[00:00:01]
[CALL TO ORDER]
GOOD AFTERNOON.MY NAME IS LISA CLARK AND I'M THE CHAIR OF YOUR HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION AND I'M CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER AT 2:33 PM ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3RD, 2026.
THIS IS AN IN-PERSON MEETING TAKING PLACE IN THE CITY HALL ANNEX AT 900 BAGBY.
YOU MAY ALSO MONITOR OUR MEETINGS BY VIEWING 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 ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA.
COUNCIL MEMBERS SPEAKING ON AN ITEM ARE NOT TIMED.
APPLICANTS HAVE THEIR ALLOTTED TWO MINUTES TIME AS WELL AS REBUTTALS AND NON APPLICANTS AND GENERAL SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED.
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 WILL CALL THE ROLE CHAIR CLARK IS PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER SHEPHERD PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER MANKA PRESENT AND SECRETARY VON TRAN.
WE HAVE 19 SO WE HAVE A QUORUM.
I DO WANNA LET YOU GUYS KNOW OUT IN THE AUDIENCE THAT ITEM 76 CREWS AUTO SHOP HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN SO WE WILL NOT HEAR ANYTHING ON THIS ITEM NOR TAKE ANY ACTION.
[Director’s Report]
NOW I'LL CALL FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR CLARK COMMISSIONERS, STAFF AND THE PUBLIC.
I AM VON TRAN, SECRETARY OF THIS COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
I HAVE TWO ANNOUNCEMENTS TODAY.
THE FIRST ONE, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN MADE AWARE OF MALICIOUS PHISHING EMAILS TARGETING PLAT TRACKER APPLICANTS.
THIS TIME IT PERTAINS TO APPLICANTS WHO LIST THEIR EMAIL ADDRESSES ON PDF DOCUMENTS, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS NOT REQUIRED.
SO THESE FRAUDULENT MESSAGES APPEAR TO COME FROM THE CITY OF HOUSTON PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT THEY ARE NOT, THEY ARE SENT FROM FAKE ACCOUNTS AND REQUEST PAYMENT THROUGH FALSE SETTLEMENT INVOICE FOR PLAT APPROVAL.
SO PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL LEGITIMATE PLAT PAYMENTS ARE HANDLED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH PLA TRACKER OR DIRECTLY WITH OUR FINANCE TEAM.
PLEASE REMEMBER THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOES NOT ISSUE SETTLEMENT INVOICE EMAILS.
WHEN IN DOUBT ABOUT ANY SUSPICIOUS OR UNUSUAL EMAILS RELATED TO YOUR PLAT APPLICATION, PLEASE CHECK PLA TRACKER OR CALL OUR POD LINE AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 6 2 4.
MY SECOND ANNOUNCEMENT IS THAT THE CITY OF HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IN PARTNERSHIP WITH PFI, THE PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION WILL HOST A PLATING WORKSHOP ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22ND, 2026 AT 8:00 AM TO 4:30 PM THE LOCATION IS AT THE THIRD WARD MULTI-SERVICE CENTER AUDITORIUM, 1 29, LOCATED AT 36 11 ENO STREET, HOUSTON, TEXAS 7 7 0 0 4.
PFI SUPPORTS CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR LICENSED SURVEYORS AND STUDENTS PURSUING CAREERS IN SURVEYING.
THIS WORKSHOP WILL PROVIDE CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDITS FOR LICENSED SURVEYORS AND OFFER VALUABLE UPDATES FOR ANYONE INVOLVED IN SUBDIVISION PLATING AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
PROCEEDS WILL BENEFIT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND SCHOLARSHIPS THROUGH THE LONE STAR COLLEGE SURVEYING GROUP.
COURSE INSTRUCTORS WILL INCLUDE STAFF FROM THE CITY OF HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS, AND THE HARRIS COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AS WELL AS CENTER POINT ENERGY.
WE HOPE YOU CAN JOIN US IN CLOSING FOR ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 6 0 0.
[00:05:01]
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.
[Approval of August 20, 2026, Planning Commission for Major Throughfare and Freeway Plan Amendment Requests Meeting Minutes]
NOW WE'LL DO CONSIDERATION OF OUR MEETING MINUTES.SO WE HAVE PRIOR MEETING MINUTES OF OUR AUGUST 20TH, 2026, UH, POSTED ON THE AGENDA FOR OUR MAJOR THIRD FAIR AND FREEWAY PLAN MEETING.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION GARZA.
UM, OKAY, SO MOTION BALLARD SECOND.
[Approval of August 20, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ]
OUR NEXT SET OF MINUTE MEETINGS WERE FOR THE SAME DATE.FOR OUR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
THEY WERE ALSO POSTED ON THE AGENDA.
[Platting Activities a & b]
NOW WE'LL MOVE ALONG TO PLATTING ACTIVITY.GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SECTIONS A AND B ARE PRESENTED AT AS ONE GROUP, WHICH INCLUDES CONSENT AND REPL ITEMS NOT INCLU REQUIRING NOTIFICATION.
SECTIONS A AND B ARE ITEMS ONE THROUGH 73 SECTION A.
CONSENT ITEMS ARE NUMBERS ONE THROUGH 44 AND SECTION B REPL ITEMS ARE 45 THROUGH 73.
STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE OUT OF ORDER.
ITEM 65, MIDLINE SECTION NINE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DISAPPROVE THE PLA.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO REQUEST A 30 DAY EXTENSION ON THIS ITEM.
THERE ARE NO OTHER ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN OUTTA ORDER AND THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MADAM CHAIR, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSENT AND REBUT ITEMS NOT REQUIRING NOTIFICATION.
I KNOW I HAVE SOME ABSTENTIONS.
UM, COMMISSIONER SHEPHERD? YES.
UM, NUMBERS, UH, ITEM NUMBERS THREE, NINE AND 37.
COMMISSIONER PIERCE, ITEM KIM.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MAREZ ITEMS 19, 24, 25, 28.
AND THEN FROM WHAT I SUBMITTED IN EARLIER IN THE WEEK, THIS SEEMS TO BE RENUMBERING.
SO IT SHOULD BE 40, 41, 43 AND 65, 40, 41, 43 AND 65.
YEAH, I KNOW YOU'RE REALLY TESTING ME TODAY.
UM, OKAY, SO, UH, COMMISSIONER HY.
NEED TO ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS THREE AND 10.
ARE THERE ANY OTHERS? OKAY, NOW LET'S REALLY SEE IF I CAN GET THIS RIGHT.
SAVE AND ACCEPT ITEMS 3, 9, 10, 19, 24, 25, 28, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 64 AND 65.
AND I MIGHT HAVE HAD SOME EXTRAS IN THERE FROM WHAT YOU TURNED IN.
COMMISSIONER MADS, WHICH, WHICH ONES WERE THE ONES YOU, UH, 39 AND 42 NEED UM, BE REMOVED.
DO I NEED TO REPEAT THAT? OKAY, THANK YOU.
SO DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION SECOND JONES.
OKAY, I THINK THAT'S ALL OF THEM.
THAT ONE WE HAVE TO DO SEPARATE.
I NEED A MOTION FOR ITEMS 3, 9, 10, 19, 24, 25, 28, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44 AND 64 TO HAVE A MOTION.
SO THAT'S THE TOUGHEST PART OF THIS MEETING TODAY.
AND ARE YOU GONNA DO A PRESENTATION ON 65? THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS AVITA BANDI MIDLINE SECTION NINE, I THINK THIS IS ITEM 65.
UM, SITE IS LOCATED IN HARRIS COUNTY ETJ.
IT IS A CLASS THREE PRELIMINARY REPL.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 3 71, SORRY, 37 LOTS AND FIVE RESERVES.
[00:10:02]
UM, THEY'RE PROPOSING A PUBLIC STREET PATTERN.THE REASON, UM, FOR THE DEFERRAL AND NOW DISAPPROVAL IS BECAUSE IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE STREET PATTERN IN THE GENERAL PLAN.
AND THERE IS ADDITIONAL
THE APPLICANT IS COMING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE VARIANCE.
UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE NOT, THERE IS NO MORE DEFERRAL.
SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL.
THE APPLICANT HAS GIVEN US WRITTEN REQUEST TO EXTEND FOR 30 DAYS UP TO 30 DAYS.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER MILES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE THE SPEAKER? OKAY, UH, YOU NEED TO VOTE ON THE 30 DAYS.
WELL WE NEED TO HAVE THAT SPEAKER COME UP FIRST.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
YES, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.
WE ARE THE APPLICANT FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MIDLINE SECTION NINE.
AND WE ARE, UM, REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TIME TO, UM, ADDRESS THE ISSUE WITH THE STREET PATTERN ON THE GENERAL PLAN AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL ACREAGE.
UM, THAT GENERAL PLAN WILL BE, UM, UPDATED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAT AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE REQUESTING THE EXTENSION.
SO WE REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT AT THIS TIME.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION, UM, BUT THEN A REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT IN WRITING FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION.
SO I NEED SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR EXTENSION BY VICTOR.
DID I SKIP A WHOLE SECTION? I SURE DID.
I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE THE HARDEST PART.
[c. Replats requiring Public Hearings with Notification (Ken Calhoun, Aracely Rodriguez, John Cedillo, and Dorianne Powe-Phlegm) ]
ON TO C RELAS REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS SOUTH ALONG ALABAMA BETWEEN EMANCIPATION AND LIVE OAK.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CREATE ONE UNDERSTOOD RESERVE.
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'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR FOR PLEASES THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 74 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ITEM 75, IT'S CHAPTER AT BLAND REPL NUMBER ONE.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS SOUTH ALONG BLAND WASTE WEST OF WHEATLEY.
THE REASON FOR RELA IS TO REVISE THE DENSITY TABLE FROM 16 DWELLING UNITS TO 17.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS REVIEWED BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THE PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 75 IS OPEN.
UM, MAY MISPRONOUNCE THIS, SO CORRECT ME, CHAVELLE TURNER.
UM, I'M, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT I'M ASKING.
PROBABLY MORE FOR CLARIFICATION.
WE RECEIVED A NOTIFICATION FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, SO REALLY WANTED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS CHANGE WAS AFFECTING OUR PROPERTY.
STAFF, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THAT OR THERE IS NO EFFECT ON YOUR PROPERTY IS YEAH, BASICALLY THE ANSWER.
THIS, UH, THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY PLOTTED, UH, A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
SO ALL THEY'RE DOING IS CHANGING THE, UH, THE DENSITY ON THE TABLE.
SO NOTHING, NO, NO NEW LAND IS BEING ADDED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND IT DOESN'T AFFECT ANYONE ELSE'S PROPERTY.
THEY CAN ONLY AFFECT THEIR PROPERTY.
NO ONE CAN DO ANYTHING TO YOUR PROPERTY WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING IN.
I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 75.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS RA ITEM 77 LEONARD AND CLAY.
[00:15:01]
THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY LIMITS SOUTH OF I SIX 10 AND EAST THE FULTON STREET.THE PURPOSE OF THE WE PLOT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LODGE.
NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
THE STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT IN ADVANCE REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATE THAT THE PLOT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTION ON THE FACE OF THOSE FILED SEPARATELY.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 1 INFORMED CONDITION.
MADAM CHAIR IS TO APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 77 IS OPEN.
UM, THE ONLY ISSUE THAT WE HAVE IS THAT IT HAD, THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE BILL LINE AND THAT MEANS THAT THEY WANT TO EXPAND THE SETBACK ON THIS.
AND IN THE, IN OUR BYLAWS AND CHARTER, WE HAVE A DESIGNATED SETBACK.
IS THERE GOING TO BE A SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO TO TRY TO MAKE THIS LARGER? LET LET STAFF ANSWER FOR US.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A REVISED DRAWING, UH, WHERE THEY'RE NOT LONGER SHOWING THE 20 FOOT BUD LINE.
THEY'RE NOW KEEP MAINTAINING THE 25 FOOT BUD LINE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING IN TODAY.
I HAVE NO ONE ELSE SIGNED TO SPEAK FOR ITEM 77.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING YES.
IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
AND WE ARE THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THIS, UH, PROPERTY.
AND I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT WE DO WANT AND INTEND TO, UH, RESPECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMMUNITY.
UM, WE ARE PART OF THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AND WE WOULD NEVER WANT TO BRING ANYTHING UP FORWARD.
WE ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT EVERYTHING NEEDS TO STAY AS IS.
WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING IN TODAY AND SHARING THOSE COMMENTS.
DO I HAVE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NONE, I'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS AN OVER 8,500 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF BOUNDARY STREET AND FREEMAN STREET.
THE REASON FOR THE REPL IS TO CREATE FIVE LOTS AND ONE PARKING RESERVE ON A SHARED DRIVEWAY.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS A FULL REPLAT OF COMPOSTELA.
IN REVIEW OF THE APPLICANT, UH, IN REVIEW, THE APPLICANT PROPOSED BUILDING LINES THAT DID NOT MEET THE ORDINANCE AS BOUNDARY STREET IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ADVANCED COMMENTS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT FOR TWO WEEKS PER THE APPLICANT REQUEST AS THEY TAKE TIME TO REASSESS THEIR INTENDED SITE PLAN AND CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS TO ADDRESS THE REQUIRED BUILDING LINES FOR THEIR SITE.
MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE THE COMMISSION YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 78 IS OPEN.
WELL WAIT A MINUTE, DID I? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO OKAY.
HEARING NONE? I'LL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND YES.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? CAN I JUST ASK A QUESTION? JUST I'M I CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN LAST WE, OR TWO WEEKS AGO WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT TC JESTER AND THIS PARKING IN THE FRONT AND THE 20 FOOT SETBACK ALL AND THEY'RE SHOWING THIS PARKING AT THE FRONT, WHICH WE HAVE APPROVED A THOUSAND TIMES.
CAN THEY HAVE THE PARKING IN THAT SPOT WHERE IT'S IDENTIFIED OR IS THERE SOME NEW RULE THAT REQUIRED IT TO BE 20 FEET? WHATEVER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ON THE TC JESTER SITE TWO WEEKS AGO.
SO SO THAT WOULD BE APPREHENSIVE APP.
IT'S IN RESPONSE TO THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE DESIGNATION.
IT'S TAKE THE ACCESS IS ON FREEMAN STREET, WHICH IS A LOCAL SO THEN THEY CAN CORRECT IT CAN BE ALIGNED WITH THAT.
IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE DESIGNATION OF THE STREET THAT REQUIRED THE 20 FEET NOT AS ALLOWING THAT SECOND CORRECT.
THE SHARE DRIVER WAS TAKING ACCESS FROM BOUNDARY, WHICH IS THE MAJOR THOROUGH FOR THEN IT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT 20 FOOT SETBACK FOR OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I NEED A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION.
[00:20:01]
ITEM 79 IS LC PARK.THE SUBJECT SIDE IS AN OVER 2.8 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF BAUER HOCKLEY AND MA MOKI ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SEGAL UNRESTRICTED RESERVE.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM AND THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS A FULL REPL OF MCGILL ESTATE SECTION ONE REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THIS DOES VIOLATE SEPARATELY FILE DEED RESTRICTIONS SEPARATELY.
FILE SINGLE FAMILY DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED DEED DETERMINATION DOCUMENTS AND LEGAL REQUIRES MORE TIME FOR REVIEW OF THE FULL SET STAFF.
RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW LEGAL MORE TIME FOR EXTENDED REVIEW.
MADAM CHAIR, IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION.
YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 79 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I'LL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SITE IS IN HOUSTON, CORPORATE LIMITS NORTH OF LONG PERRY STREET, EAST OF CULLEN BOULEVARD.
THE REASON FOR RE FLAT IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIS REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILED.
SEPARATELY, THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS IN ADVANCE.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 80 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM 81 IS SOUTHLAND PLACE, PARTIALLY PLATINUM.
THE SITE IS IN HOUSTON, CORPORATE LIMITS WEST ALONG BEHEAD STREET SOUTH OF OLD SPANISH TRAIL.
THE REASON FOR RE PLAT IS TO CREATE THREE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANTS REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
REVIEW BY LEGAL INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WILL NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT OR THOSE FILES.
SEPARATELY, THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THE FURTHER PLEAD FOR CHAPTER 42.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS IN ADVANCE.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES COMMISSION, YOU MAY OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 81 IS OPEN.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO HEARING NONE? I WILL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
THE SITE IS IN HOUSTON CORPORATE LIMITS NORTH ALONG SAUL WALL STREET, WEST OF SOUTH SHEPHERD DRIVE.
THE REASON FOR REPLY IS TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
THERE ARE NO VARIANCE REQUESTED WITH THIS ITEM.
LEGAL REVIEW INDICATES THAT THIS PLAT WOULD NOT VIOLATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FACE OF PLA.
OF THOSE FILED SEPARATELY, THE APPLICANT HAS MET ALL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT PER THE CBC 1 0 1 FORM.
STAFF HAS NOT HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS IN ADVANCE.
MADAM CHAIR, IF IT PLEASES 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? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
[d. Subdivision Plats with Variance Requests (Petra Hsia, Tammi Williamson, John Cedillo and Devin Crittle) ]
ON TO D SUBDIVISION PLOTS WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS.MADAM CHAIR, I'M GONNA RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS ITEM.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 83 IS ALDEEN, ISD DOUGLAS MACARTHUR HIGH SCHOOL AND HAMBRICK MIDDLE SCHOOL CAMPUS'S GP.
THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW HARRIS COUNTY TO FURTHER REVIEW.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF HOUSTON, ETJ HARRIS COUNTY EAST OF JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD, WEST OF US 59 AND SOUTH ALONG ALDEEN MALE ROUTE ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A GENERAL PLAN FOR AN EXISTING MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS AND IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES TO NOT EXTEND NOR TERMINATE CONNOR STREET AND WINFIELD ROAD WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTS.
[00:25:01]
OF AN EXISTING MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS.THE EXTENSION OF CONNOR STREET IS NOT REQUIRED TO SATISFY THE INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENTS AS THE CURRENT BLOCK LENGTH ALONG THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE OF ALDI MALE ROUTE ROAD BETWEEN GER STREET AND THE PROPOSED VICKERY STREET THROUGH THE PROPERTY MEASURES APPROXIMATELY 2,350 FEET.
IN ADDITION, THE EXTENSION OF CUL-DE-SAC, THE EXTENSION OR CUL-DE-SAC OF BOTH CONNOR STREET AND WINFIELD ROAD WOULD BE CONSTRAINED BY THE EXISTING SCHOOL STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY AND BY AN APPROXIMATELY 40 FOOT HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROLLED DRAINAGE CHANNEL ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE.
HARRIS COUNTY HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUEST.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE GP SUBJECT TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S CORPORATE LIMITS IN HARRIS COUNTY ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH WEST SIDE DRIVE NORTH OF NORTH IH SIX 10 AND SOUTH OF LAY ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE TO HAVE LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET IN AREA.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND IS WITHIN CGAS GARDENS SUBDIVISION.
APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET OF THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE SUBJECT SITE FOR THE WIDENING OF NORTHWEST SIDE DRIVE IN 1967.
AT THAT TIME, THE PROPERTY WAS ALREADY SUBDIVIDED INTO THE SOUTH HALF OF THE PLATTED LOT BRINGING THE PROPERTY TO ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION.
THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO CONSTRUCT THE SITE AS AN OFFICE LEASE SPACE AND HAS AGREED TO RESTRICT THE PROPERTY TO OFFICE OR WAREHOUSE.
THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A MINIMUM RESERVE AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET TO ENSURE LAND WHEN SUBDIVIDED IS CONSTRUCTABLE.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS COMPLIANCE WITH BOTH THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ITS USE AND TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS.
HOUSTON'S PUBLIC WORKS HAS VOICED NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST.
THEREFORE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLOT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION.
MADAM CHAIR, I NEED TO RECUSE.
I THINK COMMISSIONER CHAIR WILL DO THE SAME.
OKAY, SO YOU HAVE THREE OF THEM.
YOU ALL ARE WORKING ME OUT TODAY.
ITEM 85 IS BRIDGELAND CREEK LAND VILLAGE GP.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN NORTHWESTERN HARRIS COUNTY ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 99, THE GRAND PARKWAY AND THE EASTERN SIDE OF KATY HOCKLEY ROAD NORTH OF NORTH BRIDGETON LAKE PARKWAY AND BISECTED BY JACK ROAD AND PEAK ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 2000 ACRE GENERAL PLAN AND REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW MORE THAN 150 LOTS TO HAVE A SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE.
THIS REQUEST WAS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN JULY OF THIS YEAR, BUT WAS WITHDRAWN IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICANT TO COORDINATE WITH HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING.
CURRENTLY, JACK ROAD IS DEDICATED FROM THE GRAND PARKWAY TO KATY HAWKLEY AND THE LOCAL STREET STARGAZING TRAIL IS DEDICATED FROM FUTURE PEAK ROAD TO JACK ROAD.
THE PEAK ROAD STREET DEDICATION PLAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION EARLIER THIS YEAR, BUT NOT YET RECORDED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW SECTIONS 23 AND 24 AND THE PROPOSED REPL OF SECTION 22 TO BE RECORDED WITHOUT RECORDING THE PEAK ROAD STREET DEDICATION PLAT PRIOR TO SPECIFICALLY, THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW 493 LOTS TO BE RECORDED WITHIN SUBDIVISION PLATS WITHOUT HAVING THE RECORDATION OF THE PEAK ROAD STREET DEDICATION AS A CONDITION.
THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT NO MORE THAN 150 LOTS CAN TAKE ACCESS FROM A SINGLE POINT ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT.
THE DELAY IN RECORDING THE SEGMENT OF PEAK ROAD TO JACK ROAD IS DUE TO MORE COMPLICATED ENGINEERING WORK, BUT SHOULD BE RECORDED AND CONSTRUCTED BY THE END OF NEXT YEAR.
IN THE INTERIM, THE APPLICANT WILL BE PROVIDING TEMPORARY ACCESS ROADS BETWEEN THE SECTION GROUPINGS AND FROM SECTION 21 THROUGH THE BUDDING RECREATION CENTER FOR A SECONDARY OUTLET TO JACK ROAD.
SFA FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THE TEMPORARY ACCESS PROPOSAL AND PROVIDED
[00:30:01]
A LETTER OF SUPPORT WITH SPECIFIC ROADWAY SURFACE AND ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS.HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING IS IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST ON CONDITION OF COMPLYING WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S REQUIREMENTS.
THEREFORE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION.
THE SUBJECT SITE ENDS OVER 5,600 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS WEST ALONG ST.
CHARLES STREET NORTH ALONG ALABAMA AND EAST OF EMANCIPATION AVENUE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THREE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND IS REQUESTING ONE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THREE LOTS TO TAKE ACCESS VIA AN ACCESS EASEMENT IN LIEU OF PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE PLAT INTENDS TO COMBINE AN EXISTING SIX FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT IN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY SHOWN IN RED WITH A SIX FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT RECENTLY CREATED WITHIN THE SUBJECT SITE SHOWN IN BLUE TO PROVIDE AN OVERALL 12 FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT TO ALLOW VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE THREE LOTS.
THE EXISTING CURB AND PAVEMENT OF ST.
A STREET CURRENTLY ENCROACHES INTO THE SITE 6.1 FEET, WHICH IS BEING DEDICATED TO THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR PUBLIC USE.
THE PLAT WAS DEFERRED AT THE FIRST COMMISSION TO PROVE VEHICULAR UH, VIABLE VEHICULAR ACCESSIBILITY IN THE LIMITED EASEMENT AND TO PROVIDE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH WHO IS PROVIDING THE OTHER SIX FOOT EASEMENT.
THERE WAS ALSO A REQUEST FOR A REDUCED FIVE FOOT BUILDING LINE, UH, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS REPEALED THAT REQUEST AND IS MEETING THE 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE REQUIREMENT AND DENYING DIRECT VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR LOT ONE TO ST.
THE SITE IS IN AN UNUSUAL FORMATION THAT TAKES ACCESS, UH, THAT MAKES ACCESS DIFFICULT AND HINDERS OTHER VIABLE OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN CHAPTER 42.
IN PURSUIT OF VIABLE ACCESSIBILITY, THE APPLICANT ACQUIRED AN EASEMENT FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH WHO HAS ALSO PROVIDED A LETTER OF SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN THE DEFERRAL.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A TRAFFIC STUDY TO SHOW THE FUNCTIONING VEHICULAR ACCESS AND TURNING RADII, WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY PUBLIC WORKS.
THE GARAGES SHOWED TO BE 21 FEET FROM THE FAR SIDE OF THE ACCESS EASEMENT, WHICH DOES EXCEED THE 21, UH, 20 FOOT LIMIT REQUIRED BY THE IDM APPLICATION WAS DEFERRED LAST CYCLE PER THE BY THE COMMISSION AT THE REQUEST OF WIDENING THE EASEMENT TO WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS CONSIDERED AND MAINTAINS A REQUEST TO TAKE ACCESS OF A FROM THE TROPHO WIDE EASEMENT, CITING INSISTENCE OF MAINTAINING THE PERMEABLE GRASSY AREAS AND THE SITE DOES, AND THAT THE SITE DOES ESSENTIALLY FUNCTION AS A 12 FOOT SHARED DRIVEWAY AS ALLOWED PER THE ORDINANCE.
AN EXAMPLE FROM CITY ORDINANCE NOTES HAS BEEN ATTACHED.
AS AN EXAMPLE, SEVERAL RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 POINT CONDITIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS? OKAY, DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION GARZA.
ALL IN FAVOR? A OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
MADAM CHAIR, I NEED TO BE EXCUSED FOR THIS.
ITEM 87 IS GENERATION PARK EAST GP.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN EASTERN HARRIS COUNTY ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF EAST SAM HOUSTON PARK, EAST SAM HOUSTON TOLLWAY NORTH NORTH OF LAKE HOUSTON PARKWAY, AND WEST OF LAKE HOUSTON.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A GENERAL PLAN INTENDED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING LARGE INDUSTRIAL USERS AND COMMERCIAL RETAIL COMPONENTS, AND IS REQUESTING THREE SETS OF VARIANCES.
ONE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY BY NOT EXTENDING THREE STUB STREETS.
TWO TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG DOON PARKWAY, LAKE, HOUSTON PARKWAY, AND GENERATION PARKWAY BY NOT PROVIDING ANY THROUGH STREETS.
AND THREE, TO EXCEED THE MINIMUM REVERSE CURVE.
RADI ALONG MAJOR THOROUGH THIRD GENERATION PARKWAY STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTS FOR THE FIRST VARIANCE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING NOT TO EXTEND THE THREE SUBST STREETS FROM THE SUMMER WOOD SUBDIVISIONS.
THE SUBST STREETS ARE ONE LOT IN DEPTH BETWEEN THE SUB STREETS AND THE SUBJECT SITE IS A 130 FOOT TO 160 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE CHANNEL OWNED BY THE MUD.
THE SUMMER WOOD SUBDIVISIONS HAVE SUFFICIENT TRAFFIC CIRCULATION INTERNALLY AND TO THREE MAJOR THOROUGHFARES.
FOR THE SECOND SET OF VARIANCES.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING FOR THE AREA WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
BOUNDED BY MAJOR THOROUGH AFFAIRS GENERATION PARKWAY, DEON PARKWAY, LAKE HOUSTON PARKWAY, AND TIMBER FOREST DRIVE.
NORTH OF THE 370 FOOT WIDE HLMP TRANSMISSION
[00:35:01]
CORRIDOR AND GAS PIPELINES IS INTENDED FOR ONE LARGE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL USER REQUIRING MULTIPLE STREETS TO MEET THE INTERSECTION.SPACING REQUIREMENTS WILL ONLY SERVE TO PROVIDE INTERNAL CIRCULATION WITHIN THE AREA AND WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT REGIONAL CIRCULATION.
FOR THE THIRD SET OF VARIANCES, THE APPLICANTS IS REQUESTING TO BE ALLOWED A CENTER LINE RADIUS OF 1500 FEET AT THE REVERSE CURVES ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARE GENERATION PARKWAY.
IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 2000 FEET RADIUS.
THE TITER CURVATURE IS A RESULT OF NEEDING TO INTERSECT, DO SOME PARKWAY AT CLOSE TO A 90 DEGREE ANGLE, CROSSING THE HLMP CORRIDOR AND PIPELINE EASEMENTS AT CLOSE TO A 90 DEGREE ANGLE AND AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT FOOTPRINT FOR THE LARGE SINGLE USER.
THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE ROADWAY DESIGN WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH TROS STANDARDS BASED ON THE REDUCED RADIUS.
HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST.
THEREFORE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AND APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ADVANCE AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? PARDON ME? DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION GARZA.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM 88 IS MAX ROY'S CORNER.
THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW NOTICE TO BE MET.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS, HARRIS COUNTY, NORTH OF WASHINGTON AVENUE, SOUTH OF KANSAS STREET, AND EAST ALONG MAX ROY STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THREE LOTS ALONG THE 12 FOOT SHARED DRIVEWAY AND IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES.
ONE IS TO ALLOW THE SITE TO HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG A RIGHT OF WAY LESS THAN 50 FEET IN WIDTH.
AND TWO TO ALLOW NO FOOT, FOOT, FOUR FOOT SHARED DRIVEWAY OFFSET STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF BOTH REQUESTS.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SITE ARE THE RESULT OF THE PROPERTIES EXISTING PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS INCLUDING LIMITED FRONTAGE AND NARROW WIDE OF WAY WIDTH ALONG THE SITE.
THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION PLA CREATED THE SUBJECT SITE WITH ONLY 16 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG A PORTION OF MAX STREET WHERE THE RIGHT OF WAY IS LESS THAN 50 FEET IN WIDTH.
IN ADDITION, A HUNDRED FOOT WIDE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY ABUTS THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE FURTHER LIMITING THE PROPERTY'S DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.
THE APPLICANT HAS COORDINATED WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND TRAFFIC REGARDING THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND DRIVEWAY ACCESS.
THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN REFLECTS THE OUTCOME OF THE COORDINATION AND BOTH PUBLIC WORKS AND TRAFFIC HAVE RAISED NO OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED CONFIGURATION.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL PAVING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN TO MAINTAIN AT LEAST 20 FEET OF ROADWAY ACCESS PER PUBLIC WORKS AND TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IN APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
STAFF HAS RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENTS CITING TRAFFIC ACCESS AND FIRE CONCERNS.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS SHAA PRI HODA.
MY NAME IS SHARI HODA AND I'M TENANT AT THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO MAX'S CORNER.
I SUBMITTED A WRITTEN COMMENT LETTER WITH PHOTOS.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO REVIEW IF MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU.
MAX STREET IN ITS CURRENT FORM, NARROW SIGNIFICANTLY AS IT APPROACHES THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOWN TO LESS THAN 10 FEET NEAR MY DRIVEWAY.
TRASH AND RECYCLING SERVICES DO NOT COME DOWN MAX STREET.
RATHER WE MUST TAKE IT TO THE CROSS STREET.
THERE'S INSUFFICIENT WIDTH FOR TWO VEHICLES TO PASS EACH OTHER OR FOR A VEHICLE TO TURN AROUND WITHOUT ENTERING A RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S LANDLOCKED BY SURROUNDING HOMES IN THE RAILROAD WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A 16 FOOT STRIP OF LAND, WHICH WILL SERVE AS THE ONLY ACCESS POINT FOR THREE HOMES.
ITS GUESTS IN THE VARIOUS TRAFFIC WHICH COMES WITH THAT, ALL SERVED BY A DEAD END STREET AND THEN A 12 FOOT WIDE SHARED DRIVEWAY.
IMAGINE A FIRST RESPONDER UBER DRIVER OR DELIVERY SERVICE FINDING THOSE HOMES AT NIGHT.
THE APPLICANT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE STREET IS TOO NARROW AND IF STATED, THAT MAX STREET WILL BE WIDENED TO 20 FEET EVEN WHEN WIDEN THE STREET WILL STILL NARROW TO A MERE 13 FEET AS IT APPROACHES THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DUE TO THE PROPERTY'S INSUFFICIENT FRONTAGE.
I WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION TO MAKE THE PLAT IF APPROVED.
CONDITIONAL UPON THE CON, THE COMPLETION OF THE WIDENING OF THE ROAD.
THE ROAD IN ITS CURRENT FORM IS INSUFFICIENT FOR RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC, LET ALONE TRUCKS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION, WHICH WILL BLOCK THE ROAD AND CREATE A PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN.
IN ADDITION, I'VE REQUESTED THE COMMISSION OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE CURRENT PLANS COMPLIANCE WITH FIRE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS AS IT RELATES TO A DEAD END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD IN EXCESS OF 150 FEET.
AS DETAILED IN MY COMMENT LETTER, IN MY OPINION, THESE VARIANCE REQUESTS ARE IN, IN RESPONSE TO SELF-IMPOSED HARDSHIPS, TRYING TO JAM AS MANY HOUSES ONTO AN ODDLY SHAPED LOT AS POSSIBLE WITH LITTLE CONSIDERATION FOR THE EXISTING RESIDENTS AND THOSE THAT WILL HAVE TO LIVE IN THOSE HOMES ONCE THEY'RE COMPLETE.
IF THE COMMISSION SEES FIT TO APPROVE, I'D REQUEST THAT IT BE CONDITIONED UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE WIDENING OF MAX STREET TO 20 FOOT PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
[00:40:02]
YOU GOT A LOT IN THAT TIME.I WAS REALLY GOING FOR TWO MINUTES.
I READ, I READ ALL YOUR COMMENTS ONLINE.
UM, YOU DID A REALLY GOOD JOB.
UM, OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MONICA FONTANO.
UM, YOU CAN LEAVE THAT PICTURE UP.
SO I AM REPRESENTING THE OWNERS WHO, UM, WHO OWN THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR AT 24 0 4 MAX ROY STREET.
AND THEIR NAMES ARE ANNA YVONNE RODRIGUEZ AND JORGE RODRIGUEZ.
SHE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT AND THEY FELT THAT THE ARCHITECT IS TRYING TO JAM THREE HOUSES ONTO A NARROW STRIP OF LAND AND THAT THE, UM, FOREFOOT OFFSET IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN TO CREATE THE FOREFOOT OFFSETS TO GIVE A SAFETY BUFFER BETWEEN HER PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR.
AND THAT TO DESTROY THAT WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE RESIDENTS.
AND THE RESIDENCE NEXT DOOR, AS YOU CAN SEE, ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES ON THE END, THE ONE THAT YOU FIRST COME TO, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A TWO CAR GARAGE WITH TWO CARS GOING STRAIGHT IN ONE AND THEN ONE BEHIND THE OTHER.
AND SO WHEN YOU BACK OUT, THAT'S GONNA BE CREATING A PROBLEM RIGHT THERE AND THEY COULD ACCIDENTALLY INADVERTENTLY HIT THAT FENCE LINE.
AND THERE'S NOT AN ADDITIONAL, UH, BUFFER THERE.
THE ADDITIONAL, UH, THE LOCK FRONTAGE IS TOO NARROW AND NOT ADEQUATE, UM, UH, FOR THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
AND THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS CREATED TO BEST SERVE THE INTEREST OF THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE RESIDENTS.
UM, ALSO, UM, THE ACCESS OF THE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY ITSELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT.
AND FOR THEM TO WIDEN THE STREET TO 20 FEET IS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE TO ORDINARILY DO ANYWAY IN ORDER TO BUILD.
IT'S NOT AS THOUGH THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING EXTRA, UH, FOR THE COMMUNITY.
THEY'RE DOING A REQUIREMENT THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO BUILD THE PROPERTY AND ALSO, UM, THE SHARED DRIVEWAY ITSELF.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING TO, IF YOU HAD A FINAL COMMENT, YOU CAN WRAP IT UP.
YOU KIND OF STOP MID-SENTENCE.
AND THAT THE, UM, SHARED DRIVEWAY ITSELF, ALTHOUGH THE THOUGHT IS THAT MOST OF THE MOTION IS SELF-CONTAINED, IT IS SELF-CONTAINED TO A POINT, BUT IT'S NOT, THERE IS NO BUFFER, NO SAFETY.
AND SO EVEN IF YOU HAD A 16 FOOT SHARE DRIVEWAY, THERE WOULD STILL BE A 40, UH, FOUR FOOT, UH, BUFFER.
AND THERE IS NO SPACE TO ALLOW ANY OF THAT BECAUSE, UH, DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND THE CONFIGURATION AND THEREFORE, UM, THEY FEEL THAT MAYBE TWO HOSES, BUT THREE IS, IS TOO MUCH.
I KNOW THERE'S SOME COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, I WANNA BE CLEAR, THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE, BECAUSE OF THE 16 FEET.
IS THAT THE ONLY VARIANCE REQUEST THAT THEY HAVE? UM, THE FIRST VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW THEM TO, UM, TAKE ACCESS FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.
UH, 'CAUSE IT'S LOCATED AT THAT CORNER OF MAX STREET.
AND THE SECOND IS THE FOREFOOT OFFSET, UM, THE SHARED DRIVEWAY OFFSET.
YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T WANT UNDEN DENY THEM THE RIGHT TO USE THEIR PROPERTY, BUT I I THINK THIS IS A NIGHTMARE.
I MEAN ALL, I THINK HIS COMMENTS WERE VERY VALID.
AND SO I'M NOT INCLINED TO SAY YES, BUT I DON'T WANT TO, I MEAN, I'M JUST SHARING MY THOUGHT MM-HMM
BUT I DON'T WANNA DENY THEM THE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
BUT THIS CONFIGURATION I THINK IS UNSAFE FOR BOTH THE THREE OCCUPANTS OF THOSE RESIDENTS AND THE NEIGHBORS.
AND I'M INCLINED TO VOTE AGAINST IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? QUESTION.
UM, DO WE KNOW, SO SENATOR POINT HAD THE COMMENT ON THE CPC 1 0 1 ABOUT THEIR STANDARD FIVE FOOT BUILDING LINE REQUIREMENT.
UM, AND WITH THE WAY THIS IS CONFIGURED AND AS CONSTRAINED AS IT IS, DO WE KNOW HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT IT ONCE THEY CHANGE THAT REQUIREMENT ON THE PLAT? LIKE TO, I GUESS THEY'VE GOT, I MEAN, TWO FEET DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A LOT, BUT I DON'T EVEN KNOW THEY GOT THE TWO FEET TO GIVE.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ARE THEY GONNA BE ABLE TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT PART OF, UM, THE
UM, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE CENTERPOINT BUILDING LINE REQUIREMENT OF FIVE FEET
[00:45:03]
I ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY THE PUBLIC STREET OR I THINK SHE'S TALKING ABOUT SERVICING ALL THREE PROPERTIES.AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.
IT DOESN'T REALLY FIT IN THIS PURVIEW.
IT IT, IT DOESN'T, BUT BECAUSE OF HOW CONSTRAINED THESE PROPERTIES ARE, LIKE, TO YOUR POINT, LIKE ANOTHER PROPERTY, YEAH.
TWO FEET MAY NOT, MAY NOT MATTER, BUT RIGHT.
I I'M JUST KIND OF ASKING IF IT WOULD EVEN LIKE IMPACT THE DESIGN IN ANY WAY OR IF THEY CAN FIT IT IN TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.
THE WAY THAT IT CURRENTLY STANDS, I'M NOT SURE THAT STAFF LOOKS AT THAT.
THEY MAKE THE COMMENTS, THEY SEND IT TO CENTERPOINT, CENTERPOINT LOOKS AT THE PLAT, THEY MAKE THEIR COMMENTS.
BUT THAT IS AGREED UPON, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW THE PROCESS YOU WORKED THERE.
UM, AND I WORK WITH THEM EVERY DAY.
UM, AND THAT PROCESS IS OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION.
BUT I ALWAYS APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THOSE UP.
BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANTS NEED TO BE AWARE OF.
COMMISSIONER VICTOR, UH, DID WE GET ANY COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC WORKS ON THE FIRE, THE FIRE ACCESS? IS THERE ANY LETTER FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT? UM, IT'S NOT A LETTER, BUT UM, THEY WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT, BUT, AND FIRE HAS STATED THAT THE ACTUAL PLAN ITSELF WITH ALL THE, UM, APPROVALS, IT'S REVIEWED AT THE PERMITTING STAGE, BUT NOT AT THE, AT THE PLATTING STAGE.
BUT SO IT MEETS, UM, THE SHARED DRIVEWAY ITSELF.
IT'S LESS THAN A HUNDRED FEET, WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM, UM, THAT A 12 FOOT SHARED DRIVEWAY CAN GO.
AND THERE'S A THREE FOOT EAE AROUND THE, UM, PROPERTY THAT'S NOT A BUDDING, UM, A SHARED DRIVEWAY OR THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
BUT THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE ORDINANCE, UH, IN TERMS OF FIRE SAFETY.
UM, AND THE FIRETRUCK WILL TAKE ACCESS FROM THE PUBLIC STREET.
THE FIRETRUCK DOES NOT GO ONTO THE SHARED DRIVEWAY ITSELF.
SO THE HOSE, UM, FROM WHERE THE PROPERTY MEETS THE RIGHT OF WAY TO THE BACK OF THE SITE, UM, IS APPROXIMATELY 140 FEET.
SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, COMMISSIONER, WE DON'T WANT TO KEEP THESE PEOPLE FROM BUILDING ON THEIR PROPERTY OBVIOUSLY.
SO MY QUESTION THEN IS IF THERE WERE ONE LOT, JUST ONE LOT OR EVEN TWO LOTS, WE'RE NOT REALLY TALKING ABOUT THAT.
ARE WE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACCESS FOR THE MOST PART.
UH, OF COURSE COMMISSIONER MARES THAT FIVE FOOT WOULD BE EASIER, MORE WOULD BETTER ACHIEVE IF THERE WAS LESS HOUSING.
SO AGAIN, MY QUESTION WOULD BE WOULD THERE BE ANY DIFFERENCE IF IT WAS TWO LOTS OR A SINGLE LOT? BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS ACCESS TO THE STREET.
UM, SO THE, ORIGINALLY IT WAS FOUR LOTS, BUT THEY'RE PLOTTING IT INTO THREE LOTS.
SO THEY'RE GOING DOWN, UM, IN SIZE.
UM, AND FOR GARAGE BUILDING LINE, UM, THERE'S AN EIGHT FOOT REQUIREMENT.
BUT IF COMMISSION WANTS TO ADD SOMETHING TO THAT, THEY COULD POSSIBLY COULD AGAIN, BUT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT WAS ONE LOT OR THREE LOTS MM-HMM
OR FOUR LOTS, IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS ACCESS NOT THE NUMBER OF LOTS BECAUSE IT STILL HAS, UM, THE LIMITED FRONTAGE OFF OF MAX MAXWELL STREET.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
SO, I MEAN, WE, BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR, HOLD ON, HOLD ON.
DID YOU WANNA SPEAK? I'M, I'M THE ENGINEER.
IF YOU GUYS WANT ME TO, DO YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS YOU WANNA SHARE PUBLICLY? 'CAUSE IF YOU DO, YOU NEED TO COME TO THE MIC.
AND IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND STATING YOUR NAME FOR US.
I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER WORKING WITH THE SURVEYOR AND ARCHITECT ON THIS PROJECT.
AND I WAS KIND OF ONE INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SIDELINE.
ESPECIALLY, UH, UM, THE LAST COMMENT ABOUT THE, WHETHER IT'S ONE OR THREE, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.
NO MATTER WHAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THAT, THAT'S WHY WE ARE LOOKING FOR THE, UH, VARIANCE.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE BEEN, UH, EXTENSIVELY TALKING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT AND TO WORKING OUT THAT, UH, SITE PLAN AND PROPOSING THE WIRING OF 20 FOOT ACCESS, WHICH, UH, UH, SHOULD HAVE BEEN, UH, WIDENED WHEN THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS WERE DONE.
'CAUSE THEY'RE SUBSTANDARD, THEY'RE LESS THAN 18 FEET, WHICH IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FOR A, UM, A PUBLIC STREET.
AND, UH, YEAH, BASICALLY ALSO THE, THE, THE DEAD END IS ABOUT 140 FEET FROM THE CROSS STREET, WHICH IS STILL WITHIN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS THAT DON'T NEED A TURNAROUND OR A T UH, INTERSECTION OR, OR A CUL-DE-SAC.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE 140 FEET LAY DOWN AREA FOR THE HOSES TO COVER THE WHOLE, UH, UH, UNOBSTRUCTED AREA AROUND THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS.
UH, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WANTED TO READ YOU.
[00:50:01]
YOU MUCH.COMMISSIONER MORRIS, YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WELL, JUST A FOLLOW UP.
I MEAN, YES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACCESS, BUT WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT MOVEMENT OF THREE LOTS VERSUS ONE LOT.
SO IF THIS THEORETICALLY HAD BEEN ONE LOT AND WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE ENTRY AND EXIT VEHICLE AT ANY GIVEN TIME, I DON'T THINK ANY OF US HAVE ANY HEARTBURN.
BUT WE COULD BE TALKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY UP TO SIX PLUS CARS COMING IN AND OUT OF THAT THING BECAUSE OF THE THREE LOTS.
'CAUSE THE VARIANCE WE GRANTED HANG ON ONE AT A TIME.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE, THE TRAFFIC, THE TURN RADIUS THAT THE VEHICLES WOULD HAVE TO USE TO GET IN AND OUTTA SOME OF THESE GARAGES, THEN THAT ACCESS BECOMES A PROBLEM.
UM, IF IT WAS A STRAIGHT IN AND OUT MOVEMENT FROM A SINGLE GARAGE, NO PROBLEM.
BUT THE WAY THAT SOME OF THESE VEHICLES WOULD HAVE TO GET IN AND OUT OF THAT, THOSE DRIVEWAYS OR GARAGES TO THEN TURN AROUND AND USE A 16 FOOT ASPEN, THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE.
SO THAT'S, YES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACCESS, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MULTI-VEHICLE ACCESS.
AND, AND I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, CAN WE CLARIFY? THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO THE STREET BEFORE THEY CAN.
UM, 'CAUSE IT'S A TRAFFIC, IT'S ALSO ON THE CPC TRAFFIC HAS REQUIRED THEM.
SO IF WHENEVER THEY SUBMIT PLANS AND IT'S NOT MET, THEN THEY WON'T GET PERMITS.
COMMISSIONER GARZA, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE? UH, NO.
WELL, I MEAN THIS, UH, COMMISSIONER MAD MAKES A VERY VALID POINT.
I MEAN, IF IT WAS TWO LOTS, I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE BECAUSE THEN YOU COULD CONCEIVABLY GET IN AND OUT.
EVERYONE'S SHARING THE SAME DRIVEWAY, BUT THIS THE FIRST LOT THEY HAVE TO BACK OUT INTO THE STREET.
THERE'S NO WAY TO TURN AROUND.
SO I, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT IN THE DESIGN BUSINESS, SO I'M NOT GONNA GO THERE
UM, AGAIN, I, LIKE I SAID, MY CONCERN IS, UH, TWOFOLD.
ONE, I DON'T WANNA KEEP THIS PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT UNBUILDABLE.
AND THE NUMBER TWO, I MEAN THE ACCESS IS THE ACCESS.
SO WE HAVE TO GET PAST THE ACCESS.
'CAUSE THAT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE.
BUT AGAIN, IT IS UP TO THIS COMMISSION TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT IS REALLY SAFE FOR THE OWNERS OF THESE PROPERTIES AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.
AND SO THAT IS REALLY THE QUESTION BECAUSE ACCESS IS NOT CHANGING.
WAIT UNTIL I CALL ON YOU BECAUSE WHEN YOU START TALKING OVER TOP OF EACH OTHER, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO'S ASKING TO SPEAK.
SO I DON'T WANNA HEAR YOUR VOICE.
I WANNA SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS OR A NOD.
'CAUSE YOU KNOW, I'M ALWAYS LOOKING AROUND.
PLEASE DO ME THAT FAVOR BECAUSE IT'S BENEFICIAL TO OUR AUDIENCE AND THE FOLKS ON TV.
SO COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, UH, I BELIEVE OUR VARIANCE IS INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE A QUESTION.
IT MAY NOT SWAY ANYTHING, BUT JUST TO WANNA BE CLEAR, WHAT IS THE DARK LINE ON THIS MAP? OH, THE, THERE'S ONE OF THE DARK LINES THAT GOES AROUND THE BA SORT OF LIKE THE BOUNDARY.
THAT'S THE, THEY'RE SHOWING THE HOSE LAY.
SO IT'S SHOWING THAT FROM WHERE THE RIGHT OF WAY, IT GOES AROUND THE EAE AND THEN IT GOES TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS 140.
THIS ONE GOES ALL THE WAY AROUND.
OH, SO THEY LAY THE HOLES ALL THE WAY AROUND.
YEAH, THEY LOAD, THEY'RE SHOWING FROM HERE, GOING TO THE NORTH ONES GOING DOWN AND THEN GOING TO THE SOUTH, THEN GOING UP.
IS IT ON A DIFFERENT EXHIBIT? IT'S A DIFFERENT EXHIBIT.
THIS PAGE WE HAVE, BUT IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY PAGE.
UM, AGAIN, NIKOLA, UH, WE HAVE, FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS, WE GOTTA SHOW COVERAGE OF THE WHOLE SIDE, RIGHT? NO, NO, SIR.
THIS, WE'RE ON A, WE'RE ON A DIFFERENT EXHIBIT.
THAT BOAT LINE, THIS IS THE HOSE LAY DOWN THAT COVERS ON ONE SIDE 140 FEET.
YOU BASICALLY HAVE TO ENCLOSE IT WITH THE MAXIMUM OF 150 FEET.
SO THEY CAN LIKE, UH, UH, FIRE, UH, FIRE, UH, UH, FIREMEN CAN RUN ON ONE SIDE AND THEN THE OTHER ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE TO COVER THE WHOLE SIDE WITHIN A, A CLEAR OF OBSTRUCTION AREA.
THEY CANNOT GO THAT 140 FEET CANNOT GO THROUGH THE BUILDING.
IT HAS TO BE ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE PROPOSING, OR THAT'S WHY THE REQUIREMENT IS FOR THE THREE.
SO WHY DOESN'T THAT FOLLOW THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY? THAT'S WHAT'S CONFUSING.
WHICH EXHIBIT WERE YOU REFERENCING? IT'S, UM, OH, OH A 100? YEAH, A 100.
'CAUSE IT DOESN'T LIE ON TOP OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT.
YOU WANNA REPEAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE? UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE
[00:55:01]
AND APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.SO COMMISSIONERS, YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION.
I'LL MOVE DENIAL IF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR DENIAL? SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR BY SHOW OF HANDS PLEASE.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.
ALL THOSE AGAINST THE MOTION TO DENY.
JUST YOU, THERE'S MORE THAN 15 PEOPLE HERE.
UH, THE VARIANCES IS APPROVED AND THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED.
UH, DIRECTOR TRAN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL.
IN INSTANCES LIKE THIS FOR A MOTION, CAN COMMISSIONER ALSO ADJUST STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS? YES.
JUST CLARIFICATION, THAT'S ALL.
AND SO, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, NOT WITH, IF THE DIRECTOR THOUGHT A DEFERRAL WOULD BE IN LINE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO SEE IF YOU COULD MAKE IT BETTER.
I'M NOT OPPOSED TO MODIFYING MY MOTION 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT TRYING TO UNREASONABLY DENY THEM USE OF THEIR PROPERTY, BUT I STRONGLY FELT LIKE THIS WAS UNSAFE.
WOULD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THE MODIFIED OR JUST CERTAINLY THAT'S OKAY.
SO COMMISSIONER BALDWIN IS MODIFYING HIS MOTION TO DEFER THE DECISION FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE MORE PALATABLE, SUCH AS A REDUCED NUMBER OF LOTS.
IF I'M ALLOWED TO, MY MOTION TO THE DEFERRAL AS WELL.
SO COMMISSIONER MARS, YOU MADE THE SECOND.
COMMISSIONER HINES, YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS? YES.
I KNOW YOU WERE, YOU DID A GOOD JOB.
AND AGAIN, I, I WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT REDUCTION OF LOT QUANTITY.
WHAT WE ARE ARGUING, ARGUING IS LIFE SAFETY AND IT'S ABOUT WHERE YOU TAKE ACCESS FROM.
SO IN THAT DEFERRAL PERIOD, UM, IT'S, THAT'S THE PART THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT.
DOES THAT WORK WITH THREE LOTS? I DON'T KNOW.
UH, IT SEEMS LIKE A CIVIL ENGINEER DESIGNED THIS, BUT, UH,
THAT'S THE ONLY POINT OF ACCESS.
SO IF THAT POINT OF ACCESS GETS TAKEN AWAY, THEN THIS IS A DEADLOCKED PIECE OF PROPERTY.
REALLY? IT'S MORE ABOUT WHERE THE GARAGE I SEE WHAT YEAH.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN, YOU HAD SOMETHING ELSE? JUST FOLLOWING.
IF, IF THOSE HOMES COULD BACK UP AND PULL OUT FORWARD, I WOULD FIND IT WAY MORE APPEALING THAN THE WAY THEY'RE FORCED TO BACK UP NOW.
AND IT'S ALL, I MEAN, I'M JUST WEIGHING IN A LITTLE BIT, FOLLOWING UP WITH MY COMMISSIONER HINES' COMMENTS.
I WOULD JUST LIKE FOR US TO THINK ABOUT A COUPLE OF FACTORS WITH THE SITE.
THE SITE WAS FLATTERED WITH A VERY OLD SUBDIVISION.
THIS WAS FOUR LOTS WITH ONLY 16 FEET FRONTAGE.
AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THE BACK THREE LOTS WERE ACTUALLY LANDLOCKED.
THAT WAS THE PROPERTY'S CONFIGURATION, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE.
SO THE VARIANCE PROVISION IN THE ORDINANCE IS FOR SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS, UM, CHALLENGING SITE.
THE APPLICANT WAS GOING FOR THREE LOTS AND THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR 12 FEET SHADE DRIVEWAY.
AND THAT WAS THE THINKING OF THE PLANNING TEAM WHEN WE REVIEWED THIS IS WITHIN THE LIMITED FRONTAGE, WHAT CAN WE ACCOMPLISH? AND THAT'S HOW THE VARIANCE EVOLVED ON THIS PROJECT FOR THE FOUR FEET RADIUS, BECAUSE 12 FEET IS ALLOWED.
ONE OTHER OPTIONS COULD BE IS TO KEEP THEM AS THREE LOTS, BUT TO ADDRESS THE UTILITY CONCERNS, WE COULD ASK FOR THE BUILDING LINE, SOME KIND OF BUILDING LINE ALONG THE 12 FEET SHARED DRIVEWAY, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S ONLY AN EIGHT FEET GR UH, GARAGE BUILDING LINE.
SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS, UH, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT DURING THE DEFERRAL PERIOD.
I MEAN, HE DOES OWN FOUR LOTS.
AND THAT IT, IT STARTED AS FOUR.
UM, SO YES, IF YOU GUYS CAN CONSIDER ALL OF THE COMMISSION'S COMMENTS, WE'LL SEE YOU BACK IN A COUPLE WEEKS.
SO RESTATE YOUR, UH, MOTION PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN DEFERRAL FOR TWO WEEKS TO WORK ON COACHING.
MIKE ON CUT YOUR MIC ON DEFERRAL FOR TWO WEEKS TO WORK
[01:00:01]
ON AN IMPROVED SITE PLAN.AND THAT'S A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAREZ MAREZ.
NEED TO, I'M SORRY, I NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF FOR THIS ONE.
THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM 89 IS WEST HAVEN MANOR NORTH SECTION TWO.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ETJ OF HARRIS COUNTY, SOUTH OF MAY ROAD AND EAST OF FM 360 2.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW UP TO SIX LOTS TO TAKE ACCESS FROM A FLAG LOT IN LIEU OF THE ORDINANCE, MAXIMUM OF FOUR LOTS.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS A RESIDE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE WEST HAVEN MANOR GENERAL PLAN.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A FLAG LOCK DESIGN, WHICH ALLOWS FOR MULTIPLE LOTS TO SHARE ACCESS THROUGH ONE DRIVEWAY.
THERE ARE SEVERAL CRITERIA REQUIRED FOR FLAG LOTS, INCLUDING THE DRIVEWAY DEPTH, THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH, THE SETBACK OFF OF THE DRIVEWAY, AND THE NUMBER OF LOTS ACCESSING THE DRIVEWAY.
THE FLAG LOT DESIGNED MEETS ALL OF THE CRITERIA EXCEPT FOR THE NUMBER OF LOTS ALONG THE SHARED, EXCUSE ME, ALONG THE DRIVEWAY.
THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS UP TO FOUR LOTS TO SHARE ACCESS FROM ONE DRIVEWAY.
THERE'S A TOTAL OF EIGHT GROUPS OF FLAG LOTS SHARING DRIVEWAY ACCESS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THREE OF THE 11 GROUPS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW TO HAVE UP TO SIX LOTS TAKEN ACCESS FROM ONE DRIVEWAY.
THIS DEVELOPMENT ATTEMPTS TO OFFER A VARIETY OF HOUSING OPTIONS, ALLOWING A HIGHER DENSITY WHILE REDUCING THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS, WHICH MEETS THE INTENT OF THE RECENT ORDINANCE.
CHANGES RELATED TO FLAG LOTS, THE ADDITION OF TWO LOTS IS A SLIGHT DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD.
ALSO, THE DEPTH OF THE DRIVEWAYS IS LESS THAN 200 FEET AND THERE ARE NO SAFETY CONCERNS RELATED TO EMERGENCY SERVICES OVERALL.
THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS SUPPORT FROM THE OTHER PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND HARRIS COUNTY ENGINEERING'S OFFICE.
MADAM CHAIR STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE PLA SUBJECT TO THE CPC 1 0 4 CCPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
ANY QUESTIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER BALDWIN.
IT'S, IT'S, WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT HERE.
WE HAVEN'T HAD ANYTHING TO TALK ABOUT YET.
I LIKE EXHIBIT FOR VILLAS TWO.
I LIKE THE 20 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY AND THE 18 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE DRIVEWAY.
BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THESE OTHER ONES WHERE, LIKE THE ONE IN THE CORNER.
WHERE'S THE EXHIBIT FOR THAT? TO SHOWING THE, IS IT STILL A 20 FOOT DRIVEWAY? UH, WHICH ONE IN THE CORNER, UH, ARE YOU REFERRING TO? WELL, THE TOP THE CORNER, ARE ALL OF THEM GONNA HAVE A 20 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY AND AN 18 FOOT DRIVEWAY AFTER THE 20 FEET? SO I GUESS THAT'S THE QUESTION.
UH, YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT WORKS WELL WHEN THERE'S A SQUARE, BUT IT DOESN'T WORK THE SAME FOR THE FIVE OR THE SIX ONE.
SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE THEME OF ALL THE 20 FOOT WIDE YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.
AN ADDITIONAL 18 FOOT DRIVEWAY.
SEEMS P EVEN THOUGH THE SHAPE IS A, IT'S NOT A COMPLETE SQUARE, BUT IT'S THE SAME, IT RELATES BACK TO WHERE WE WERE JUST HAVING A CONVERSATION ON THE ITEM BEFORE.
IT DIDN'T HAVE 20 FEET OR 18 FEET AND THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
JUST MAKING SURE THOSE OTHER UNITS YES SIR.
AS IT RELATES TO PROVIDING FEEDBACK.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.
IF NOT, I NEED A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ALL IN FAVOR? A OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
RELATES TO ITEM 90 IS WESTHEIMER SUBDIVISION, PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS A 7,500 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON CITY LIMITS EAST ALONG STER STREET NORTH OF WESTHEIMER ROAD AND EAST OF DUNLEAVY STREET.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A ZERO FOOT BUILDING LINE ALONG A 25 FOOT PORTION OF THE SITE FRONTAGE ALONG STER.
THE SITE PLAN SHOWS THE INTENT TO CONSTRUCT A WALKWAY WITH CANOPY AND A WALK-IN COOLER WITHIN THAT REDUCED BUILDING LINE.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE SITE PLAN, THE SURVEY, AND THE PROPOSED PLAT.
IT APPEARS THE EXISTING BUILDING ENCROACHES THE PLATTED 10 FOOT BUILDING LINE, WHICH WAS BUILT AFTER 1982 AND THUS REQUIRES A DUAL FOOT, A DUAL BUILDING LINE VARIANCE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BUILDING AT ITS CURRENT PLACEMENT.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE PLAT FOR TWO WEEKS TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL VARIANCE REQUEST, UH, VARIANCES, REQUEST VARIANCE REQUESTS, AND TO CONFIRM THE INCONSISTENT SITE INFORMATION.
UH, THAT IS, THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.
[01:05:01]
IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER MOTION BALLARD? SECOND.WE HAVE NOTHING UNDER E SO WE'LL MOVE TO F
[f. Reconsiderations of Requirement (Petra Hsia and Devin Crittle) ]
RECONSIDERATION REQUIREMENT.YOU'RE SAYING GOODBYE ON 91 AND 92.
S LIKE TO PRESENT ITEMS 91 AND 92 IS ONE ITEM? YES, PLEASE.
ITEMS 91 AND 92 ARE GRAND PRAIRIE GENERAL PLAN AND GRAND PRAIRIE RESERVE.
THE GENERAL PLAN IS OVER 1,240 ACRE PROPERTY AND THE, UH, GRAND PRAIRIE EIGHT RESERVE SECTION TWO IS 38 ACRES RESPECTIVELY LOCATED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION SPANNING BETWEEN MOUND ROAD AND BECKER ROAD WEST OF WARREN RANCH.
WITH THE SECTION SHOWN IN YELLOW, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN UNRESTRICTED RESERVE.
OH, I'M READING THE WRONG PART.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A GENERAL PLAN AND A SECTION THAT IS LARGELY DETENTION AND DRAINAGE RESERVES AND IS REQUESTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING A NORTH SOUTH STREET ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY BETWEEN WILD WIND, INDIGO WAY AND BLUE MS. FLOWER LANE STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SITE OF THE VARIANCE IS INUNDATED WITH HEAVY DRAINAGE AND DETENTION REQUIREMENTS.
THE PORTION OF THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE RESERVE, UH, HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE, UH, IS ALIGNED WITH AN EXISTING 150 FOOT WIDE, UH, DRAINAGE CHANNEL, WHICH MAKES THE INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENT, UH, FOR THIS AREA TO BE 2000 FEET.
THE PROPOSED SPACING OF 26 40 IS A 25% DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD AND IS NOT DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE STANDARD.
THE AREA TO THE SOUTHWEST SOUTHEAST SHOWN IN BLUE ONCE PART OF THE EARLY ITERATIONS OF THE GENERAL PLAN, BUT LATER DEDICATED TO HARRIS COUNTY WCID 1 64 AND HAS SINCE BECOME A VERY LARGE DETENTION AREA THAT IS FED BY THE EXISTING CHANNEL REQUIRING A NORTH SOUTH STREET WOULD BE, WOULD HINDER THE SHEET AND CHANNEL FLOW AND COULD BE INJURIES TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
THEREFORE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF, UH, REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND APPROVE THE, UH, GENERAL PLAN SUBJECT TO CPC ONE ONE FORM CONDITIONS.
MA'AM, CHAIR, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOTION GARZA.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF HOUSTON, ETJ HARRIS COUNTY, SOUTH OF THE GRAND PARKWAY, EAST OF FM 2100 ALONG MAGNOLIA BOULEVARD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO LOTS AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED LOCAL INTERSECTION SPACING BY NOT PROVIDING A NORTH, SOUTH STREET THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT THE EDGE OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON, ETJ BOUNDARY WITHIN A PREDOMINANTLY RURAL AREA.
THE SURROUNDING AREA CONSISTS PRIMARILY OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITHIN UNRECORDED SUBDIVISIONS.
GIVEN THE RURAL CHARACTER AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, REQUIRING A NORTH-SOUTH STREET THROUGH THE SUBJECT SITE, WOULD NOT PROVIDE A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT TO TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN THE AREA.
FURTHERMORE, PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE SITE CONTAINS EXISTING STRUCTURES THAT WOULD ENCUMBER THE EXTENSION OF A STREET.
HARRIS COUNTY HAS NO OBJECTIONS.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE PLA SUBJECT TO CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, I'LL SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UH, THIS APPLICATION WAS DEFERRED AT THE PREVIOUS PLANET COMMISSION.
MEETING OF THE SITE IS LOCATED IN SOUTH HOUSTON, NORTH ALONG SCHUMI ROAD BETWEEN COTHAM ROAD AND SOUTHWEST SIDE DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED INTERSECTION SPACING ALONG A LOCAL STREET BY NOT PROVIDING A NORTH OR SOUTH STREET THROUGH THE TRACK.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.
THE SITE IS A VACANT TWO ACRE TRACK INTENDED FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH PRIVATE STREETS.
THE PROPERTY SITS WITHIN THE 1400 FOOT WINDOW REQUIRED TO ADDRESS INTERSECTION SPACING.
THE MAJORITY OF THE USES ALONG THE BLOCK ARE AUTO STORAGE, LOTS INDUSTRIAL SITES AND VACANT PROPERTIES.
THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WAS SUBDIVIDED BY MEETS AND BOUNDS INTO A NARROW ELONGATED TRACT.
TRACKED MANY OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES, EXCUSE ME.
MANY OTHER PROPERTIES ALONG THE BLOCK ACQUIRED ADDITIONAL LAND WITH A GREATER AMOUNT OF FRONTAGE ALONG THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
HOWEVER, THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WAS SUBDIVIDE INTO A NARROW TRACT.
IF A 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY WAS TO BE DEDICATED THROUGH THIS TRACK, IT WOULD TAKE CLOSE TO 50% OF THE USABLE LAND OF THE PROPERTY.
ALTHOUGH A STREET CONNECTION IS BENEFICIAL IN THIS LOCATION, STAFFS BELIEVES THE LARGER ADJACENT TRACKS TO THE EAST AND TO THE WEST CAN BETTER PROVIDE A STREET CONNECTION AND
[01:10:01]
STILL HAVE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND.STAFF RECOMMENDS GRANTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND APPROVING THE PLAT SUBJECT TO THE CP CPC 1 0 1 FORM CONDITIONS.
THIS COMPLETES MY PRESENTATION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'LL SEEK A MOTION FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ITEM 95 IS WESTFIELD VILLAGE INDUSTRIAL.
THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF HOUSTON, ETJ HARRIS COUNTY, SOUTH OF KEITH HARROW BOULEVARD, NORTH OF CLAY ROAD AND EAST ALONG WEST GREEN BOULEVARD.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO UNRESTRICTED RESERVES FOR INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES AND IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN INTERSECTION SPACING LESS THAN 600 FEET ALONG WEST GREEN BOULEVARD.
A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUESTS.
THE MINIMUM REQUIRED INTERSECTION SPACING BETWEEN TWO STREETS ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE IS 600 FEET.
THE TOTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN RANGER LAKES LANE AND LINDEN WICK LANE IS APPROXIMATELY 1050 FEET.
THE PROPOSED CLAY CENTER DRIVE IS POSITIONED TO MEET THE MINIMUM INTERSECTION SPACING REQUIREMENTS WITH RANGER LAKES LANE TO THE SOUTH.
HOWEVER, AS A RESULT, THE SPACING BETWEEN THE PROPOSED CLAY CENTER DRIVE AND LINDEN WICK LANE TO THE NORTH WOULD NOT MEET THE 600 FOOT REQUIREMENT.
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 STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
ARE THERE ANY QUE QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? IF NOT, I'LL SEEK A MOTION.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO G AND I DO HAVE SOME ABSTENTIONS COMMISSIONERS.
ON ITEM 96, I HAVE COMMISSIONER MAREZ, COMMISSIONER HE COMMISSIONER SHEPHERD, AND 1 0 7.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
[Platting Activities g - i]
IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, STAFF WOULD LIKE TO TAKE SECTIONS.SECTION G EXTENSIONS OF APPROVAL CONSISTS OF ITEMS 96 TO 108 SECTION H NAME CHANGES CONSISTS OF NO ITEMS AND SECTION I CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CONSISTS OF ITEMS 1 0 9 AND ONE 10.
THE PLANNING COMM, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTION G, H AND I.
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? IF NOT, DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION VICTOR? MOTION.
ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
AND I USUALLY SAY WE HAVE NOTHING UNDER JAY, BUT WE DO.
[j. Administrative - Rescission of Commission action due to inadequate notice of an Off-street Parking Variance at 13620 Memorial Drive (Ed Buckley) ]
ONE 11.GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ITEM J IS RESCISSION OF A PARKING VARIANCE AT 13,620 MEMORIAL DRIVE, A PARKING VARIANCE AT 13,620.
MEMORIAL DRIVE WAS APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION DURING THE AUGUST 20TH MEETING.
AFTER THE APPROVAL, IT WAS BROUGHT TO STAFF'S ATTENTION THAT THE DATE ON THE NOTICE SIGNS WAS INCORRECT.
MEANING THAT THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN MET, HAD NOT BEEN MET.
THE SIGN HAS SINCE BEEN CORRECTED.
HOWEVER, DUE TO IMPROPER NOTICE PRIOR TO THE AUGUST 20TH APPROVAL, STAFF REQUEST TO RESCIND THE APPROVAL AND ALLOW THE ITEM TO RETURN TO THE AGENDA ON SEPTEMBER 17TH.
COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE, DO WE? NOT REALLY.
WELL, WE REALLY DON'T BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T MEET NOTICE.
COMMISSIONER HEINZ, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? UH, I WAS JUST TRYING TO REMEMBER.
THIS IS THE PILATE STUDIO? YEP.
BUT IT'S, IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE.
SO I THINK THE NOTICE SAID 2021.
SO DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR ASCENSION? MOTION GARZA.
WERE THEY ABLE TO START? YEAH, THEY DID.
IS THERE, UM, ANY FINANCIAL IMPLICATION FOR THEM OR NO? UM, THEY DO HAVE TO, OH, NO.
WILL THEY HAVE TO PAY SOME FEES TO COME BACK? MAYBE, MAYBE NOT.
AGAIN, NOT PART OF THIS, UH, ARENA.
UM, BUT THEY ARE STILL OPERATING.
AND AGAIN, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.
SO THEY DO HAVE TO PAY A FEE TO COME BACK? WELL, WE'RE NOT TREATING AS A NEW MR. BUCKLEY WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY.
WE'RE NOT TREATING AS A NEW APPLICATION.
TYPICALLY WHEN THEY HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THE
[01:15:01]
DIRECTOR WILL WAIVE THAT FEE.SO I JUST DIDN'T WANNA SPEAK FOR
SO THE, PLEASE REMIND ME, THIS WAS THE, UH, ITEM THOUGH THAT STAFF DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO IT'S, IT'S NOT A NEW APPLICATION, BUT THEN THE STAFF TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY NOW TO REVIEW OF OF COURSE.
MS. BANDI, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? NO.
I HAVE FORGOTTEN WHO MADE THE MOTION IN A SECOND.
MOVING ON TO K DEVELOPMENT PLOTS WITH VARIANCE REQUESTS.
THERE, THERE ARE NO ITEMS IN, IN K ITEMS. OH YES, IT DOES SAY NONE.
YOU KNOW, IT HELPS TO PUT YOUR GLASSES ON.
[II. Establish a public hearing date of October 1, 2026 ]
THROUGH ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE ROMAN TWO.OF OCTOBER 1ST, 2026 UNDER ROMAN NUMERAL TWO FOR BRIDGELAND CREEK LAND VILLAGE SECTION 22 REPL NUMBER ONE IS SCOTTA PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE, HADDOCK PLACE PECAN VILLA PARTIAL REPL NUMBER ONE.
AND WESTVIEW LANDING DETENTION.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION HINES.
[III. Consideration of an Off-Street Parking Variance at 913 Sharpstown Center (Ramon Jaime-Leon) ]
THREE CONSIDERATION OF AN OFF STREET PARKING VARIANCE AT NINE 13 SHARPSTOWN CENTER.ROMAN NUMERAL THREE IS NINE 13 SHARPSTOWN CENTER.
THE SITE IS LOCATED NORTH OF BEL AIR BOULEVARD, EAST OF FONDREN ROAD AND NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST FREEWAY.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A GROCERY STORE ADDITION AND SHOPPING CENTER REDEVELOPMENT AND IS REQUESTING TO PROVIDE 2,275 PARKING SPACES IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 3,708 SPACES FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER STAFF.
RECOMME STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THE REQUEST FOR TWO CYCLES AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO ALLOW FURTHER TIME FOR STUDY AND REVIEW.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER FOR TWO CYCLES? MOTION NARANJO.
DID I HEAR BALDWIN? SECOND BALDWIN? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
[IV. Consideration of Echo Suites Hotel located at 2920 Airport Blvd (Ken Calhoun) ]
FOUR CONSIDERATION OF ECHO SUITES HOTEL LOCATED AT 29 20 AIRPORT BOULEVARD.ROMAN AL FOUR IS ECHO SUITES HOTEL AT 29 20 AIRPORT BOULEVARD.
THE SUBJECT SIDE IS 2.5 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN HOUSTON CITY LIMITS SOUTH OF AIRPORT, WEST OF PARK SOUTH VIEW.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR 124 ROOM HOTEL TO TAKE ACCESS FROM A 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY WITH 40 FEET OF PAVING THAT IS NOT CLASSIFIED AS A FOUR LANE ROADWAY.
STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST UNDER CHAPTER 28.
USES ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE ACCESS FROM A FOUR LANE RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH WOULD GENERALLY CONSIST OF A MINIMUM OF 44 FEET OF PAVING RIGHT OF WAY, SERVING PRIMARILY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
IN THIS CASE, THE EXISTING 60 FOOT ROADWAY ROADWAY PROVIDES TWO LANES WITH A TOTAL OF 40 FEET OF PAVING, RESULTING IN A FOUR FOOT DIFFERENCE FROM THE STANDARD PARK.
SOUTH VIEW IS A SHORT LENGTH AND DOES NOT PROVIDE ACCESS TO ANY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS, NOR DOES IT FUNCTION AS A RESIDENTIAL CONNECTOR BECAUSE THE ROADWAY PRIMARILY SERVES THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH.
DOES NOT INTRODUCE TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO PROTECTED RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND MAINTAINS THE PAVING WITH ONLY MARGINALLY BELOW THE FOUR LANE.
STANDARD STAFF'S FINE THAT THE INTENT OF CHECK TO 28 IS MET.
FOR THESE REASONS, STAFF SUPPORTS ALLOWING THE HOTEL TO TAKE ACCESS FROM A NON FOUR LANE RIGHT OF WAY AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE.
UM, WE HAVE ALSO REACHED OUT TO, UH, THE COUNCIL DISTRICT WHEN WE HAVE NOT, UH, RECEIVED ANY, UM, COMMENTS? UH, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, IF NOT, DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION JONES.
OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES ROMAN.
WE DO NOT NEED TO EXCUSE THE COMMISSIONER.
ROMAN NUMERAL SIX PUBLIC COMMENTS.
DO I HAVE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? HEARING NONE.
WE WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 3:52 PM THANK YOU.