING.
OR OR THEY COULD DO DIRECTIONAL DRILLING CORRECT.
BUT THEY HAD STATED THAT IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, I JUST WANT TO, DIDN'T THINK SOMEBODY WAS GONNA PUT AN OIL WELL OUT THERE ONE DAY
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, SO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL? DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION BALLARD.
[d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests (Devin Crittle, Tammi Williamson, and Geoff Butler) ]
ON TO D SUBDIVISION PLAS WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS.ITEM 85 IS BELTWAY PONDS, UH, GP, UH, THE SITE'S LOCATED IN THE ETJ OF HARRIS COUNTY NORTH OF BEAUMONT HIGHWAY AND EAST ALONG BELTWAY EIGHT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT EXTENDING MULTIPLE RIGHT OF WAYS THROUGH THE PLAT BOUNDARY.
STAFF ISN'T SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS A VACANT 40 ACRE TRACK INTENDED FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USE.
[01:05:01]
MAIN INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE SITE IS FROM THE SERVICE ROAD.ALONG BELTWAY EIGHT, THERE'S AN UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION TO THE EAST COMPRISED OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS STORAGE AREAS AND A PIPE LAY DOWN YARD, SMITHERMAN, EXCUSE ME, SMITHERMAN ROAD AND BEARD ROAD ARE PUBLIC STREETS WITHIN THIS UN UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION THAT'S SUB INTO THE EASTERN BOUNDARY.
BASED ON THE DISTANCE TO THE NEAREST INTERSECTION, THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THESE STREETS TO BE EXTENDED.
INSTEAD, THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO TERMINATE SMITHERMAN ROAD WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC.
THE MAIN JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPORTING THE DECISION TO TERMINATE WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC IS BASED ON THE EXISTING STREET GRID.
THE GOAL OF EXTENDING SMITHERMAN STREET IS TO ALLOW VEHICULAR TRAFFIC TO CONTINUE IN THE WESTWARD DIRECTION.
THE STREET CANNOT GO ANY FURTHER WEST THAN THIS SITE DUE TO THE CONTROLLED ACCESS ALONG BELTWAY EIGHT.
THIS SITE OF BUST THE FEEDER ROAD THAT ONLY ALLOWS TRAFFIC TO FLOW NORTH AND DOES NOT PROVIDE A STREET CROSSING CONTINUE YOU GET TO TIDWELL ROAD TO THE SOUTH OR LITTLE YORK, LITTLE YORK ROAD TO THE EAST TO THE NORTH.
ALSO, TIDWELL ROAD TO THE SOUTH IS A PROPOSED MINOR COLLECTOR THAT WILL PROVIDE AN EAST WEST CONNECTION THROUGH BELTWAY EIGHT.
STAFF HAS COORDINATED WITH HARRIS COUNTY REGARDING THIS VARIANCE AND HAS VOICED NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST.
AND STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTED THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IN APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
UH, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BY STAFF.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION JONES.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 86 IS CITY OF HOUSTON AG FARMS LIFT STATION.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S WITHIN HOUSTON IN HARRIS COUNTY EAST OF WOODLAND HILLS DRIVE SOUTH OF KINGWOOD DRIVE AND NORTH OF THE SAN JACINTO RIVER.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE RESERVE RESTRICTED TO LIFT STATION AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE RESERVE NOT TO HAVE FRONTAGE ON A RIGHT OF WAY, BUT INSTEAD TO TAKE ACCESS FROM AN ACCESS EASEMENT.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE IS AN EXISTING LIFT STATION WITH THE RECORDED ACCESS EASEMENT FROM 1971 AND WAS SHOWN WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH WAS PLATTED IN 1974.
THE CITY OF HOUSTON IS INTENDING TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO UPDATE AND MODERNIZE THE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION FACILITY AND THUS IS REQUIRED TO HAVE THE PROPERTY PLATTED.
THE RECORDED ACCESS EASEMENT PROVIDES ACCESS FROM THE EXISTING LIFT STATION TO WOODLAND HILLS DRIVE.
ALTHOUGH THE SITE DOES NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET, THE RECORDED AND CONSTRUCTED ACCESS EASEMENT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDING FOR A MEANS OF SUFFICIENT ACCESS TO THE LIFT STATION WHICH HAS BEEN IN USE FOR APPROXIMATELY FIVE DECADES.
HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS HAS VOICED NO OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUEST.
THEREFORE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
UH, I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL? DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION SYKES.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES ITEM 87 AND I BELIEVE YES, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER MAREZ IS RECUSING HERSELF.
ITEM 87 IS NEWPORT POINT, SECTION EIGHT.
UH, THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN THE ETJ OF HARRIS COUNTY EAST OF FM 2100 AND WEST OF ALONG MILLER WILSON ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING A STUB STREET ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE GP.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS A SECTION OUT OF THE NEWPORT POINT GENERAL PLAN CONSISTING OF 48 RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN 2019.
THE GENERAL PLAN SHOWED A NORTHERN STUBB STREET THAT WOULD EXTEND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC TO THE NORTH.
SINCE THEN, THE DEVELOPER HAS DECIDED TO NOT PROVIDE THAT STREET CON STREET CONNECTION.
THE MAIN JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST IS THAT THE AREA SUBJECT TO THE STREET EXTENSION IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY LARGE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE LOTS.
THE GENERAL PLAN DOES PROVIDE SUFFICIENT ACCESS TO NEARBY NORTH-SOUTH MAJOR AIRFARES, WHICH WILL HELP MITIGATE THE NEED FOR CONNECTION IN THIS SPECIFIC AREA.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST.
AND MADAM CHAIR, WE DID RECEIVE, UH, A LETTER OF SUPPORT, BUT WE RECEIVED IT AFTER THE WINDOW FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
SO WE DO HAVE SUPPORT FROM ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH.
UH, HARRIS COUNTY'S OFFICE HAVE OB EXCUSE ME, HARRIS COUNTY HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST AND STAFF RECOMMENDS
[01:10:01]
GRANTED THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IN APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 87.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONERS YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 88 IS PORTMAN CENTER STREET, EAST REPL NUMBER ONE.
THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
UH, THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT EAST OF HEIGHTS BOULEVARD IN NORTH OF WASHINGTON.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 275 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR A DUAL BUILDING LINE OF SEVEN AND A HALF FEET ALONG CENTER STREET.
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 10 FEET.
STAFF RECOMMENDS A SECOND DEFERRAL PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
WE'VE RECEIVED NUMEROUS PUBLIC COMMENTS WITH THOSE IN SUPPORT CITING THAT AREAS CAPACITY FOR DENSITY AND THOSE OPPOSED CITING ISSUES WITH CONGESTION.
UH, JUST TO NOTE, A LOT OF THOSE LETTERS TIED IN THE PARKING VARIANCE THAT WAS ONCE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AND, AND IF I MIGHT ASK, WHAT IS THE APPLICANT? DID HE, DID THEY SAY WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO DURING THIS TWO WEEK DEFERRAL? SO THE, UH, UP THIS POSTED SIGN, UH, THE VARIANCE ONE NEEDS TO BE UPDATED.
UM, AND WE'RE WORKING WITH CENTER POINT ON AN EXHIBIT FOR THE POWER LINES ON THE STREET.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 88.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR DEFERRAL.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION HINES.
ALL IN FAVOR OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM 89 IS TOPS SURGICAL GOSLING.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN HARRIS COUNTY WEST AND ALONG GOSLING ROAD NORTH OF OF THE GRAND PARKWAY AND SOUTH OF WILLOW CREEK AND WEST RAYFORD ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG GOSLING ROAD BY NOT PROVIDING AN EAST WEST STREET THROUGH THE SUBJECT SITE.
STAFF REQUESTS THAT THE ITEM BE DEFERRED FOR TWO WEEKS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO ALLOW TIME FOR THEM TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL AS THIS WILL BE THE SECOND DEFERRAL.
STAFF WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A BRIEF PRESENTATION.
THE CURRENT INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG GOSLING ROAD FROM DOVERS SHIRE ROAD TO ROOT ROAD IS APPROXIMATELY 6,700 FEET WITH THE SUBJECT SITE'S NORTHERN BOUNDARY, APPROXIMATELY 1600 FEET FROM DOVERS SHIRE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AS A SURGICAL HOSPITAL.
THE STUBBS STREET TO THE WEST WAS PLOTTED FROM THE NORTH HAMPTON SECTION THREE SUBDIVISION IN 1970 AND EXTENDED IN 1983 WITH NWAY FOREST OF NORTH HAMPTON, SECTION ONE SUBDIVISION.
THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST FROM THE NORTHAMPTON MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT OPPOSING THE EXTENSION OF NWAY DRIVE, WHICH IS INCLUDED WITH THE ITEMS AGENDA MATERIALS.
HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST, HOWEVER, HAS RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT ACCESS FOR THE TWO ACREAGE TRACKS TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THE APPLICANT IS WORKING WITH THE COUNTY TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS AND HAS REQUESTED A SECOND DEFERRAL TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED NUMEROUS PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICATION.
33 IN SUPPORT OF NOT REQUIRING THE EXTENSION OF NY DRIVE AND ONE OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED AND I, I'M SO SORRY TO SAY I CANNOT READ THE WRITING.
PLEASE IF YOU'LL JUST STATE IT FOR THE RECORD.
I'M SORRY THAT I BUTCHERED IT.
UH, THANK YOU HOUSTON COMPLAINANT COMMISSION FOR THE OPPORTUNITY HERE.
MY NAME IS RANDY NEEN AND I LIVE ON NWAY OAKS ON THAT STREET.
UM, AND I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THERE HAD BEEN A REQUEST FOR A DEFERRAL OR IT MIGHT NOT HAVE COME DOWN TODAY.
BUT, UM, IN REGARDS TO ONE OF THE TWO QUESTIONS THERE, I THINK THERE NEEDED TO BE SOME COMMENT ON THE TWO ACRE TRACKS AT THE END.
ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE TWO ACRE TRACKS IS HERE TODAY AS WELL.
HE'S ALSO A NEIGHBOR ON THE STREET.
HE'S IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE, WHICH WOULD, UH, CONTINUE THE, UH, DEAD END STREET.
THE, AS AS MENTIONED THERE WERE 33 IN FAVOR AND ONE OPPOSED.
UH, THE NORTH HAMPTON, UM, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IS IN FAVOR.
THE NORTH HAMPTON MUDS IN FAVOR.
THE NY OAKS IS, UH, HOA IS IN FAVOR AND ON THAT STREET, LITERALLY ACROSS FROM THE STREET FROM MY HOUSE, IS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, COMMUNITY POOL AND AND PLAY AREA.
SO I, I THINK FOR THAT STREET TO GO THROUGH TO
[01:15:01]
GOSLING WOULD PRESENT CONSIDERABLE SAFETY CONCERNS.I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT THE, THE VAST MAJORITY ARE, UH, IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE, WHICH WOULD CONTINUE THE DEAD END.
I SIMPLY DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT HAD DEFERRED IT.
AND YOU KNOW, SORRY YOU CAME DOWN.
YOU COULD HAVE WAITED FOR TWO WEEKS, BUT, UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND IT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, BETWEEN STAFF AND HARRIS COUNTY THAT HOPEFULLY THEY'LL GET THAT WORKED OUT FOR THAT, THOSE TWO ACREAGE PARCELS.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 89.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO YES, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
IT'S THE LAST HOUSE ON THE RIGHT AT THE DEAD END.
UH, WHOEVER REQUESTED THIS, I CANNOT IMAGINE IF ANY OF YOU LIVED ON THAT STREET.
YOU'D BE STANDING HERE WITH ME.
'CAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S PLENTY OF, UH, WAYS TO GET OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER ACCESS POINT TO GET IN.
SO WHAT WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHO, WHO'S THE AUTHOR OF THIS VARIANCE.
UH, THE VARIANCE IS TO CONTINUE THE DEAD END, NOT TO CARRY THE ROAD THROUGH TO GOSLING.
THAT'S WHAT THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS.
WELL, I'M JUST, I'M JUST, EXCUSE ME, I'M NOT A LEGAL SCHOLAR OR ANYTHING, BUT RIGHT.
BUT WHO WANTS THIS TO GO THROUGH? SO IN ORDER TO HAVE CONNECTIVITY AND MS. WILLIAMSON CAN PROBABLY ANSWER THAT BETTER.
'CAUSE I MAY JUST, YOU KNOW, MESS THAT UP.
SO THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT EVERY CERTAIN DISTANCE OF ROADWAY THAT THERE BE INTERSECTIONS TO HELP WITH TRAFFIC CONNECTIVITY.
AND SO THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD SAY THAT FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF GOSLING, THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE INTERSECTIONS JUST BY STRAIGHT, YOU KNOW, OBJECTIVE CRITERIA.
AND THEN APPLICANTS CAN CHOOSE TO REQUEST VARIANCES TO NOT MEET THOSE SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF THE ORDINANCE TO, AND THEN PROVIDE WHATEVER JUSTIFICATION AND HARDSHIP THAT THEY WOULD HAVE.
I, I GUESS MY POINT IS IT'S BEEN FINE FOR 34 YEARS.
BECAUSE THESE PROPERTIES ARE NOW PLATTING.
AND SO THEY NOW HAVE TO ADDRESS NOT MEETING THE ORDINANCE.
AND, AND WE HAVE TO HAVE THE REQUIREMENT AND THE ORDINANCE FOR SAFETY.
IF WE DID NOT HAVE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS, NO ONE WOULD WANT CUT THROUGH ROADS AND IN A CASE OF AN EMERGENCY, NO ONE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF ANYTHING.
SO THE, IT'S THERE FOR A REASON.
BUT ISSUES LIKE THIS WHERE THERE'S, IT'S BEEN A DEAD END AND IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA CUT OVER THROUGH SOME COMMERCIAL.
A LOT OF TIMES THEY ASK FOR A VARIANCE TO NOT EXTEND AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
THEY DO NOT WANT TO TAKE THAT ROAD THROUGH TO GOSLING? NO, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A MIX OF USES.
SO YES, THE APPLICANT'S IS REQUESTING YES.
YOU'RE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST? YES, I AM.
WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING UP MS. WILLIAMSON.
THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION.
ANYONE ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK? ALRIGHT, SO YOU HAVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER FOR ITEM 89.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION HINES.
ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
THERE IS NO, THERE ARE NO ITEMS IN E SO
[f. Reconsiderations of Requirement ]
WE'LL MOVE TO F.RECOMMENDATION OF REQUIREMENT.
RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT.
ITEM 90 IS LEADY FAMILY EDITION.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ETJ WITHIN HARRIS COUNTY EAST OF FM 2100 AND NORTH OF FM 1960.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESERVE FOR AN OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A RECONSIDERATION OF THE REQUIREMENT TO CREATE NORTH, SOUTH, AND EAST WEST STREETS THROUGH THE SITE.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG HUFFMAN EASTGATE ROAD BETWEEN FM 2100 AND A PROPOSED SEGMENT OF MILLER WILSON ROAD.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEVELOP THE 15 ACRE TRACT WITH A MIX OF OFFICE AND WAREHOUSES AND DETENTION.
THE PREVIOUS PLAT WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS TO PROVIDE PUBLIC STREETS DUE TO THE SIZE AND LOCATION ALONG THE BLOCK.
THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY LAND OWNED BY THE HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT.
THE DISTRICT HAS NO PLANS FOR IMPROVING THE PROPERTY, SO THE SITE DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR THE STREET EXEMPTION RELATED TO ACTIVE DRAINAGE AND DETENTION.
HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THAT THE LAND IS TIES INTO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM WITHIN RECORDED EASEMENTS, IT'S REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS LAND WILL BE NEEDED FOR DETENTION IN THE FUTURE.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENT AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
AND WE'VE RECEIVED NO ADVANCE WRITTEN COMMENT.
I HAVE NO ONE HERE TO THAT HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
[01:20:01]
MOTION.[Platting Activities g - j]
MOVING ON TO G EXTENSION OF APPROVAL.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS GHI AND J AS ONE GROUP? YES MA'AM.
EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEMS 91 THROUGH 99, SECTION H NAME CHANGES CONSISTS OF NO ITEMS. SECTION I CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CONSISTS OF NO ITEMS. SECTION J ADMINISTRATIVE CONSISTS OF NO ITEMS. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTIONS GHI AND J.
UH, I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME RECUSALS.
I'M GONNA ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS 92, 93, 94 AND 96.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, UH, FOR ITEMS IN GHI AND J.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION GARZA.
[k. Development Plats with Variance Requests (Ed Buckley) ]
TO K DEVELOPMENT PLUS WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS.GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 100 IS 5 0 7 CORDELL STREET.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 45 AND NORTH OF NORTH MAIN STREET ALONG CORDELL STREET, BETWEEN GARDNER AND FUGATE STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A RESIDENTIAL REMODEL IN ADDITION AND IS REQUESTING A 4.5 FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR A FRONT PORCH.
IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG A LOCAL, A LOCAL STREET.
THE PROPOSED FRONT PORCH REPLACES AN EXISTING ONE AT THE SAME SETBACK BUT WITH A SLIGHTLY WIDER FOOTPRINT TO ALIGN WITH A WIDENED FRONT PORCH OF THE HOUSE THAT DOES NOT ENCROACH, SORRY, WIDEN FRONT PORTION OF THE HOUSE.
HOUSE THAT DOES NOT ENCROACH THE BUILDING LINE.
THE REQUESTED 4.5 FOOT SETBACK IS COMPARABLE TO OTHER HOMES IN THE AREA, INCLUDING A FRONT PORCH EDITION AT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH WITH A VARIANCE APPROVED IN JANUARY.
THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH ENTRY FEATURE REQUIREMENTS IN CHAPTER 42 AND WOULD BE AN ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENT BY RIGHT IF THE HOUSE SHARED VEHICULAR ACCESS WITH OTHER LOTS BECAUSE THE SITE IS ALONG A LOCAL STREET WITH OPEN DITCHES.
PROXIMITY TO THE STREET IS NOT A SAFETY OR VISIBILITY CONCERN.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THEIR, THEIR REQUEST.
I HAVE SOMEONE SIGNED TO SPEAK GENEVIEVE ROLAND.
HOW ARE YOU? I SIGNED UP TO SPEAK BECAUSE WE HAD A COUPLE OF NEIGHBORS.
I AM THE OWNER OF 5 0 7 CORDELL.
AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, REALLY ALL WE'RE DOING IS WIDENING THE FRONT PORCH BY ABOUT THREE FEET.
AND SO, UH, YOU'RE STAYING AT THE SAME EXISTING SETBACK, YOU'RE JUST GOING A LITTLE BIT WIDER.
AND THEN WHEN I MENTIONED THAT TO A COUPLE OF NEIGHBORS THAT WERE HERE, THEY SAID, OH, I DON'T KNOW, THE CITY JUST TOLD US TO COME AND SHOW UP.
SO I WAS JUST HERE TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WE'RE WIDENING IT THREE FEET AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE DOING.
I SAW YOU TALKING TO A FEW PEOPLE.
ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY, SO I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
ITEM 1 0 1, ITEM 1 0 1 65 15 LOCKWOOD DRIVE.
THE SITE IS NORTH OF NORTH LOOP EAST NORTH, NORTH SIX 10 LOOP EAST AND EAST OF INTERSTATE 69 ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF LOCKWOOD DRIVE BETWEEN SHREVEPORT BOULEVARD AND BATON ROUGE STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND IS REQUESTING A 17.5 FOOT GARAGE BUILDING LINE AND LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
THIS IS A SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED HOUSE THAT WAS PERMITTED WITH A 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE, BUT WAS INADVERTENTLY CONSTRUCTED AT A REDUCED SETBACK WHEN AN INSPECTION REVEALED THE DISCREPANCY, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THIS VARIANCE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT A FORK IN LOCKWOOD DRIVE WHERE THE ROAD CONTINUES SOUTHEAST AS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BECOMES A LOCAL STREET APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST.
THE REQUESTED SETBACK IS CONSISTENT WITH OR GREATER THAN SEVERAL OTHER STRUCTURES IN THE AREA AND LEAVES MORE THAN 40 FEET BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE EDGE OF THE STREET.
AT THE NARROWEST POINT, A 17.5 FOOT GARAGE SETBACK WOULD NOT CAUSE VEHICULAR CONFLICT WITH SIDEWALKS IN THE AREA.
AND ALL HABITABLE PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE ARE LOCATED ROUGHLY 15 FEET BEHIND THE 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
I JUST WANTED ONE CLARIFICATION WHERE THE ROAD BREAKS OFF FROM LOCKWOOD, IT DOES IT END AT THE RAILROAD TRACK SO THERE'S NOT A THOROUGHFARE ON THAT YELLOW STREET.
SO THAT'S THE STREET THAT THE HOUSE IS ON, CORRECT? YES.
[01:25:01]
EFFECTIVELY A LOCAL STREET RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR SITE.IT'S JUST CONTINUING AS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE ON PAPER.
OKAY, SO I HAVE UM, A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS.
MS. OWENS IS THE APPLICANT AND HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
AND THEN I HAVE GREGORY MCAFEE.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMITTEE.
UH, I HAD A, I OWN MY FAMILY OWNS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO WHERE THE HOUSE IS BILLED.
MY PROBLEM IS MAYBE WITH UNDERSTANDING THE VARIANCE REQUEST WAS MADE AFTER THE HOUSE WAS BUILT.
SO I'M SAYING IN MY MIND I HAVE A VARIOUS REQUEST, UH, WITH A PUBLIC HEARING AFTER THE BUILDING IS THERE.
AND IF I HAD SOME CONCERNS, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT THE PROPERTY THAT THAT'S NEXT TO IT.
HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT ANY BUILDINGS THAT WE WOULD PUT ON THAT PROPERTY? SO IT'S, IT WAS LIKE THINGS WERE DONE BACKWARDS THAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S DONE LIKE THIS.
SO IF SOMEBODY CAN ENLIGHT ME AS TO HOW THIS EVEN GOT TO THIS POINT TO REQUEST THAT, AND I HAVE NO POINT OF REFERENCE.
SO TO SAY IT WENT FROM 17.5 TO 25.
I KNOW I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.
LOOKING, BEING ON SITE AT THE PROPERTY.
HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT THE PROPERTY THAT WE OWN.
SO IF SOMEBODY COULD HELP ME WITH THAT.
SO IF YOU SEE THE, UH, ON THE SCREEN, THE 20, THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE IS THE RED LINE THAT GOES DOWN.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR 17 AND A HALF FEET, WHICH IS THE BLUE LINE.
THAT'S THE EFFECT OF ON THIS LOT.
AND HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT? MISTAKES HAPPEN IN THE FIELD SOMETIMES.
AND THIS GOT POURED AND CONSTRUCTION BEGAN AND THEY, THEY PROBABLY GOT RED TAGGED.
IS THAT CORRECT MR. BUCKLEY? I SEE YOU SHAKING YOUR HEAD.
UM, AND WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE TO STOP WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND COME IN AND TAKE CARE OF IT.
AND TAKE CARE OF IT IS THEY HAVE TO REQUEST A VARIANCE TO CHANGE THEIR SETBACK.
SO THEY WENT FROM A, THEY'RE GOING FROM A 25 FOOT REQUIRED SETBACK.
THEY'RE REDUCING IT BY, UH, FIVE, SEVEN AND A HALF FEET DOWN TO 17 AND A HALF FEET.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS SEVEN AND A HALF FEET CLOSER TO THE ROADWAY THAN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, BUT IF I MAY, YES.
SO THE WHOLE IDEA IS THEY MADE A MISTAKE.
AND THAT'S WHY THEY STARTED BUILDING.
THEY THOUGHT EVERYTHING WAS COOL AND THEN THE CITY SAID, YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE AND YOU NEED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.
AND THE ONLY WAY TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE IS TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE.
SO FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THEY COLORED OUTSIDE THE LINES, UNNO, UNBEKNOWNST TO THEM, AND NOW THEY HAVE TO MOVE THE LINE.
SO IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR PROPERTY.
EVERYTHING ELSE WILL STAY THE SAME.
UM, IF THEY WERE COMING IN TODAY TO BUILD IT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD ON THE 25 FOOT SETBACK ON THE BUILDING LINE, THE RED LINE THAT THE CHAIR SHOWED YOU.
BUT BECAUSE THEY POURED IT TOO FAR FORWARD BY MISTAKE, THEY HAVE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND THEY HAD TO COME HERE, SPEND MONEY, DO THESE DRAWINGS TO GET PERMISSION SO THAT EVERYTHING IS OKAY.
THEY DON'T CONTINUE TO GET RED TAGGED.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT DOES.
MY OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE WOULD THEY WANT TO PUT ANOTHER BUILDING ON THAT SAME LOT? I DON'T WANT 'EM TO HAVE ACCIDENTALLY DONE SOMETHING ON PURPOSE.
TO PUT SOMETHING BEHIND IT, WE DON'T LIKE THAT EITHER, BUT WE REALLY DON'T, WE WE CAN'T REALLY JUDGE THAT.
UM, WELL, I'M JUST SAYING IS IT PERMITTED? I MEAN, IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING IS THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND DO THE SAME THING.
UM, IF YOU DID IT BY ACCIDENT, YOU'D HAVE TO COME IN AND DO THE SAME THING.
UM, WE DON'T LIKE ACCIDENTS, BUT THEY DO HAPPEN.
AND SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO, TO CLEAR THE RECORD UP AND I SEE OUR APPLICANT RAISING HER HAND.
MS. OWENS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP? DIRECTOR TRAN, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT YOU WANTED TO STATE BEFORE SHE SPEAKS? OKAY, THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS JOYCE OWENS AND I REPRESENT MAYBERRY HOMES.
WHO IS THE BUILDER THIS PARTICULAR LOT, OUR HOUSE IS PART OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON HOME REPAIR PROGRAM.
SO IT'S ONLY GONNA BE ONE HOUSE THAT'S THERE, THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES THAT ARE PROPOSED.
AND YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
THERE WAS A, UM, AN ERROR IN THE FIELD, BUT THE 17 FOOT BUILDING LINE AND HELP ME OUT, ED, IS THE GARAGE.
THE HOUSE STILL SITS BACK A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, BUT THERE IS, THERE'S ONLY GONNA BE JUST THIS ONE STRUCTURE AND I'LL SHARE MY PHONE NUMBER WITH THIS GENTLEMAN HERE.
[01:30:01]
THAT WOULD BE GREAT.HE MAY HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY THAT HE'D LIKE TO ASK.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WILL MAKE ANYBODY FEELS BETTER, BUT IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, UM, HAD IT NOT BEEN A MISTAKE AND THE LOT WASN'T AS DEEP, BUT IF IT CAME TO US PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, THE REASON WHY FOR THE 25 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK LINE IS BECAUSE LOCKWOOD DRIVE IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE REQUIRING 20 FEET SETBACK FOR SAFETY BUFFER.
UH, BUT WHEN IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, LOCKWOOD VEER OFF AND THE BRANCH OF LOCKWOOD IS REALLY NOT MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
SO THAT MAKES IT EASIER FOR US.
SO EVEN IF THIS CAME TO US AHEAD OF TIME ASKING FOR A 17.5 FOOT SETBACK, I THINK THIS COMMISSION WOULD APPROVE.
NOT THAT IT WILL MAKE IT BETTER THAT THEY MADE THAT MISTAKE AHEAD OF TIME, BUT THAT HELPS A LITTLE BIT WITH US AGREEING TO THE VARIANCE.
I I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD AGAIN, YOU MENTIONED DIRECTOR THIS LOT IS 200 AND, UH, 85 FEET DEEP.
UM, AND I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO ASSUME THIS WAS A MISTAKE BECAUSE THEY HAVE SO MUCH REAL ESTATE TO PROPERLY SET THIS SURE.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSION, DID THAT HELP YOU UNDERSTAND? IT DID.
IT DID IT JUST VERY GOOD BACKWARDS.
I I CAN UNDERSTAND THE MISTAKES BACKWARDS AND YOU CAN UNDERSTAND MY CONCERNS WITH ABSOLUTELY, UH, UM, A PUBLIC HEARING AFTER A BUILDING'S ALREADY THERE.
SO THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO COME DOWN AND VOICE MY CONCERNS.
THANK YOU FOR THE UNDERSTANDING.
AND, AND WE DON'T LIKE TO DO THINGS AFTER THE FACT EITHER, BUT, UM, JUST OCCASIONALLY THERE'LL BE A MISTAKE AND, UM, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SHE'S RIGHT BACK THERE.
SHE'LL GIVE YOU HER CONTACT INFO.
SHE'LL HELP YOU OUT WITH ANYTHING YOU NEED.
WE HAVE NOT VOTED ON THAT YET.
MS. OWENS, YOU ALREADY CAME UP AND SPOKE.
SO I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? ALL RIGHT.
SO COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION HINES.
ITEM 1 0 2 IS 6 0 9 OXFORD STREET.
THE SITE IS EAST OF HEIGHTS BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF WHITE OAK DRIVE ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF OXFORD STREET, SOUTH OF EAST SEVENTH STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A MID-RISE MULTIFAMILY BUILDING AND IS REQUESTING NOT TO PROVIDE A 15 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE PROPERTY LINE OF A LOT TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE THAT IS RESTRICTED TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE AND IS UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP.
CHAPTER 42 DEFINES A MIDRISE BUILDING AS TALLER THAN 65 FEET, BUT WITH A FINISHED FLOOR OF THE HIGHEST HABITABLE FLOOR, LESS THAN 75 FEET TALL.
MIDRISE STRUCTURES NEXT TO PROPERTIES IN USE FOR OR RESTRICTED TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE REQUIRE A 15 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE ABUTTING PROPERTY LINE.
IN THIS CASE, A SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE AREA WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESTRICTIONS MEANS THAT A BUFFER IS REQUIRED FOR THE ABUTTING PROPERTY AND DOES NOT ALLOW THE LOT LINE TO BE SHIFTED VIA RELA STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO DE FURTHER REQUEST FOR FURTHER STUDY AND REVIEW.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I CALL HIM? OKAY, OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS RICK, RICK GRO.
KIRK GERARD? NO, NO, NO, HE'S NOT HERE.
MY NAME IS RICK GROWTH HUGHES.
I REPRESENT, UH, THE OWNER OF THE DEVELOPMENT JUST HERE.
UH, I UNDERSTAND IT'S REFERRAL.
I I REALIZE THAT THERE'S A 15 FOOT SETBACK AND YOU OWN THAT LOT.
ON THE, I GUESS IT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE.
SO ARE THERE ANY PLANS AT THIS POINT IN TIME ON, ON WHAT YOU'RE GONNA DO WITH THAT LOT? NO, IT'S QUITE UP IN THE AIR.
UH, ONE OF THE THOUGHTS IS TO LEAVE IT AS AN OPEN SPACE.
'CAUSE YOU'RE KIND OF BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE WITH YES.
ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT.
OKAY, SO COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER.
ITEM 1 0 3, ITEM 1 0 3 IS 54 34 PETTY STREET.
[01:35:01]
THE SITE IS NORTH OF INTERSTATE 10 AND WEST OF TC JESTER BOULEVARD AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PETTY AND RADCLIFFE STREETS.THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A RESIDENTIAL CARPORT AND IS REQUESTING AN 11 FOOT BUILDING LINE IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 20 FOOT GARAGE BUILDING LINE.
MANY OTHER STRUCTURES IN THE AREA ARE BUILT TO A 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE.
THE CARPORT REPLACES THE APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT OF A GARAGE, WHICH WAS DEMOLISHED AS PART OF A GLO RECONSTRUCTION, BUT DUE TO THE OPEN NATURE OF A CARPORT COMPARED TO A GARAGE, IT REPRESENTS AN IMPROVEMENT IN TERMS OF VISIBILITY AS WELL AS PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR SAFETY.
THE REQUESTED SETBACK LEAVES ENOUGH ROOM BETWEEN THE CARPORT AND THE SIDEWALK SO THAT CARS PORT PARKED UNDER THE CARPORT WILL NOT BLOCK PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.
THE CARPORT WAS BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS.
HOWEVER, STAFF RECEIVED SEVERAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? ALRIGHT.
COMMISSIONER, IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION SIGLER.
[II. Establish a public hearing date of April 16, 2026 ]
TO ROMAN NUMERAL TWO.ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF APRIL 16TH, 2026 FOR BALBOA ESTATES DEVELOPMENTAL NORTH SHEPHERD, ESTHER ACRES, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE, GO FORTH PLAZA, GRAND PRAIRIE HIGHLANDS RESERVE NUMBER ONE GRAND PRAIRIE HIGHLANDS, SECTION 13 PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE AND EXTENSION HIGHLINE ENCLAVE.
REPL NUMBER ONE, MAGNOLIA POINT RESERVE AT WESTHEIMER SOUTH POST OAK COMMERCIAL RESERVE AND WOODLAND PLAZA.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION? SECOND GARZA.
ROMAN NUMERAL THREE PUBLIC COMMENT.
DO I HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY.
I'LL ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 4:08 PM THANK YOU SO MUCH EVERYONE.