[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:02]
MY NAME IS LISA CLARK AND I'M THE CHAIR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION, AND I'M CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 2:43 PM ON THURSDAY, APRIL 2ND, 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 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 FOR ONE MINUTE AND NEW.
NEW SPEAKERS ARE TIME FOR TWO MINUTES.
OUR SP SPEAKER RULES ARE FOUND ON THE TOP PORTION OF THE SPEAKER SIGN IN FORM ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA.
COUNCIL MEMBERS SPEAKING ON AN ITEM ARE NOT TIMED.
APPLICANTS HAVE THEIR ALLOTTED TWO MINUTES AS TIME AS AS WELL AS TIME FOR REBUTTALS.
NON APPLICANTS AND GENERAL SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED TWO MINUTES TIME.
THERE IS NOT AN OPTION FOR REBUTTAL.
EVEN IF YOU DID NOT USE YOUR FULL TWO MINUTES, YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK AGAIN AND TIME CANNOT BE ALLOTTED TO ANOTHER SPEAKER.
TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM OF 11 MEMBERS, I'LL CALL THE ROLE CHAIR CLARK IS PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER ARMAND PKA PRESENT AND SECRETARY VON TRAN.
WE HAVE 17 MEMBERS, SO WE ARE AT ABOVE QUORUM.
I NEED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THERE IS ONE ITEM THAT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND THAT IS ITEM 87 FUEL DEPOT AT SOUTHMORE.
SO WE WILL NOT HEAR ANYTHING ON THIS ITEM NOR TAKE ANY ACTION.
[Director’s Report ]
AND NOW I WILL CALL FOR 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.
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WILL BE CLOSE TOMORROW, FRI FRIDAY, APRIL THE THIRD FOR SPRING HOLIDAY.
WE WILL RESUME REGULAR BUSINESS ON MONDAY, APRIL THE SIXTH.
THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND FREEWAY PLAN AMENDMENTS APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS IS UNDERWAY.
WE ARE CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE APPLICATION MATERIALS AND COORDINATING WITH ALL THE AFFECTED AGENCIES.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO SH TO SHARING OUR FINDINGS ON THESE APPLICATIONS WITH YOU AT THE UPCOMING MTFP AMENDMENT WORKSHOP, UH, WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR MAY THE 14TH AT 1:00 PM AT THIS LOCATION.
IN CLOSING, FOR ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 6 0 0.
YOU CAN ALSO REACH THE PLANNER OF THE DAY AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 6 2 4.
AND AS ALWAYS, YOU CAN VISIT US ONLINE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSIONERS.
[Consideration of March 19, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ]
WE HAVE THE PRIOR MEETING MINUTES FOR OUR MARCH 19TH, 2026.UH, THEY WERE POSTED ON THE AGENDA.
DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? MOTION MAD.
[Platting Activities a & b]
MOVING ALONG TO PLATING ACTIVITY A AND B.UH, GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SECTIONS A AND B ARE PRESENTED AS ONE GROUP, WHICH INCLUDES CONSENT AND RELIGHT.
ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION.
SECTIONS A AND B ARE ITEMS ONE THROUGH 82 SECTIONS A CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 37 AND SECTION B REPLY ITEMS ARE NUMBERS 38 THROUGH 82.
MADAM CHAIR, WE HAVE A CHANGE IN STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM 59 MAGNOLIA HOMES HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM APPROVED TO DEFER PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
NO OTHER ITEMS NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND THERE ARE NO OTHER CHANGES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
MADAM CHAIR, IF THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSENT AND RELIGHT ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION.
I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS SIGNED UP, UM, ON
[00:05:01]
ITEM 59 AND 72 AND THEN I, SO WE'LL TAKE THOSE NEXT.UM, AND THEN I DO KNOW I THAT I HAVE SOME RECUSALS, UH, COMMISSIONER.
MADAM CHAIR I'LL ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS 1 5 6 19 AND 42.
COMMISSIONER MAREZ I'LL ABSTAIN FROM ITEM 4 18, 23, 29, 30, AND 32.
ANY OTHERS? OKAY, SO I NEED A MOTION.
SAVE AND ACCEPT ITEMS 1, 4 5 6 18 19, 23, 29, 30, 32, 42, 59 AND 72.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION FAM SECOND JONES.
OKAY, I THINK IT WAS, UH, MOTION FAM.
UM, NOW WE'LL DO THE RECUSALS FIRST AND THEN WE'LL CALL THE SPEAKERS.
SO I NEED A MOTION FOR, UM, ITEMS 1, 4 5 6 18 19, 23, 29, 30, 32 AND 42.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION GARZA.
SO NOW WE'LL HAVE A PRESENTATION ON ITEM 59.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, MAGNOLIA ITEM 59 IS MAGNOLIA HOMES.
THIS IS A CLASS TWO REPL WHERE THE PROPERTY IS BEING RE PLATTED TO CREATE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH THE SHARED DRIVEWAY DEVELOPMENT IN STAFF'S REVIEW.
THERE ARE SOME DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WE FOUND AND WE HAVE COMMUNICATED THAT TO THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING INTO THE DEED RESTRICTED BILLING LINES.
UM, AND THAT'S THE REASON FOR, UH, REQUEST TO DIFFER FROM THE APPLICANT.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? OKAY, SO WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER, CARLOS ESPINOZA.
I KNOW YOU SAY QUESTIONS ONLY, BUT DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANTED TO SHARE? OKAY.
OKAY, SO YOU HAVE A MOTION, UH, FOR DEFERRAL? I MEAN A RECOMMENDATION.
I'LL CALL YOU IN JUST A SECOND.
STAFF HAS TO DO THEIR, UH, PRESENTATION.
SORRY WE'RE A LITTLE BIT CLUNKY HERE BECAUSE WE'RE MISSING SOME PIECES, BUT BE PATIENT WITH US.
THIS APPLICATION IS ALSO A CLASS TWO REPLY APPLICATION WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING LOTS AND, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE AND IT'S LOCATED IN THE CITY.
AND OUR SPEAKER IS, UH, GARNEY GRIGGS.
IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND RESTATING YOUR NAME FOR THE, THE RECORD.
UH, I AM GARNEY GRIGGS, PRESIDENT OF THE BROAD OAKS AREA CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
THIS RELATES TO ITEM 72 2 0 2 6 DASH 0 0 9 8 51 EAST BROAD OAKS, BROAD OAKS RESERVE.
THIS PROPERTY IS IN OUR SUBDIVISION.
WAS ITEM 72 THE PREVIOUS? IT'S NOW THE, THE NEW AGENDA? YEAH, I THINK YOU NEEDED TO SIGN UP FOR 83.
SO COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION, UH, TO APPROVE THE PLAT? UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION BALDWIN.
OKAY, NOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE ALONG
[c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Aracely Rodriguez, Ken Calhoun, and Dorianne Powe Phlegm) ]
TO C RE PLATS REQUIRING PUBLIC, UH, HEARINGS AND NOTIFICATION ITEM 83.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR OF MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMIT EAST OF NEY WALK ROAD AND NORTH OF WOODRIDGE DRIVE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLA IS TO CREATE 21 SINGLE FAMILY LAWS AND ONE RESERVE FOR PARKING PURPOSES.
NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED.
WITH THIS ITEM, THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT AND PARALEGAL D PL WOULD NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION.
STAFF HAVE RECEIVED MULTIPLE PUBLIC COMMENT IN EVENT VOICING CONCERN ON DRAINING FLOODING, DEN TRAFFIC AND PARKING.
[00:10:01]
THE APPLICANT MET WITH THE COMMUNITY THIS WEEK AND NO CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE PLA AND THIS IS A CHILD APPROVED ITEM.STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLEAD, SUBSTITUTE, THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
MADAM CHAIR IS TO APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 83 IS CONTINUED.
MR. GRIGGS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME BACK UP? WE'RE GIVING YOU A WORKOUT TODAY,
UH, I AM GARNEY GRIGGS, PRESIDENT OF THE BROAD OAKS AREA CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
THIS RELATES TO ITEM 83 2 0 2 6 0 0 9 8 9 8 51 EAST BROAD OAKS, BROAD OAKS RESERVE.
THIS PROPERTY IS IN OUR SUBDIVISION.
THE APPLICATION IS FOR THE REPLANTING OF LOT 51 FOR THE BUILDING OF 21 HOMES ON A 2.5 ACRE TRACT.
IN A HEARING ON MARCH 19TH, WE AND MANY OTHERS OPPOSED THE REPL FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.
TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO THE RE PLATTING THE COMMISSION, DEFERRED ACTION ON THE APPLICATION, AND URGED A MEETING OF THE OPPOSITION WITH DEVELOPER FRANK LOU.
A MEETING WAS HAD WITH MR. LI AND REPRESENTATIVE NEIGHBORS OF THE PROJECT.
WHILE THE MEETING DID NOT RESULT IN REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF LOTS, THE NEIGHBORS WERE ENCOURAGED BY MR. LIU THAT HE WAS PLANNING A GOOD PROJECT WITH THE EXPECTATION OF REASONABLE PARKING ON AND OFF SITE, APPROPRIATE WATER RETENTION AND DRAINAGE SOLUTIONS AND GREEN SPACES AROUND TRADITIONAL HOMES SIMILAR TO THOSE NOW IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE ADVISED MR. LIU THAT OUR ASSOCIATION UPON THE REPLANTING WOULD ACTIVELY BE INVOLVED IN THE CONTINUING PROCESS WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND IN THE PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.
WE HAVE MUCH TO DO, BUT WE'RE HOPEFUL FOR A GOOD RESULT.
WE APPRECIATE THE INTEREST OF ALL THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND THANK THE COMMISSION FOR ITS SERVICE.
COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I'M HERE AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY, THANK YOU.
I'LL CALL YOU BACK UP IF THERE ARE.
AND THEN OUR LAST SPEAKER IS DAVID WHITE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON ITEM 83? ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE, UM, PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM MEMBER OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS NORTH ALONG WEST 25TH STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REPL IS TO CREATE ONE UNDERSTOOD RESERVE.
THERE ARE NO ADVANCE 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 FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY EVENTS WRITTEN COMMENTS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS MAD CHAIR FOR PLEASE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 84 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAKERS THERE.
ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ITEM 85 IS THE ESTATES ON BRINKLEY.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS NORTH ALONG BRINKLEY STREET BETWEEN EDGAR AND DWAYNE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE RELA IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A FLAG LOT CONFIGURATION.
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, FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
[00:15:01]
THANK YOU.THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 85 IS CONTINUED.
I HAVE THE APPLICANT MR. ESPINOZA IF HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 85.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF LAY ROAD AND EAST OF HOMESTEAD ROAD.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLOT IS TO CREATE FOUR SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND ONE PARKING RESERVE AND TO MODIFY THE BUILDER LINES.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE THAT REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
THIS PROPOSED FL WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY APPLICABLE RESTRICTION AND STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT IN ADVANCE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE P SUBSTITUTE, THE CPC 1 0 1 INFORMED CONDITION.
MADAM CHAIR IS TO ATE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 86 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO PLEASE COME FORWARD ONE AT A TIME AND IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, I'D APPRECIATE IT.
FIRST, CAN YOU TRANSLATE ME? MAYBE DO YOU HAVE ANYONE TO TRANSLATE ME IN SPANISH? YEAH, I COULD HELP YOU.
UM, HERE'S IN THIS AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IN THIS AREA.
UM, BECAUSE THIS IS IN THE FLOOD ZONE AND THE CONSTRUCION MAY CAUSE MORE, UM, FLOODING IN THE AREA AND, UM, SO NO, NO.
AND THE STREET IS VERY NARROW SO IT'S NOT ADEQUATE, BUT THEY PROPOSED A CONSTRUCTION SO IT'S NOT OKAY.
AND COULD AND COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? YEAH.
OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER? YES.
MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SPEAKER IS WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY.
UH, THEY'RE PLANNING TO MAKE THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND WE APPRECIATE THE SERVICE OF THE CITY.
WE USE THE AMBULANCE, WE USE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND EVERYTHING AND THIS LOT IS, IS TOO SMALL FOR ALL OF THAT.
THERE'S NO PARKING FOR ANY GUESTS OR EVEN THE HOLD ON FOR IT.
SO I'M IN A POST FOR IT AND I'M A NEIGHBOR TO THAT LOT.
THE, THE LOTS THAT IS ARE FURTHER TO TOWARDS HOMESTEAD ARE MUCH LARGER.
WE HAVE SPACE FOR OUR GUESTS FOR US TO COME INTO.
AND ROGERS THAT LITTLE SPOT DOESN'T HAVE ANY, ANY ANY OF IT.
AND LIKE I SAY, I NEED THE AMBULANCE, THE CITY SERVICES AND EVERYTHING I DRIVE, WE USE THE METRO.
METRO HAS UH, HAD TO BAG UP BECAUSE UH, THE STREET IS NARROW AND THERE'S CARS ON THE STREET, SO I'M OPPOSING OF IT.
AND WOULD YOU DO ME A FAVOR AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? MY NAME IS DIANE WILLIAMS. THANK YOU MS. WILLIAMS. YOU ARE WELCOME.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER FOLKS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? YES, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
IF YOU'D STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
I'M ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT PROPERTY AND UM, WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE TRAFFIC AND I DON'T THINK IT'S BIG ENOUGH FOR FOUR HOUSES ON THAT LOT.
IT'S GONNA BE CONGESTED, NOT ENOUGH PARKING.
AND I HAVE BIG TRAILERS AND I PROBABLY WON'T BE ABLE TO GET IN AND OUTTA MY DRIVEWAY.
[00:20:01]
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.UM, MR. BROWN, I KNOW YOU'RE BACK IN THE BACK AFTER WE'RE DONE, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND SPEAKING TO THESE NICE FOLKS AND TALKING TO 'EM A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PERMITTING AND WHERE THIS GOES FROM HERE.
AND MS. RODRIGUEZ, WOULD YOU MIND RESTATING YOUR RECOMMENDATION? AND THIS IS SHALL APPROVE, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
DO YOU ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT SHALL APPROVE MEANS? NO.
OKAY, SO A SHALL APPROVE IS IT MEETS EVERYTHING IN THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS CHAPTER 42.
AND THAT IS WHAT CONTROLS BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT HERE IN IN HOUSTON.
BUT BY STATE LAW, IF IT MEETS THAT ORDINANCE, WE ARE REQUIRED TO MOVE IT FORWARD, TO APPROVE IT AND MOVE IT FORWARD.
THIS IS THE VERY BEGINNING STAGE OF THIS PROCESS.
THE NEXT STEP THEY'LL GO TO AFTER EVERYTHING'S APPROVED HERE, THEY WILL GO TO PUBLIC WORKS AND THAT'S WHY I'VE ASKED MR. BROWN IN THE BACK TO GO OUT AND SPEAK WITH YOU GUYS TO GIVE YOU SOME INPUT WHERE IT GOES NEXT AND WHERE, YOU KNOW, CONTACT INFORMATION THAT YOU ALL WOULD HAVE UM, AS THIS PROGRESSES FORWARD.
OKAY, MS. RODRIGUEZ, I KIND OF CUT YOU OFF.
UM, THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLUS SUBSTITUTE, THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
UM, I ALSO NEED TO ASK ANY OTHER SPEAKERS.
I, I REALIZE THIS A SHALL PROOF, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK, LOOK AT THE PLAT, THE DRIVEWAY LOOKS A LITTLE INTERESTING IN, IN TERMS OF RELATION TO THE INTERSECTION.
SO IS THAT CORNER PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY? THAT, THAT, THAT UM, THE PROPERTY, A BUS TO THAT THAT'S SHOWING.
I MEAN I JUST WANNA GET SOME CLARIFICATION 'CAUSE IT LOOKS REALLY CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION AND A LITTLE UNSAFE.
UM, STAFF COORDINATED WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND THEY LOOKED INTO THAT ANGLE, SO THEY'RE PER DEAL BOND, THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY WILL MEET THE IBM STANDARDS.
HEARING NO OTHER SPEAKERS, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND STANDING UP AND THIS IS THE GENTLEMAN THAT WILL TALK TO YOU AND GIVE YOU SOME CONTACT INFORMATION AND TALK YOU THROUGH THE NEXT STEPS.
ITEM 88 IS HOB HOMES ON ALVIN.
UH, THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS NORTH ALONG ALVIN STREET BETWEEN EDGAR AND DWAYNE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE REPLAY IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A FLAG LOT CONFIGURATION.
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 FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 87 88, EXCUSE ME, UH, IS CONTINUED.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, THE APPLICANT, MR. ESPINOZA IS HERE AND IF YOU DON'T THEN I NEED A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
MOVING TO ITEM 89, ITEM 89 HLB HOME, A LOWER COPE BPL NUMBER ONE.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMIT WITH UP HOMESTEAD ROAD AND STARTUP TEWELL ROAD.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLOT IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOT.
NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
HER LEGAL, THE PROPOSED WE PLOT WILL NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLEDGE SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION.
MADAM CHAIR, APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 89 IS CONTINUED.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY.
I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MR. ESPINO IS HERE AND IF NOT, I'LL SEEK A MOTION FOR, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
[00:25:01]
MOVING TO ITEM 90, ITEM 90, IDAHO RESIDENCE.THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMIT ALONG IDAHO STREET WEST OF COOLING BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF YELLOWSTONE BOULEVARD.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLA IS TO CREATE ONE MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL RESERVE OR MUR.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE OF REQUEST TO PUT THIS ITEM PER LEGAL REVIEW.
THE REPL WOULD NOT VIOLATE ANY APPLICABLE RESTRICTION AND STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT IN ADVANCE.
UM, THE APPLICANT ALSO MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLEDGE SUBJECT TO THE CP CPC 1 0 1 INFORMED CONDITION.
MADAM CHAIR IS APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 90 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THE, UH, PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES ITEM 91.
ITEM 91
THE REASON FOR REPL IS TO EXPAND AN ASSISTING LIFT STATION BY WE PLOTTING A LIFT STATION RESERVE ON A PORTION OF A LOT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARI FROM SECTION 1 93 TO ALLOW THE PORTION OF A LOT TO BE REAPPLIED INTO A LIFT STATION.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATE THAT THERE ARE NO, I MEAN THERE ARE SEPARATE FILE RESTRICTION THAT LIMIT THE USE OF THE LOT TO A SINGLE FAMILY BECAUSE 180 3 ONLY APPLIES TO THE FACE OF THE PLOT RESTRICTION.
THE VARIANT IS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THERE ARE SEPARATE FILE RESTRICTION ON THE PROPERTY AND NOT JUST ON FACE OF THE PLOT.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAS ENTERED AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF HOUSTON TO ALLOW THE CITY TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
UM, THE CITY HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE.
IT IS A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLOT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTION FILED SEPARATELY, BUT THIS IS A CHILD APPROVED PLOT AND STA RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLA SUBSTITUTE, THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION STAT HAS RECEIVED ADVANCED COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM CONCERNING LOCATION AND PROXIMITY, ORDER CONTROL MEASURE NORTH LEVEL FLOODING AND DRAINING IMPACT.
SO MADAM CHAIR, IT'S A PLEASE OF THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 91 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, IF NOT, I'LL SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMIT EAST OF TC JESTER NORTH ALONG LARKIN STREET AND SOUTH OF DARLING STREET.
THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLOT IS TO CREATE ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE THAT REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS REVIEWED BY LEGAL INDICATE THAT THIS PROPOSED UNRESTRICTED ASSURE WILL VIOLATE APPLICABLE DE RESTRICTION.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO DISAPPROVE THE PLOT.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION TO ALLOW TIME TO COMPLETE THE AMENDMENT TO THE RESTRICTION AND TO PROVIDE CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT ENOUGH TIME TO REVIEW THE AMENDED RESTRICTION.
UH, YOU MAY AT, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
I'M CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 92.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I DO.
COMMISSIONER GARZA? THE APPLICANT IS HERE? YES.
WELL I'LL, LET ME ASK STAFF FIRST AND THEN IF WE DON'T GET IT CLEARED UP, I'LL ASK YOU TO COME UP.
SO THE, WITH REGARD TO THE DEED RESTRICTION, THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY OWNS ALL OF THE PROPERTY, SO IS CAPABLE OF CHANGING THE DEED RESTRICTIONS.
CORRECT? THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL, BUT THEY OWN ALL OF IT IS MY POINT.
[00:30:01]
THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT ENCUMBER THE LOT THAT'S PART OF THE RE PLAT.UM, THERE ARE ONLY TWO LOTS THAT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO.
SO EVEN IF IT'S JUST ONE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER, IT WOULD BE A FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD PROCESS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.
UM, SO WE'VE BEEN GIVEN A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION GARZA.
WINTON VILLA, THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMIT EAST ALONG WINTON STREET, SOUTH OF OLD SPANISH TRAIL.
THE PURPOSE OF THE PLOT IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY LODGE.
THERE ARE NO VARIANTS THAT REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATE THAT THIS PLOT WILL NOT VIOLATE APPLICABLE RESTRICTION AND THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO THE CCP C 1 0 1 FORM CONDITION STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ADVANCED COMMENTS FOR THIS ITEM.
MADAM CHAIR IS TO APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 93 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
[d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests ]
TO D SUBDIVISION PLATS WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 94 IS CHURCH STORY AT CYPRESS HEIGHTS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON ETJ HARRIS COUNTY ALONG CYPRESS HEIGHTS DRIVE SOUTH OF JERGEN ROAD AND EAST OF MKI ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE INTENDED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CHURCH AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED RESERVE TO EXCEED MAXIMUM 1400 FEET INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG A COLLECTOR STREET BY NOT PROVIDING AN EAST, WEST STREET THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A LOCAL STREET EVERY 1400 FEET ALONG A COLLECTOR STREET.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS AND RECORDED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY PREVENTING THE EXTENSION OF AN EAST WEST STREET THROUGH THE AREA.
IN ADDITION, IN 2021, THE PLANNING COMMISSION GRANTED VARIANCES FOR TOMBALL ISD JERGEN ROAD EDUCATION CAMPUS LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE EASTERN AND SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES OF THE SUBJECT SITE, ALLOWING THE CAMPUS TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENTS BY OMITTING TWO EAST WEST STREETS THROUGH THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.
THEREFORE, INTERSECTION SPACING MUST STILL BE ADDRESSED WITH THIS SITE.
HARRIS COUNTY HAS NO OBJECTIONS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
MOTION BALLARD SECOND MATTERS.
MOVING ON TO 95 MADAM CHAIR, I'M GONNA RECUSE FROM THIS ITEM.
HE GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS JOHN PHILLIPS CILLO.
ITEM 95 IS MOSAIC UNITED METHODIST CHURCH.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A 29.4 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION NORTH ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, JERGEN ROAD, EAST OF MUY ROAD.
THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING A SINGLE RESERVE RESTRICTED TO CHURCH, CHURCH RELATED USES AND COMMERCIAL USES AND REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES.
ONE TO EXCEED 2,600 FOOT INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING A NORTH SOUTH STREET THROUGH THE SITE.
AND TWO TO EXCEED 1400 FOOT INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING EAST WEST STREET THROUGH THE SITE.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTS.
THIS SITE IS PROPOSED TO BE A LARGE CHURCH SITE WITH A LARGE DETENTION BASIN ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
UH, THERE'S A PARK AREA TO THE NORTH WITH THE CHURCH AND PARKING LOT IN THE CENTER INTENDING FOR AMENITIES LIKE PICKLEBALL COURTS AND FOOD TRUCK SITE TO THE NORTH.
THIS SITE IS BORDERED BY A LARGE DETENTION POND AND THE 99 GRAND PARKWAY WITH LIMITED POTENTIAL TO EVER TO CONNECT TO THE HIGHWAY AS IT HAS NO FEEDER ROAD.
THE EASTERN BOUNDARY IS BORDERED BY THE DEVELOPED ESTATE LOTS FOR THE UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION OF HIGH MEADOW FARMS. LIMITING POTENTIAL CONNECTIONS TO THE EAST AND LARGE ATTENTION PONDS TO THE WEST ARE ALSO LIMITING THE EXTENSIONS OF AN EAST WEST RIGHT OF WAY TO THE NORTHEAST.
[00:35:01]
THERE IS AN EXISTING PUBLIC SUBS STREET KATHY STREET, WHICH COULD EXTEND TO PROVIDE, UH, MORE FLUID EAST WEST CONNECTION THAT WOULD NOT BE HINDERED BY THE HIGH MEADOW FARM SUBDIVISION NOR THE DETENTION PONDS TO THE WEST.HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE VARIANCES, BUT DID VOICE CONCERNS FOR THE INTENDED COMMERCIAL USE ON A CHURCH SITE TO WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS ACQUIESCED AND WILL REMOVE THE COMMERCIAL USE FROM THE INTENDED RESTRICTIONS, LEAVING IT AS A CHURCH AND CHURCH RELATED USES.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
UH, DO YOU HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE, MR. YOUNGBLOOD, DID YOU WANNA SPEAK OR ARE YOU JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS? NO, MA'AM.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, IF NOT, I'LL SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 96 IS PORTMAN CENTER STREET EAST REPL NUMBER ONE.
THIS WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS TWO MEETINGS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT, EAST OF HEIGHTS BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF WASHINGTON.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 275 UNIT MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR A DUAL BUILDING LINE OF SEVEN AND A HALF FEET ALONG CENTER STREET AS OPPOSED TO THE REQUIRED 10 FEET.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE EASTERN INTERSECTION OF CENTER AND HARBOR STREETS.
THE SITE WAS SUBJECT OF A A REPL AND VARIANCE APPROVED IN 2022 ENCOMPASSING BOTH SIDES OF HARVARD.
THE APPLICANT DEDICATED FIVE FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY TO CENTER STREET WITH THIS PLAT AS IS REQUIRED BY THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND FREEWAY PLAN.
FURTHER REFINEMENT OF THE EASTERN BUILDING'S DESIGN RESULTED IN A TWO AND A HALF FOOT ENCROACHMENT ALONG THE CENTER STREET SETBACK TO INCORPORATE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS INTO THE PROJECT.
THE APPLICANT IS ASSERTING THAT ALLOWING THIS ENCROACHMENT IS JUSTIFIED CITING THE CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY EARLIER RIGHT OF AWAY DEDICATION.
THE SITE IS THEN THE CITY'S STREET WITH EXCEPTION AREA, WHICH ALLOWS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ALONG 50 FOOT RIGHTS AWAY.
CENTER STREET IS AN EXCEPTION TO THIS PROVISION, BUT THE RESULT WILL BE SIMILAR TO WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IN ADDITION, THE ENCROACHMENT IS WITHIN THE THREE FOOT THRESHOLD ALLOWED FOR THE UPPER FLOORS.
THE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW FOR THIS ENCROACHMENT TO EXIST AT THE GROUND LEVEL.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE GRAIN, THE VARIANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE.
AS THE PROVIDED 23 FEET REPRESENTS SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE TO THE BACK OF CURB, WE'VE RECEIVED NUMEROUS PUBLIC COMMENTS WITH THOSE IN SUPPORT CITING THE AREA'S CAPACITY FOR DENSITY AND THOSE OPPOSED CITING ISSUES WITH CONGESTION.
UM, IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT THESE WERE, UH, RECEIVED FOR A PARKING VARIANCE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ATTACHED TO THIS WAS NOT BEING CONSIDERED.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANYONE WISHES TO COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER.
I JUST DON'T SEE ANY COMMENTS FROM CENTER POINT.
DID THAT, DID THEY REVIEW EVERYTHING? YES.
DURING, UH, THE SECOND DEFERRAL PERIOD WE'RE ACTUALLY WORKING WITH THEM AS FAR AS VERIFYING THAT IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT DISTANCE FROM THE POWER LINES AT CENTER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'LL SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ALL IN FAVOR? A OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES ITEM 97.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 97 IS SPRING BUSINESS PLAZA.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN HARRIS COUNTY NORTHEAST OF ALDING WESTFIELD ROAD, SOUTH OF CYPRESSWOOD DRIVE AND NORTH OF TRESS ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE RESERVE RESTRICTED TO COMMERCIAL USE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE RESERVE NOT TO HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, BUT INSTEAD TO TAKE ACCESS FROM AN ACCESS EASEMENT.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE ACCESS EASEMENT WAS RECORDED IN 1996 AS A MUTUAL NON-EXCLUSIVE AND PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR THE PROP FOR THIS PROPERTY AND THE ABUTTING TWO PROPERTIES ALONG ALDEN WESTFIELD ROAD.
THE SUBJECT SITE HAS BEEN WITHOUT FRONTAGE ALONG A PUBLIC STREET FOR MANY DECADES.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN OFFICE WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT AND WILL UTILIZE THE EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT FOR ITS ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC STREET.
ALTHOUGH THE SITE DOES NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET, THE RECORDED ACCESS EASEMENT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDING FOR A MEANS OF SUFFICIENT ACCESS.
HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS VOICED NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST.
THEREFORE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC
[00:40:01]
COMMENTS IN ADVANCE AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY, SO I NEED A RE, UH, MOTION FURTHER RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF MOTION.
ITEM 98 IS TOPS SURGICAL GOSLING.
THE ITEM HAS BEEN DEFERRED TWICE AND SO MUST BE ACTED UPON TODAY.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN HARRIS COUNTY WEST AND ALONG GOSLING ROAD NORTH 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 THROUGH STREET THROUGH THE SUBJECT SITE.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE EXISTING INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG GOSLING ROAD IS APPROXIMATELY 6,700 FEET FROM ROOT ROAD TO DOVER SHORE ROAD WITH THE SUBJECT SITE'S NORTHERN BOUNDARY.
APPROXIMATELY 1,640 FEET FROM DOVERS SHIRE.
INWOOD DRIVE IS THE REMAINING STUBB STREET FROM THE NORTHAMPTON NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS ALL OTHER PLATTED STUB STREETS HAVE NOT BEEN REQUIRED TO BE EXTENDED TO GOSLING.
INWOOD DRIVE WAS DEDICATED BY THE INWOOD FOREST OF NORTHAMPTON, SECTION ONE SUBDIVISION AS AN EXTENSION FROM NORTHAMPTON.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AS A SURGICAL HOSPITAL REQUIRING THE DEDICATION OF A 60 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC STREET TO ALIGN WITH NWAY DRIVE SUB STREET WOULD BISECT THE SUBJECT SITE LIMITING THE LAND FOR THEIR PROPOSED USE.
LIKEWISE, AN ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINT TO PROVIDING AN EAST WEST PUBLIC STREET AT THIS LOCATION IS AT THE EXTENSION OF NWAY DRIVE THROUGH THE SITE WOULD INTERSECT GOSLING ROAD ABOUT 100 FEET NORTH OF AKIN STREET ON THE EAST, WHICH WOULD NOT MEET THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED MINIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING OF NOT LESS THAN 600 FEET.
HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING IS IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST NOT TO REQUIRE AN EAST WEST PUBLIC STREET CITING THE EXISTING CIRCULATION PRESENT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEATING ADEQUATE.
THEREFORE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLOT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM.
CONDITIONS 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 IN THIS ITEM'S AGENDA MATERIALS.
ADDITIONALLY, STAFF HAS RECEIVED NUMEROUS PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS APPLICATION IN SUPPORT OF NOT REQUIRING THE EXTENSION OF NWAY DRIVE AND ONE OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO? OKAY.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF YOU TO HAVE A MOTION.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS A 9.3 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY, EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION NORTHWEST ALONG NORTH COLBY ROAD, UH, NORTH OF MAJOR THOROUGHFARE CYPRESS, NORTH HOUSTON ROAD AND EAST OF MAJOR THOROUGHFARE TEL ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SINGLE, UH, UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES.
ONE TO NOT EXTEND NOR TERMINATE WITH A CUL-DE-SAC NORTH COLBY ROAD.
AND TWO TO EXCEED 1400 FOOT INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOW PROVIDING AN EAST WEST STREET THROUGH THE SITE.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTS.
THE SITE IS CURRENTLY USED AS AN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE AND IS PLANNING TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL STORAGE FACILITY TO THE SITE SHOWN IN BLUE TO THE NORTH.
THE SITE IS BORDERED BY THE UH, HARRIS COUNTY PARK SITE AS WELL AS CYPRESS CREEK, WHICH IS 300 FEET WIDE AT THIS LOCATION.
UH, EXTENSION OF NORTH COLBY ROAD.
NORTH COLBY ITSELF IS 1,190 FEET BEFORE ITS CURRENT TERMINATION, AT WHICH FIVE SITES ARE CURRENTLY TAKING ACCESS.
UH, ONLY THREE OF WHICH TAKE SOLE ACCESS FROM KIRBY COLBY TO THE EAST.
THERE ARE STATE LOTS AND A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION, THOUGH UNRECORDED, THEY ARE DEVELOPED WITH LIMITED POTENTIAL TO CONNECT TO THE EAST.
THE RESERVES TO THE WEST OF THE SITE TAKE DIRECT ACCESS FROM MAJOR THOROUGHFARE TAILGATE ROAD AND ARE WELL WITHIN THE 2,600 FOOT INTERSECTION SPACE ALONG THAT MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
THE PROPERTY IS IMMEDIATELY SOUTHWEST OF ALL OF THE OF, OF THE SITE OR ALL RECORDED COMMERCIAL SITES THAT HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO MAJOR THOROUGHFARES.
HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE VARIANCE.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NOT, NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 99.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY.
UH, COMMISSIONERS YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
[00:45:01]
WE HAVE NOTHING UNDER E SUBDIVISION PLA ITEM 100 EXCEPTIONS.[f. Reconsideration of Requirement ]
TO F RECONSIDERATION OF REQUIREMENT NUMBER 100.ITEM ITEM 100 IS FIDELITY PLAZA.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A FIVE ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS WEST ALONG MAJOR COLLECTOR FIDELITY STREET SOUTH OF MAJOR COLLECTOR MARKET STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SINGLE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING AN EAST WEST STREET THROUGH THE SITE.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE IS PROPOSED TO BE A COMMERCIAL TRUCK SHOP PROVIDING ACCESSORIES AND MAINTENANCE FOR 18 WHEELER RIG TRUCKS.
THE SITE IS BORDERED TO THE WEST BY A LARGE 300 PLUS ACRE DETENTION RETENTION SITE OWNED BY THE PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY WITH A LARGE BERM SURROUNDING THE SITE IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST OF THAT DETENTION SITE IS INTERSTATE SIX 10 WHERE THERE IS NO FEEDER ROAD AND NO OPPORTUNITY FOR A SAFE CONNECTION.
THESE PHYSICAL LOGISTICAL OBSTACLES MAKE, UH, AN EAST WEST STREET THROUGH THIS SITE FEASIBLE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION GARZA.
[Platting Activities g - j]
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.
AND I DO NEED TO NOTE WE HAVE, UM, ONE ABSTENTION ITEM 1 0 6.
IS THAT CORRECT? COMMISSIONER? HI.
AND COMMISSIONER PIERCE AND YOU AS WELL IS ON THE SAME ITEM.
SECTION G EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEMS 101 TO 113.
SECTION H NAME CHANGES CONSISTS OF ITEM 114 SECTION I.
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CONSISTS OF ITEM 115.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSISTS OF NO ITEMS. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTIONS G-H-I-N-J.
[k. Development Plats with Variance Requests ]
PLA WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS.ITEM ONE 16 IS 5 0 3 5 CARU STREET.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMIT IN HARRIS COUNTY ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE OF SOUTH RICE AVENUE AND SOUTH OF BEACH NUT STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW 3,900 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR A 15 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG SOUTH RICE AVENUE.
IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 25 FEET.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED MEYERLAND SECTION ONE SUBDIVISION WITH A PLATTED 15 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG SOUTH RICE AVENUE AND A 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG CARUS STREET.
THIS PORTION OF SOUTH RICE AVENUE IS A BOULEVARD WITH A POSTED SPEED LIMIT OF 30 MILES AN HOUR, FUNCTIONING SIMILARLY TO A LOCAL STREET, BUT WITH A LITTLE BIT GREATER TRAFFIC VOLUMES.
NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS IS PROPOSED ALONG THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE SOUTH RICE AVENUE, BUT INSTEAD FROM THE LOCAL STREET, CARU STREET, THE BACKUP CURB DISTANCE ALONG SOUTH RICE TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS 12 FEET, EIGHT INCHES AND MORE THAN 27 FEET TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
MOST OF THE HOMES PREDATE THE ORDINANCE BUILDING LINE REQUIREMENT MEETING THE 15 FOOT PLATTED BUILDING LINE APPROVED.
UM, THE REDUCED BUILDING LINE IS IN KEEPING WITH THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE SAFE MOVEMENT OF PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLES.
HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS HAS VOICED NO OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUEST.
THEREFORE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE REQUEST.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE.
AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
WE DO HAVE THE, UM, APPLICANT HERE.
MR. GERMAN, DID YOU WANNA MAKE COMMENTS OR JUST ANSWER QUESTIONS? OKAY.
AND JUST STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD FOR ME.
YEAH, MY NAME IS LUIS CHAIRMAN.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSTON COMMITTEE.
I DO HAVE SOME SIGNATURES FROM, UH, NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE SUPPORTED THE, THE REQUEST.
SO IF I CAN STAND TO THAT, SHOW IT DIGITALLY OR TO HAVE IT PART OF THE, JUST PUT IT AS PART OF THE PRIVATE
[00:50:01]
PUBLIC RECORD.SO AS I SAID, MY NAME IS LEWIS CHAIRMAN.
I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
WE ARE REQUIRING THE REDUCTION ON THE WEST SIDE AS WAS EXPECTED FROM, UH, AS WAS EXPLAINED FROM 25 FEET TO 15 FEET.
ONE OF THE MAIN REASON IS THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALL HOMES ALONG SOUTH RICE FROM JASON TO BEACH NOT STREET, ARE BUILT UNDER THE 15 FOOT SETBACK.
AND THIS PATTERN CONTINUES ALONG THE ENTIRE STRETCH.
ALLOWING THIS HOME TO BE BUILT AT 50 FEET WILL MATCH THE ESTABLISHED ARCHITECTURAL RHYTHM, SPACING, AND CHARACTER OF, OF, OF THE AREA.
SOUTH RICE IS A QUIET, A BEAUTIFUL AVENUE WITH A WIDE BAYOU RUNNING THROUGH IT.
TRAFFIC IS DIVIDED INTO TWO LANES ON EITHER SIDE.
CARUS A LOCAL STREET NON CONNECTING LOOP.
SO THERE'S BASICALLY NO, NO MAJOR TRAFFIC ON THAT INTERSECTION.
OUR CURRENT DESIGN PRESERVES ALL THE MATURE TREES ON THE PROPERTY, BEAUTIFUL LIGHT OAK AND AND MAJESTIC GLYCO.
AND IT PROVIDES BACKYARD THAT FEELS NATURALLY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
UH, WE ARE ALREADY COMPLETING A, A FULL ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING DESIGN.
AND IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, WE ARE FULL PREPARED TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION IMMEDIATELY.
THAT WILL REVITALIZE THE LOT AS IT HAS BEEN VACANT SINCE HURRICANE HERBIE AND, AND ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD APPEARANCE AND GENERATE HOPEFULLY ADDITIONAL REVENUES TO THE CITY.
FINALLY, UH, WE BELIEVE A SIMILAR VARIANCE WAS GRANTED JUST A HUNDRED YARDS AWAY TO A PROPERTY THAT IS SITUATED IN BINU STREET AND SOUTH RICE, WHICH IS A MUCH, MUCH BUSIER INTERSECTION.
AND THAT SAID BACK FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS.
THIS BARRIER REQUEST IS NOT ABOUT EXISTING EXISTING LIMITS OR CREATING SOMETHING OUT OF SCALE.
IT IS ABOUT ACHIEVING A THOUGHTFUL, BALANCED DESIGN.
ONE THAT ALIGNS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
RESPECT THE PRESIDENTS PRESERVE, MATURE TREES, MAINTAIN THE BACKYARD.
THANK YOU SO MUCH COMMISSIONERS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BY STAFF TO HAVE A MOTION.
ITEM ONE 17 IS 8 0 3 0 FULTON STREET.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTONS CORPORATE LIMIT IN HARRIS COUNTY ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE OF FULTON STREET AND NORTH OF CROSS TIMBERS ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SURFACE PARKING LOT AND TEMPORARY METRO POLICE OFFICE TRAILERS AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRING A BUILDING PERMIT COMPLY WITH THE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG A DESIGNATED PRIMARY TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT STREET DUE TO ITS PROXIMITY TO A METRO RAIL STATION ONE BLOCK SOUTH.
PER THE ORDINANCE, DEVELOPMENTS ALONG A PRIMARY TOD STREET ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN REALM STANDARDS.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO TEMPORARY OFFICE BUILDINGS FOR METRO POLICE.
THE BUILDINGS ARE PROPOSED TO BE PLACED NOT BETWEEN THE PARKING AREA AND THE PEDESTRIAN REALM, WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO HAVE THE TOD REQUIREMENTS WAIVED FOR THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT, WHICH IS INTENDED TO BE TEMPORARY.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST IN KEEPING WITH THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE, ALLOWING THIS NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE TO BE DEVELOPED AS PROPOSED IN ORDER TO MEET THE CURRENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS OF METRO WHILE PROVIDING THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PEDESTRIAN REALM ALONG FULTON.
THE FUTURE INTENT OF THE SITE, WHICH IS AT THE NORTHERNMOST STATION ON THE RED LINE, IS FOR A MULTI-STORY METRO TRANSIT CENTER IN PARK AND RIDE FACILITY TO BE DEVELOPED WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.
THE FUTURE TRANSIT CENTER FACILITY WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE TOD REQUIREMENTS.
THEREFORE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO PROVE THE REQUEST AND STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE.
AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
MAD CHAIR, JUST FOR QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? YES.
I'M JUST CURIOUS, HOW LONG DOES TEMPORARY LAST, I MEAN, WHAT'S TO KEEP THEM FROM BEING THERE 20 YEARS OR SOMETHING? IS IS THERE SOME LIMIT THAT SAYS THEY HAVE TO DEVELOP THIS WITHIN? NO, UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT BEING PERMITTED AS TEMPORARY BUILDINGS, WHICH BY BUILDING CODE IS 180 DAYS.
UM, BUT WE HAVE HEARD FROM METRO AND THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A PERMIT SET IN REVIEW FOR THE NEW DEVELOP REVIEW.
IT'S JUST NOT APPROVED FOR THE FULL FOUR STORY TRANSIT CENTER.
BUT THEY HAVE SAID WITHIN TWO YEARS IS REALLY THEIR TARGET.
WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
[00:55:01]
CARRIES.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM ONE 18 IS 1510 GOLIAD STREET.
THE SITE IS EAST OF HOUSTON AVENUE AND WEST OF THE I 10 I 45 INTERCHANGE ALONG GOLIAD STREET NORTH OF BINGHAM STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND IS REQUESTING A FIVE FOOT FRONT BUILDING LINE WITH 15 FOOT GARAGE BUILDING LINE AS WELL AS NOT TO DEDICATE 10 FEET OF RIGHT OF AWAY.
THIS PORTION OF GOLIAD STREET DEAD ENDS INTO A RAILROAD TRACK ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IS A NARROW LOCAL STREET.
THE SETBACK IS CONSISTENT WITH HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN THE AREA, MANY OF WHICH WERE BUILT BEFORE ORDINANCE BUILDING LINES.
THE GARAGE SETBACK WILL PROVIDE 15 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE TO THE GARAGE DOOR FRONTED BY A 10 FOOT CARPORT WITH OCCUPIABLE SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR SPACE ABOVE.
HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED HOME WILL BE ONE OF ONLY TWO PROPERTIES TAKING ACCESS FROM THIS BLOCK OF GILEAD STREET.
SO CONCERNS ABOUT VISIBILITY FOR CARS AND PEDESTRIANS ARE MINIMAL, REQUIRING 10 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY.
DEDICATION WOULD FURTHER LIMIT THE BUILDABLE AREA OF THE SITE AND WOULD NOT RESULT IN BENEFICIAL STREET WIDENING.
GIVEN THAT THIS PORTION OF GILEAD DEAD ENDS AT THE SUBJECT SITE AND IS NOT LIKELY TO BE EXTENDED ACROSS THE RAILROAD TRACKS IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE BECAUSE OF LIMITED BUILDABLE AREA AT THE SITE, AS WELL AS THE PROJECT'S LOCATION AT A DEAD END OF A LOCAL STREET AND ITS CONSISTENCY WITH THE ROUND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE A FIVE FOOT FRONT BUILDING LINE, 15 FOOT GARAGE BUILDING LINE AND NOT TO DEDICATE RIGHT AWAY.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION BALDWIN.
ITEM ONE 19 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 REQUESTING TO PROVIDE A FIVE FOOT BUFFER IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE.
REQUIRED 15 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE PROPERTY LINE OF A LOT RESTRICTED TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE.
CHAPTER 42 DEFINES A MID-RISE AS A BUILDING TALLER THAN 65 FEET, BUT WITH A FINISHED FLOOR FOR THE HIGHEST FLOOR LESS THAN 75 FEET TALL.
MIDRISE STRUCTURES NEXT TO PROPERTIES IN USE FOR ARE RESTRICTED TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE REQUIRE A 15 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE ABUTTING PROPERTY LINE.
IN THIS CASE, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AT SIX 17 OXFORD STREET IS CURRENTLY A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND IS RESTRICTED TO FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE BY A SPECIAL MINIMUM LOT SIZE AREA WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESTRICTIONS.
THE SITE WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED IS GRANDFATHERED FOR MULTIFAMILY USE BASED ON THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AREA APPLICATION.
THE SIX 17 OXFORD STREET SITE IS UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP AS 6 0 9 OXFORD STREET.
AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSED OPTIONS TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE BUFFERING ORDINANCE, SUCH AS RESTRICTING THE FIRST 15 FEET OF THE LOT AT 16 6 17 OXFORD STREET TO OPEN SPACE.
LEGAL REVIEW RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THIS APPROACH CONFLICTING WITH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AREA.
ORDINANCE AND STAFF RECEIVED MULTIPLE PUBLIC COMMENTS WITH SIMILAR CONCERNS.
ALTHOUGH THE MERIS BUFFERING ORDINANCE AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE AREA ORDINANCE LIMIT THE BUILDABLE AREA AND OPTIONS FOR EXPANDING THE SIZE OF THE SITE, PREVIOUS PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR THIS SITE SUGGEST THAT DEVELOPMENT IS FEASIBLE WITHOUT A VARIANCE.
AND BECAUSE FIRE CODE AND BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE MAY REQUIRE REDESIGNING THE BUILDING, THE SITE OR BOTH, THE VARIANCE REQUEST MAY BE PREMATURE AT THIS TIME BECAUSE THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP OTHER THAN THE ECONOMIC ONE.
AND BECAUSE MEETING FIRE ACCESS AND BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS MAY REQUIRE DESIGN ADJUSTMENTS, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DISAPPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL AND IS HERE TO PRESENT HIS CASE.
MY NAME IS RICK GROWTH HUGHES.
UH, AS OF TUESDAY MORNING, WE HAD CONTACTED STAFF AND STAFF.
SOUNDED LIKE THEY WERE ENCOURAGED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FIVE FOOT, UM, BUFFER.
THE REDUCTION AS OF 1140 THIS MORNING I GOT THE CALL THAT IT WAS BEING CHANGED TO A DENY AND THEREFORE WITH THE SHORT NOTICE, WE ARE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING A TWO WEEK DEFERRAL SO THAT WE CAN CAN GATHER BACK WITH PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS POSSIBLY NEIGHBORS TO FIND OUT WHAT EXACTLY UH, IS GOING ON.
UM, AS WELL AS MAYBE EXPANDING SOME UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR INTENT IS REALLY TO LEAVE THE LOT AS OPEN SPACE.
WE'D REALLY LIKE IT TO BE A 55 FOOT BUFFER INSTEAD OF THE 15 FOOT BUFFER.
ANY QUESTIONS? BUT THERE'S NO NT YOU DON'T SELL IT TOMORROW.
[01:00:01]
AND THAT WOULDN'T, WOULD NO LONGER FURTHER RESTRICTED.BUT THE PURPOSE OF SPECIAL METAL LAWN SIZE IS TO PREVENT THE CREEP OF THIS AND THE EXPANSION OF THE BUFFERING ORDINANCE THAT WE DID IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IS ALSO FOR THIS VERY REASON, IT'S AN OUTER SCALE BUILDING IN THE MIDDLE OF A BLOCK IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
THUS WE CREATED THESE BUFFERING ORDINANCES FOR A REASON.
SO WHAT WOULD YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE TWO WEEKS THAT WOULD CONVINCE ME THAT THE BUFFERING ORDINANCE THAT WE JUST EXPANDED WOULD NOT BE THE MAIN REASON FOR US TO, TO, TO VOTE FOR DENIAL.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT, THAT THE BUFFER IS TO PROTECT PEOPLE THAT ARE UNWITTINGLY ENCROACHED UPON IF THE BUILDING IS THERE FIRST AND THEN WE SELL THE LOT, THAT'S NOT ENCROACHING ON SOMEBODY THAT DOESN'T KNOW THAT THAT BUILDING IS ALREADY THERE.
WE'VE OFFERED MANY SOLUTIONS TO TRY TO PRESERVE THAT ENTIRE LOT AS LANDSCAPING.
UNFORTUNATELY, THEY'VE ALL BEEN TURNED DOWN BY LEGAL.
WE'D LOVE TO REPLANT IT AS A LANDSCAPE RESERVE.
WE'D LOVE TO SOMEHOW PROTECT IT.
WE, WE WILL DO ANYTHING THAT IS ALLOWED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES REMAIN AS A LANDSCAPE PRESERVE.
WE'VE EVEN LOOKED AT DEDICATING IT EITHER AS A PRIVATE OR A PUBLIC PARK.
I DON'T THINK IT MEETS THE PUBLIC REQUIREMENTS.
COMMISSIONERS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.
UH, MS. COOK, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? IS THERE A WAY, LIKE IF THIS GETS DEFERRED, CAN THEY REPL THAT? I KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE TIME TO REPL IT IN TWO WEEKS, BUT UM, IS THERE ANY WAY A CONDITION COULD BE PUT ON THIS PLAT TO REQUIRE THAT? UH, NO.
I THINK IT'S GONNA NEED TO BE A SEPARATE REPL.
SO, SO THEY COULD COME BACK AND DO WHAT HE SAYS, BUT THEY'D HAVE TO DO IT TIME, THEY'D HAVE TO DO IT TOGETHER.
YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO IT IN TWO WEEKS ANYWAY.
SO PART OF ME SUGGESTS WE MOVE ON WITH THE DISAPPROVAL.
I MEAN, COMMISSIONER MAR THAT, THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION IS LIKE THE WAY IT'S BEING PRESENTED, I DON'T THINK MOST OF US ARE INCLINED.
SO IN TWO WEEKS ARE, IS YOUR INTENTION TO REDESIGN SOMETHING THAT IS PRESENTED IN A WAY? UH, YEAH, THAT IS MY QUESTION.
IN TWO WEEKS DO YOU SEE COMING BACK WITH PRESENTING A, A DIFFERENT LAYOUT? NOT A DIFFERENT LAYOUT, BUT BY MONDAY MORNING, UH, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE NEXT DEADLINE.
I CAN CERTAINLY HAVE THE REPL FOR THAT LOT SUBMITTED.
AND IT WOULD BE ON THE NEXT MEETING AGENDA OR POSSIBLY IT COULD GO INTO A PUBLIC HEARING.
I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S, UH, RESTRICTED TO SINGLE FAMILY.
I BELIEVE IT'S GONNA HAVE TO GO TO A PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT I COULD CERTAINLY HAVE IT FULLY SUBMITTED BY MONDAY MORNING.
YES, MR. BUCKLEY, THE JASON LOT IS IN A MINIMUM LOTS SIZE AREA THAT IS RESTRICTED TO SINGLE FAMILY.
SO IT COULD NOT BE PLATTED INTO ANY OTHER USE OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
I MEAN, WE, THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WILL ALLOW US TO DEDICATE IT TO GREEN SPACE FOR THE PUBLIC OR A PARK OR SOMETHING.
WE, WE HAVE THE ABILITY, YES, WE HAVE.
I MEAN WE'VE, WE'VE CHANGED THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF OTHERS.
SO WOULD WE NOT HAVE, WOULD NOT PLANNING COMMISSION BE ABLE TO CHANGE THAT DESIGNATION IF WE WANT? I, I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO LEGAL ON THAT.
IS THIS BASED UPON SEPARATELY FILED DEED RESTRICTIONS ON THIS LOT? IT'S MINIMUM ON LAW SIZE.
UH, BUT IT IS UNDER THE LI THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE ORDINANCE, SO MM-HMM
IT HAS TO, YEAH, I THINK IT'S GONNA HAVE TO STAY.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN RE-DESIGNATE OVER THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE DESIGNATION WE CAN, BUT WE, WE HAD BEFORE, I MEAN EVEN THAT, THAT QUI THING WAS, THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE QUI THING, BUT WE'RE IN A LAWSUIT WITH THEM.
WE HAD THE ABILITY, I MEAN IT CAME BEFORE US BECAUSE WE HAD THE ABILITY, WE JUST CHOSE NOT TO.
SO WE CAN RECLASSIFY SOMETHING IF WE FELT LIKE IT WAS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S BEST INTEREST.
IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COULD GET A FREE PARK VERSUS A RENT HOUSE, THAT'S NEVER GONNA BE ANYTHING NEXT TO AN ADJACENT APARTMENT COMPLEX.
THERE MIGHT BE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT FOR, THAT'S HOW WE GOT DONOVAN PARK.
IT WAS GONNA BE A GAS STATION.
SO, SO I, I GUESS THE POINT WOULD BE COMMISSIONER, THAT IF WE DELAY BY TWO WEEKS, THE ONUS IS ON THE APPLICANT, NOT ON US.
I'M NOT, AVITA HAS SOMETHING THAT SHE WANTS TO ADD.
WE CAN LOOK INTO THE OPTION OF RE PLATING.
WHAT I HAVE KNOWN SO FAR IS THAT IT CANNOT BE RE PLATTED TO CALL IT A PARK, UM, AT THE COMMISSION'S REQUEST.
I'M NOT GONNA PROMISE THAT THAT WILL BE THE SOLUTION AND THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.
BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK AT MORE AVENUES IF THAT'S THE COMMISSION'S WISH.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, SO A DEFERRAL, SOMETHING MIGHT BE ACCOMPLISHED IN TWO WEEKS, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MIGHT BE
[01:05:01]
TODAY.WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MIGHT BE.
WE WILL LOOK AT THE QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN POSED BY THE COMMISSIONER.
I'M JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO IF WE DENY HIM AND HE BILLS SOMETHING AND HE BOOKS 15 AND WE HAVE THIS, HE OWNS A STRUCTURE THAT REALLY HAS A POOR FUTURE
BUT IF WE COULD FIND A WAY ABSOLUTELY.
THAT THERE WAS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT.
I'M TELLING YOU THAT'S HOW WE GOT MARMON PARK.
THAT'S HOW WE GOT DONOVAN PARK.
THAT'S HOW WE GET OFTEN IN THESE LITTLE PARKLETS.
AND THAT LITTLE BLOCK COULD USE A LITTLE PARKLET THAT COULD BE USED FOR SOME PURPOSE FOR THE COMMUNITY'S BENEFIT.
I'M, I'M, LOOK, I WAS LEANING TOWARDS VOTING YOU DOWN, BUT IF THERE IS A, I UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S A WAY THAT THE COMMUN, THAT 600 BLOCK IS BUSY, IT'S GOT ALREADY A TALL STRUCTURE.
IF THERE COULD BE SOME GREEN SPACE THERE FOR OTHER, FOR COMMUNITY USE.
I, I'M LEANING TOWARDS SEEING WHAT THE STAFF COULD WORK OUT IN TWO WEEKS.
MR. BUCKLEY, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY? UH, JUST A, A BIT OF A CONCERN THAT TWO WEEKS MIGHT BE NOT QUITE ENOUGH TIME TO GO OVER MM-HMM
UM, THAT'S AT THE DISCRETION OF, OF THE COMMISSION, HOWEVER, OKAY.
I I'M GONNA PULL THE FAST ONE AND I'M GONNA ASK THE DIRECTOR T AGAIN, UH, TO ME, AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE A, A QUALM WITHOUT GIVING THEM TWO WEEKS, BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT OVERBURDENING STAFF FOR TWO WEEKS WHEN WE DON'T, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING.
SO CERTAINLY AS OUR APPLICANT SAID, WE REALLY WERE WORKING VERY HARD, UH, TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS.
OUR APPLICANT HAS EXPRESSED FROM VERY EARLY ON THAT HE WAS VERY WILLING TO WORK WITH US.
SO BELIEVE ME, ALL THE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED HERE, WE WENT THROUGH ROUNDS AND ROUNDS AND ROUNDS OF IT, AND WE'VE CONCLUDED THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.
NOW, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ONE SITUATION THAT YOU SAID, SO WE ARE WILLING TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
BUT AGAIN, WE WENT THROUGH MANY DIFFERENT EXERCISES OF HOW THIS CAN BE DONE AND, UH, OUR APOLOGY TO OUR APPLICANT, WE REALLY TOOK ALL ATTEMPTS.
ALRIGHT? AND SO THE SITUATION IS THAT, UH, THERE IS NOT A HARDSHIP FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.
UM, THE DEVELOPMENT CAN BE DONE.
IT WAS, UH, PROPOSED IN 2024 FOR A, UH, NOT AS A, UH, MID-RISE AS HIGH, UH, THE 15 FEET BUFFER COULD BE ACHIEVED.
AND SO IT COULD BE DONE, IT JUST COULD BE DONE DIFFERENTLY.
NOW, TO BUILD IT HIGHER AND TALLER, IT WILL REQUIRE THAT 15 FEET AND WE GET IT.
IT, IT, IT, IT IS A CONUNDRUM, RIGHT? UH, THE PROPERTY ADJACENT IS OWNED BY THE, THE, THE OWNER, THE SAME ENTITY AND THEY'RE WILLING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, BUT THE ORDINANCE AND THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE DO NOT ALLOW US TO MIX THEM, REALLY.
UH, SO AT THIS POINT, WHAT I'M HEARING IS, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY TO GO BACK TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND LOOK AT THAT ORDINANCE? ARE WE LOOKING AT REVISING THAT PARTICULAR ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THAT SINGLE LOT ADJACENT TO BE SOMETHING OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY? AND OBVIOUSLY I DON'T THINK I'VE WORKED ON ONE, BUT WE CAN LOOK AT THE, THE CASE THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED.
WE'RE WILLING TO IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.
SO WE HAVE A, A RECOMMENDATION FOR DISAPPROVAL, BUT I'M HEARING A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BALDWIN TO DEFER FOR TWO WEEKS.
IS THAT CORRECT? NO, I'LL HELP YOU IN THAT TWO WEEKS.
SO DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
OKAY, SO COMMISSIONER, MAD AND GARZA.
OKAY, MOVING ALONG TO ITEM ONE 20.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS RAMON JA LEON, UH, ITEM ONE 20.
[01:10:01]
THE SITE IS WITHIN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS.THE PROPERTY LIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SIX 10 LOOP WEST OF LUM BOULEVARD.
UM, CAN WE INTERRUPT? I KNOW, I'M SORRY, MADAM CHAIR.
UM, WE HAD A SPEAKER ON THE PREVIOUS ITEM THAT WAS, UH, INTERESTED TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM.
UM, ON ONE ON, YEAH, I MEAN, WE'VE MOVED IT FORWARD, BUT SURE.
I, SORRY I DIDN'T HAVE A SIGN IN SHEET FOR YOU.
UH, CHAIR, COMMISSIONER AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
UM, I'M THE DIRECT NEIGHBOR OF THIS SEVEN STORY DEVELOPMENT.
UH, MY NAME IS SONYA VERHAGEN AND I LIVE ON OXFORD STREET.
I'M HERE TO RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THE SEVEN STORY BUILDING AND, AND MY NEIGHBORS AS WELL THAT ARE UNABLE TO BE HERE TODAY.
UH, 6 23 AND I CAN CONTINUE NAMING ALL ACROSS THE STREET.
UM, I WANT TO START BY SAYING I, I SUPPORT THOUGHTFUL GROWTH AND THE NEED FOR HOUSING.
IT'S NOT ABOUT PLACING THE RIGHT DEVELOPMENT IN THE RIGHT, IT'S ABOUT PLACING THE RIGHT DEVELOPMENT IN THE RIGHT, UM, LOCATION.
MY PRIMARY CONCERN IS THE HIGH DENSITY PROJECT.
IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE WITH OUR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'RE ALREADY EXPERIENCING THAT WITH THE THREE STORY APARTMENT BUILDING.
UM, AND, AND I'LL START FIRST WITH TRAFFIC.
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING SIGNIFICANTLY IN INCREASES DAILY TRIPS, COMMUTERS, DELIVERIES, VISITORS, UM, WHICH INCLUDE ABANDONED CARS AND RECREATIONAL DRUGS THAT WE SMELL ON THE STREET.
THESE DEVELOPMENTS OFTEN UNDERESTIMATE THE PARKING NEEDS.
NARROW LANES, UH, REDUCED VISIBILITY.
CHILDREN, RUNNERS, MYSELF WERE ON THE STREET.
AND, UM, MANY NEAR MISSES, UM, DUE TO THIS HAZARD.
AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY SHOULD BE A, A HUGE CONCERN HERE.
FOURTH IN INFRASTRUCTURE STRAIN.
UM, INCREASED DEMAND ON WATER SEWAGE DRAINAGE.
WE'RE EXPERIENCING THAT ALREADY RIGHT ON MY SIDEWALK.
UM, EXTREME AMOUNT OF, UM, INVESTMENT ON, ON THE PERSONAL SIDE.
DUE TO THAT, UM, FLOODING RISK ADDED PAVEMENT, REDUCED ABSORPTION, CAN WORSEN, WORSEN STORM WATER RUNOFF AND OVERWHELM LOCAL DRAINAGE DURING HEAVY RAINS.
FINALLY, THIS PROJECT CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD INTRODUCING MORE NOISE, UM, POOR AIR QUALITY LIGHTING AND CONSTRAINT ACTIVITY THAT REDUCES RESIDENT RESIDENT'S QUALITY OF LIFE.
FOR THESE REASONS AND OTHER NEIGHBORS ON THE STREET, WE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THIS DEVELOPMENT.
SORRY WE SKIPPED OVER YOU, BUT, UM, WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THAT ITEM? WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO ONE 20.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SITE IS, IS, UH, WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.
THE PROPERTY LIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SIX 10 LOOP WEST OF CO BOULEVARD AT THE, UH, AT THE EAST OF SCOTT STREET AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF SIX 10.
THE APPLICANT IS PRO, UH, PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN AUXILIARY DWELLING UNIT ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW 18 FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG SIX 10 LOOP INSTEAD OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE FOR A MA, UH, FOR MAJOR THOROUGH AFFAIRS STAFF SUPPORTS THE REQUEST APPLYING A FULL 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE WILL AFFECT THE, UH, EFFECT ONLY APPRO APPROXIMATELY SEVEN FEET OF THE A DU AT THIS, UH, AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER.
THE REST OF THE PROPOSED A DU REMAINS OUTSIDE THE 25 FOOT BUILDING LINE.
THE SITE WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED WITH, UH, AS A MID-BLOCK LOT WITHIN THE BROOKHAVEN ADDITION.
IN 1939, THE PLAID ESTABLISHED A 15, UH, ESTABLISHED A 105 FOOT WIDE LOT WITH NO BUILDING LINES PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIX 10 LOOP LOT TWO ONLY HAD FRONTAGE ALONG THEREA STREET.
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES WERE REALIGNED AND LOTS ONE A AND ONE B.
WERE DEDICATED TO THE RIGHT OF WAY LIVING LOT TWO AS A CORNER LOT WITH FRONTAGE ON THE HIGHWAY DUE TO THE CURVATURE OF THE ADJACENT ROADWAY AND ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUIRED FOR, UH, THE SIX 10 EXPANSION.
THE PROPOSED SETBACK MAINTAINS APPROXIMATELY 26 FEET BETWEEN THE STREET CURB AND THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE SEPARATION MINIMIZES ANY POTENTIAL VISIBILITY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS.
THE PROPOSED A DU ALSO TAKES VEHICLE ACCESS FROM THE LOCAL STREET AND PROVIDES THE REQUIRED SAFETY BUFFER.
AND SIDEWALK STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 18 FOOT BUILDING LINE IN LIEU OF THE, UM, ORDINANCE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FOR MAJOR THERAPISTS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE 20.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HERE FOR QUESTIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.
DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF FOR APPROVAL? DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION LER.
[II. Establish a public hearing date of April 30, 2026 ]
ON TO RE NUMERAL[01:15:01]
TWO.ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF APRIL 30TH, 2026 FOR ACEVEDO PROPERTIES, ADAMS LANDING, LANA ESTATES, BURKE GARDENS ESTATES, ELLA GREENS, ESPINOZA RESIDENCE HAZARD STREET VIEWS H-C-W-C-I-D NUMBER 36 MARWOOD LIFT STATION, MACAU, PINE TERRACES, AND WEST MAIN GROVE.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? HEARING NONE.
I'LL ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 3:59 PM THANK YOU.