It is 2 34 p.m.

on Thursday, the 18th of September 2025.

My name is Lisa Clark.

I'm the chair of the Houston Planning Commission, and I'm calling this meeting to order at the City Hall Annex at 900 Badby.

Speakers, if you wish to address the Commission on an item, please fill out the speaker's form before the item is called and turn it into staff near the front door.

Consent and repeat speakers are allowed one minute and 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 or general speakers are allowed two minutes time.

There's not an option for rebuttal, even if you did not use your full two minutes.

To establish a quorum of 11 commissioners, I will call the roll.

Chair Clark is present.

Garza present.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Baldwin present.

Commissioner Colvard.

Colbard present.

Commissioner Heisch.

Commissioner Heinz.

Heinz present.

Commissioner Jones.

John's present.

Commissioner Khalik.

Colleague present.

Commissioner Mattis.

Modus present.

Commissioner Poris Pertle.

Horace Perdle present.

Commissioner Rosenberg.

Not present today.

Commissioner Sigler.

Sigler present.

Commissioner Tahir.

Commissioner Victor.

Commissioner Vier Olivia Viera Bland.

Viera Bland present.

Commissioner Montepaco.

And our Secretary, Director Von Tran.

Tran present.

Thank you.

We have 16 members, so we've established a quorum.

Okay.

I do did not look for withdrawals.

Did you look for withdrawals?

Okay.

I think there's one, yes.

Okay.

What's the name of the item?

It is estates at Mac Alpine Place.

Okay.

So item 62 estates at Mac Alpine Estates has been withdrawn, so we'll not hear anything on this item, and of course, make no motion for the item.

All right.

Then I will move on now to the director's report.

Director Tran.

Good afternoon, Chair Clark, Commission members and the public.

I am Von Tran, Secretary of this Commission and Director of the Houston Planning and Development Department.

Welcome.

I have two announcements today.

The first one, you've heard it before, but this is a reminder.

The planning development department is aware of a fishing issue currently affecting applicants, particularly those submitting development plat variances and hotel and motel applications.

Applicants have reported receiving malicious emails that appear authentic but originate from fraudulent addresses.

These email email requests pay uh these emails request payment through a settlement invoice in exchange for a plat approval.

Please note the planning department does not issue invoices or request payment by email.

The city's IT department is actively investigating this matter.

In the meantime, we strongly advise applicants not to open these attachments or respond to the suspicious requests.

If you receive an email related to your plot application that seems questionable, please contact the planning department immediately for legitimate updates or questions regarding applications.

Please call the POD line for assistance.

The address is 3611 Innist Street, Houston, Texas, 7704.

And for registration information, please visit Houston Planning.com.

In closing, the planning and development department can be reached at 832-393-6600, or you can call Development Services Planner of the Day at 832-393-6624.

You may visit our website at Houston Planning.com.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Tran.

Our next item is consideration of the September 4th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting minutes.

These minutes were attached in your on your agenda.

Do I have a motion for approval?

Motion via plan.

Second to hear.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Now we'll move on to Ramon Numeral 1, Platin Activity.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the planning commission.

My name is Maria Tovar.

Sections A and B are presented as one group, which includes consent and replot items not requiring notification.

Sections A and B are items 1 through 57.

Section A consent items are numbers 1 through 38 and Section B replat items are numbers 39 through 57.

No items need to be taken out of order and there are no changes to staff recommendations.

Madam Chair, if there are no individuals signed to speak on these items, the planning and development department requests the approval of all staff recommendations for consent and replot items not requiring notification.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do I have any abstentions on any items?

Commissioner Mates.

Yes.

Um item 13, 24, and 33.

Thank you.

Commissioner Heich.

Yes, Madam Chair.

I'll abstain from items 1, 4, 5, 7, 17, 31, and 32.

I had I had a couple others.

13, 33.

On your on your form.

No.

Maybe they combined it all together.

Okay.

They combined it and did so.

Okay.

So let me.

13 and 33.

Okay.

So I need a motion for items in uh Roman number one.

Yes.

I have a question.

Yes.

The uh digital version.

Um none of the consent and replat items not requiring notification actually filled out.

So mine is blank.

Uh Heist's is filled out.

Oh, great.

Great.

Okay.

It's just you and me.

Okay, cool.

Yeah.

Fortunately.

Oh, they're all black.

Okay.

At least we have this.

We have the big screen in front of us, so nothing is going to get past us.

Don't worry.

You know.

Let that be a good one.

Commissioner Baldwin, we'll make a note to go back to the antiquated.

Um, your apple is right here, I'm showing you.

That's right.

Okay.

So I need a motion, save and accept items one, four, five, seven, thirteen, seventeen, twenty-four, thirty-one, thirty-two, and thirty-three.

Motion.

Victor.

Motion, Victor, second, Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Now I need a motion for items 1457, 13, 17, 24, 31, 32, and 33.

Motion pors Pertle.

Second Vera Bland.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Yes.

Put your mic on.

Sweetabandi here, planning department.

Um, I just want to apologize about the um the tabs not having the CPCs.

The document that is online has all of the CPCs and they have been generated.

There has been a glitch between plat tracker and the tabs that they're not showing up.

We are going to address and take care of that.

But we can't upload the tabs again.

So please forgive us for that.

We'll make sure next time.

Yes.

Starting at 58.

Section C is on our tablets.

So we can see them.

Okay.

It was A and B on the city.

So it's just A and B.

Okay.

Okay.

Got it.

We'll take care of that.

Oh, so you don't have those either?

Oh.

Okay.

Well, we can we're going to have to work off our screens today.

So thank goodness we have three of them.

Okay, thank you, Miss Bandy.

I appreciate it.

Okay.

Now we're moving along to replats requiring public hearings with notification.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission.

My name is John Phillips Ole.

Item 58 is Arbor Development.

The subject site isn't near as an 18,000 square foot property located in the Houston Corporate Limits at the southwest intersection of Arbor Street and State Highway 288 south of Blodgett Street.

The applicant is proposing a single unrestricted reserve and is requesting a variance to allow a 10-foot building line along State Highway 288 and leave the 25-foot building line required.

Staff is in support of the variance.

Review by legal indicates the proposed plat does not violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

The site is part of an alignment of remaining lots out of Riverside Terrace Section 1 plat or subdivision after the creation of State Highway 288.

The developer intends to create a three-story multifamily development with a parking garage making up the ground floor.

The garage itself would take sole access from Arbor Street and is denied vehicular access from the feeder road.

The very dedications of properties to the highway has created a jagged alignment of lots along the highway as such, three other replatts in the immediate vicinity, shown in green, were also granted the 10-foot building line variants in 2012-2019 earlier this year.

The feeder at this location is a southbound one-way right-of-way extending off of the four-way stop intersection of Blogget and 288.

The property is located north of the off-ramp and prior to its connection to the feeder.

With the off-ramp being grade separated at this location.

The back of the curb is proposed to be have the back of the curb to the proposed building line is 47 feet in total, providing a significant buffer between traffic and the building line.

This buffer is strengthened by 10-foot tall sound, uh typical sound wall barrier, shown in pink, installed and maintained by textile within the right-of-way property.

Staff recommendation is to grant the variance and approve the plat subject to CPC 101 from conditions.

Thank you.

Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Sigler.

Second Mata is all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 59.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission.

My limit Aray Rodriguez item 59, a company gateway at Sterling Shire.

The third is located in the city limit, east of West Drive, and without a parker vote.

The purpose of the Wii plat is to create two single family lots.

No variances are being requested with this item.

The applicant has met all the notification requirements and per legal the proposed replat will not violate applicable restriction.

Staff did not receive any comment in advance.

So, Madam Chair.

Well, sorry.

That recommendation is to approve the plat subject to the CPC 101 informed condition.

Now, Madam Chair, it's the pleasure to the Commission.

You may open the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

I'll open the public hearing for item 59.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Hearing none, I will close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Jones.

Second Heinz.

Second Heinz.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 60.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Dorianne Paul Flynn Item number sixty is Edfield Manor.

The site is located along its site is located in Houston Corporate Limits along at the corner of Edfield and Calhoun Road.

The reason for replat is to create one multi-unit residential reserve.

This plat was deferred at the last planning commission per the because there was questions concerning this plat.

The questions that was concerning this plat was concerning the restrictions.

And in July and June of this year, there was a question about Mayflower Manor.

Mayflower Mayflower Manor is the plat.

Um is the plat that is shown in pink, and Edfill Manor is shown in orange.

The item today is Edfield Manor, but both of these lots were a part of an amendment which allowed other uses than single family.

So that's why that was one of the questions, and that's why and legal came back and said that it didn't violate deed restrictions.

The applicant has met with Councilmember Shabazz as well as with the community and have decided that they will take access from Calhoun uh Road as well as uh Mayflower Manor will mirror the same uh layout.

The plat has met all notification requirements.

Uh review by legal indicates that this plat will not violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the plat per CBC 101 form conditions.

Madam Chair, if it pleases the commission, you may continue the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you, Ms.

Pat Flam.

I'll continue the public hearing for item 60.

I do have a couple of speakers.

Our first speaker is Chen Wang.

Okay.

So you're just here for questions.

Thank you.

Um Ms.

Darlene Mabin.

Welcome back.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

First of all, I just want to say thank you for at least acknowledging us for a long while we felt invisible.

And because of the deferment, we were able to speak with the developer and get some things.

Our beloved trees are gonna be there.

We're gonna have um brick wall in back of it.

The driveways have been moved.

And all this is because we were able to communicate.

We know we can't stop progress, but we'd like to have some say so about how it's going to affect our community because we all live there.

But I want to thank you.

Well, we appreciate you.

You've done a lot of work on this along with your neighbors, and so thank you for bringing all this to light.

And I'm glad that everything worked out well.

Okay.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

Hearing none, I will close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion, colleague.

Second, Vera Bland.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 61.

Hang on just a second.

Yeah.

Can we I need to take 65 before 61?

Thank you.

The council council members here, so we're going to move that one up.

Okay.

Okay, sure.

All right.

Item 65 is Geneta Reserve.

The site is located in Houston Corporate Limits.

Um east along Janetta Street, north of Richmond Avenue.

The applicant is creating one commercial reserve.

Review by legal indicate that this plat will violate deed restrictions filed separately.

So the applicant has requested that this item be deferred.

And we have received uh several uh we have received advanced comments for this item um concerning changing these uh lots into um a commercial reserve.

Staff's recommendation is to defer the plat per the applicant's requests.

Madam Chair, if it pleases commission, you may open a public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 65 is open.

I would like to call Councilmember Thomas.

Good afternoon.

Hello, how are you?

Hello, Madam Chair, Madam Secretary, Commissioners, uh thank you for your work into the planning team.

I'm Councilmember Tiffany D.

Thomas.

I represent District F on the West Side, the best side of Houston.

I have to say that for a couple of reasons.

Uh one of the reasons is because of Piney Point.

Um I've come before this body a couple of years ago raising concern and director um prior to your appointment.

Um Piney Point is one of the few remaining uh remnants of a freedmanstown in the city of Houston.

Um what once was bustling with five neighborhoods, and I want to share the names of those five neighborhoods that no longer exist Blossom Heights, Harlem Heights, Ulrich, Piney Point, and what remains is Carvercrest, around 150 wood frame homes uh nestled between Richmond and Genetta and Clarkrest.

Um the issues that we have walked hand in hand with, and I'm flanked by uh representatives from the community, is because this neighborhood has essentially been erased by commercial development.

Um, particularly car dealerships and mechanic shops, which directly impacts mobility.

Uh this is a neighborhood that is one of my few subdivisions that have open ditches.

So, in terms of mobility limited sidewalks, but also there have been some environmental concerns about living so close to autoactivity.

Um, prior when I came to this body asking for you all to um become a more curious about how we uh plan uh car dealerships and mechanic shops.

Um and I don't know if there's been any progress of that conversation, but I would like to extend another invitation for us to have that conversation.

My concern as a council member um is that in the next 20 years this neighborhood will be permanently erased.

It will be just a mention in a note if we do not insert um and insert ourselves in the proper uh pr protection of this neighborhood.

Um and so I know that there's a recommendation before the body to defer the item, but I would just like to call like there are deep restrictions in the I these items continue to move forward um oftentimes historically, not under y'all's leadership, but over decades, right?

This has happened.

Um because they really haven't had a pronounced footprint when we think Freedmanstown, we think Midtown, we think Fort Ward.

Um we don't think of Piney Point on the west side, far west of uh the city of Houston.

Um so I just want to make sure that y'all have the same eyes and attention and sensitivity uh that this body has and council has around Midtown and Fourth Ward and Freedmanstown, that there's a room of a Freedmanstown on the west side and would appreciate uh I know we have uh several speakers from the community appreciate of y'all listening to them.

Um this is their first time, not all of their first time here.

Um, but we whipped up the troops today so they can stand before you uh um to share um the impacts of this type of development in their neighborhood.

And then if there is an opportunity for the community to engage with the owner, um I would invite that to happen as well so they can kind of get clear about what's to come and if they could possibly inform uh better use of that land.

Thank you so much for the opportunity.

Thank you.

We appreciate you coming in sharing your thoughts.

Okay.

The first speech well, the only speaker I have signed, there may be others, is Allie Gaspetty.

Sorry.

Okay.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Uh I call in about the reference number uh 25-2025 and the property at the lot 17 and 18 below one, they call it the 3201 Janetor Street.

This janitor, uh this property, I was the owner of this property a long time ago.

The city of Houston sent a letter to me many times to remove your cars from that property because this property is a not commercial, is a residential, or they call it black black heritage.

And I received a letter from the city, I received the notice from the city.

I bring the also um a lot of problem that I move all my car from this property.

And uh I would like to know if you approve this this property be commercial, then you have to uh approve the block one, completely block one from the Jarvis and Janetto be commercial and residential.

Because otherwise, this property should stay as a as a residential, not as a commercial, and the property beside it also.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for coming in today.

Our next speaker is Pastor Damon Wilkins.

Hello to uh this uh council and to all the planning commission.

My name is Pastor Damon Wilkins, and I'm the pastor of the Pilgrim Rest Missionary Baptist Church.

Uh there 341 Ganetta Road uh in Piney Point.

And uh as you all know, we are the oldest Black Baptist Church uh in Houston.

Uh Antioch is not the oldest Black Baptist church.

Um they were before you all annexed us uh some years ago in 1920 or 1930, somewhere along those towns, but we were organized March uh 10th, 1865.

So we're about a year and two months younger than older or younger, older than uh Antioch Church.

Um but um being the pastor of the church, um the I've been a part of that church for all of my life and uh now able to serve as a pastor, been there about four years now, and um there's too much commercial um auto shops in the area.

Uh I go to church every uh when I'm coming in, I'm either coming down Danthard Dill or Dunville coming in too.

And um all of the auto shops that are around the church, cars are just sitting up there, no one is buying them.

Um they're just sitting up.

And um they're collecting dust and uh it's it's most of an eyesore coming into our uh community.

And uh no one's buying them.

They're just sitting up, and so I my fear for this one if there's another auto shop that comes in is it will be the same as the others are in the community.

And the second thing is that I am a registered nurse at St.

Luke Hospital, so I'm a bi vocational pastor, and um the health issues uh that come with all of this automotive and mechanic in the area.

You're gonna wrap up real quick, yes, thank you.

All right, thank you.

No, you can wrap up.

Yeah, go ahead and uh being a nurse, uh all of the automotive, all of the chemicals in the uh that seebout from these uh mechanic shops, um there are they will do some type of harm uh now and probably in the future.

So I oppose uh the uh the commercial and keeping it the platform residential.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

We appreciate you coming in.

Our next speaker is Cleveland Wesley.

That's Newton.

Good afternoon.

Uh I am a descendant of my mother moved to Piney Point in 1927, so almost a hundred years ago, and I would love to see the community stay a community and not be a car lot.

So that is my request.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Carolyn Boozer.

Uh good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Carolyn Boozer.

I live in the Carvercrest subdivision, and I stand to oppose the reply of 3201 geneta into a commercial reserve.

Uh I'd like to share a little story with you.

On Friday afternoon, I believe it was August 8th, 2025.

I observed asphalt being spread over the front side and backyards of this property.

Just a few days later, cars were parked in the back and side yard, all before the notice of public hearing signage was posted, this particular public hearing, and before replat approval.

I believe this shows a clear disregard for our deed restrictions and an intent to proceed with commercial use regardless of the rules.

We have seen similar tactics uh used in the past.

For many years, our community has relied on city agencies and departments like 311, the Department of Neighborhoods, uh, the Midwest uh Houston Police Department, its DRT section, pro bono legal, and our council members to help us uh prevent uh commercial in our in our in our subdivision.

So and we are grateful for their efforts, but it's rather sad that we have to continue this fight over and over and over again.

So today I ask you not to reward the property owners' attempts to splinter our neighborhood.

Carver Crest was established over 70 years ago as a single family residential subdivision, and we want to preserve that legacy.

You can wrap up two seconds.

I respectfully implore you to decline this application if it comes back again because it violates our deed restrictions and because it would create greater traffic nuisances for our residents.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Boozer.

Appreciate you coming in.

I don't have anyone else signed to speak.

Is there any anyone else that wishes to?

Okay.

I do have a question, Ms.

Mickelson.

Can you help us on the D restriction question?

Excuse me, maybe a little bit.

Um The applicant did submit additional documents that they claim amend the deed restrictions.

I will note that they were there's a night there's a 2021 document, then there is a 2023, August 2023 court agreed judgment where the court determined that those restrictions in 2021 were not properly done, and so therefore they were still valid.

I will say that there in March of that year there appear to be an additional attempt to try and remove certain properties from the deed restrictions.

And I'm just hanging on, I'm just double-checking the court order.

They lack a majority of lot owners, so both of those are attempts to uh to amend those are invalid according to this agreed order for declaratory judgment that the current owner appears to have agreed with.

So there's questions.

It's restricted to single family.

Right.

Okay.

Commissioner Baldwin.

So to clarify, the original restrictions are still in place.

And it is a single family residential lot.

And we have no information that says it is otherwise.

No, that's correct.

It's just that the two attempts to take it out to allow different uses were null and void in the course.

Any other?

Yes, Commissioner Colvard.

So and maybe this is something that we need to understand better when this comes back if it gets deferred.

But how did all of these other businesses get approved then if there was a deed restriction in place?

They didn't.

I mean, they just moved ahead and A, we have to go back in and look at the city records.

Permitting doesn't have the staff in and everything to check up on those every um for every single thing.

And sometimes things happen by mistake.

Yeah.

So I mean it's what can be done at that point.

I know that we are planning and not permitting, but correct.

Correct.

And this this is a situation where he needed the replat, so that's why it's coming up.

Not necessarily anything that somebody just goes in and starts would require a replat in the permitting process.

So it might not have gotten stopped there.

And we'd have to go back in.

I know we have had numerous conversations about these areas in our office, and we would have to go back in and really look at the um particular circumstances for each commercial parcel.

I think that the parcel that is being used commercial, let me phrase it that way.

Right.

I think it would be good to understand where this background too when this comes back, please.

Yeah.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Commissioner Martes.

I mean, I would kind of question why we would defer it instead of deny it.

Like if if they are already essentially operating the business and and and we know that that's violating deed restriction, anything they submit to it has to adhere to residential, but they're not using it at that.

I would I would argue that they are not operating good faith, so personally I would be inclined to deny versus defer.

On that note, is the developer here or is the applicant here?

Is the applicant here?

Ms.

Pifflin, have you seen the applicant?

No.

And it's it goes back to what we have been talking about all this year.

The deferrals work when the neighborhood works with the applicant.

But the applicant has to show up.

When the applicant doesn't make any effort to come to our meetings, we're not inclined to want to grant those deferrals.

And so I will move to deny.

And I will second that.

Yes, I think so.

Is Councilmember Thomas still here?

I'm here.

I thought you had not gone anywhere.

So the question is.

Well, you know, we don't usually let people do that in the audience, but we'd let you.

Thank you.

Um the question is, you had requested a deferral.

So if commission requests, no, not me.

I didn't request, I know it was on the agenda was a recommendation.

But I am in support of a motion from Commissioner.

I am in support.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Yes, thank you.

All right.

Y'all in support?

So be clear, we support deferrals when it's in the best when the people want to work together, but when the applicant is not here, they're not making any effort.

Right.

Okay.

So I have a motion by Baldwin, a second by MADES to deny the application.

All in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

It's denied.

This is two happy endings.

Yes.

So now we're going back to 61.

Yes, Commissioner Morris.

Sorry, I know that the items ended, but I don't know if we have anybody in public works that can talk to community about other available options that they could look into to enforce Mr.

Brown.

There's other things that can be done.

Yeah.

You heard that, Mr.

Brown?

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving on, going back to order uh item 61.

Okay.

Item 61 is the state at home lane.

The site is located in the city limit west of Method Drive and south of feet will vote.

The purpose of the replat is to create two single family lodge.

No variants are being requested with this item.

And per legal review, the PUPO replat would not violate applicable restriction.

And the applicant has met all the notification requirements and staff did not receive any public comment in and then.

So that recommendation is to approve the platform to the CPC 101 information form condition.

And uh Madam Chair, is it pleased to the commission?

You may open the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 61 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Jones, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 62.

Sorry about that.

62 is withdrawn.

63.

Item 63 is free park manor.

The site is located in Houston Corporate Limits, East Along Dover Street, West Venice 45.

Um Lego has requested that this item be deferred for additional time for further review of the deed restrictions.

Staff's recommendations defer the plat for further deed restrictions review.

Staff has not received any advanced comments for this item.

The plat has met all notification requirements.

Madam Chair, if it pleases commission, you may open the public hearing for this item at this time.

The public hearing for item 63 is open.

Okay.

Hearing none, I will continue the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendations.

Staff staff recommendation.

Motion, Kaliq.

Second Vera Bland.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 64.

Item 64 is GOTIS Foods.

The site is located.

The site is located in Houston Corporate Limits, south along West Oram Drive, east of Badhurst Drive.

The reason for replat is to create one commercial reserve.

The applicant is also seeking a variance to replat two lots from the Merit of Manor Subdivision created in 1955 into a commercial reserve.

Staff is in support of the request.

The two lots.

Next slide.

West Orem is a major thoroughfare.

And that most of the properties along West Oram and this location is for commercial use.

Staff's recommendation is to grant the request for variance and approve the plat per the CBC 101 form conditions.

Madam Chair, if it pleases the Commission, you may open the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you, Ms.

Po Flam.

I will open the public hearing for item 64.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Hearing none.

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Vera Bland.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 66.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Ken Calhoun.

Item 66 is Milwaukee Village.

This item was deferred last cycle to allow the applicant more time to meet the notice requirements.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits, south along Milwaukee Street between Fulton and Helmer Street.

The purpose of the replat is to create two single family lots.

There are no advanced requested with this item, and review by legal indicates that the plat would not violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

Staff has not received any advanced written comments regarding this application.

However, the applicant did not meet the notice requirements during the deferral period.

Staff's recommendation is to disapprove the plat.

Madam Chair, if it pleads the commission, you may continue the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you, Mr.

Calhoun.

The public hearing for item 67 is continued.

I have, let's see.

I'm on 66.

Sorry.

That's what happens when you don't have your glasses on.

I'll close the public hearing for item 66 and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Jones.

Second Colvard.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 67 is University of St.

Thomas Student Housing at Bernard Street.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits, south along Bernard Street, north of Richmond Avenue.

The purpose of the replat is to create one unrestricted reserve.

There are no advances requested with this item, and 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 event-written comments regarding this application.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the plat subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

Madam Chair, if it pleases the commission, you may open the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 67 is open.

I do have the applicant signed to answer questions if there are any.

Commissioners, with any questions?

Okay.

Um I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

All right.

Hearing none, we will close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion.

Second colvard.

Okay.

Motion collecte, second colvard.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 68.

Item 68 is Woodland Heights living.

Item 68 is Woodland Heights Living.

The site is located in Houston Corporate Limits at the southeast intersection of Euclid and West and Watson Street.

I'm sorry.

The reason we re for reply is to create two single family residential lots.

There are no variants requested with this item.

Review by legal indicates that this plat would not violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the plat per the CBC 101 form conditions.

Staff has received advanced comments concerning this plat concerning uh replatting one lot.

I mean complete replatting the lot one lot into two lots.

Um this is part of the Woodlands Heights um historic um historic district.

And um it's also a part of a minimum lot size area, uh, but the the plat meets uh the minimum lot size area um size for the lots, as well as in the woodlands for as far as the Woodless Heights Historic District.

Um our staff has uh put a note on the CPC 101 that at permitting they would have to meet all of the regulations as far as um the COA.

Um therefore staff's recommendation is to approve the plat for the CBC 101 form conditions.

Madam Chair, if it pleases the Commission, you may open the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 68 is open.

I have several speakers.

Our first one is Tim McConnell.

Good afternoon.

Um I don't usually spend my wedding anniversary talking to the planning commission, but here we are.

Um I am a lawyer, but I'm not a real estate lawyer, so this is a bit unusual for me, but we this means a lot to my family, my neighbors, and me.

We live two houses west of this lot just across Watson.

Uh there's a lot I could tell you about the traffic impact that this would have.

There's a lot I could tell you about the drainage impact that this would have, I think, uh, on the surrounding area, including my property, my house, uh, and my children.

Uh I understand that's probably not super relevant to this commission, so I don't want to waste your time.

What I would suggest is that it is very unclear from the plat that we have seen and the limited information that we have, um, that this we it's unclear to us, and frankly, kind of looks to us like this would violate the deed restriction.

Um I would point the Commission to Article 2, paragraph 2 of the deed restrictions for this area of Woodland Heights.

And if I can find them, and I will read it to you.

In paragraph 2, about a third of the way down, almost halfway down.

The deed restriction reads that new structures, which of course these would be, shall be placed at least 10 feet from the property line on all borders of the property, which abut a public street.

Um this plat and from what I know about that property, I don't see any way that they could fit two single family houses on these properties and comply with that 10-foot setback requirement.

Uh I haven't gone out and measured it.

There's no way I can because we don't know exactly where these would be.

But again, based on the plat and the very limited information we have, we think that these would violate the deed restrictions at the very least.

I would suggest to the Commission that further investigation and vetting and discussion would need to be done between the neighborhood and the planners and the applicant.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Yes, Commissioner Harmon.

Can you uh can you read that section one more time?

Are you saying that it's 10 foot setback on all four sides?

Is that your interpretation of how that's no, it's uh Mr.

Bullmann.

I didn't mean to interrupt you.

Go ahead.

Uh I I believe what it says is that it says new structures shall be placed at least 10 feet from the property line on all borders of the property which abut a public street.

So I don't know that that's on all four sides, but certainly on the Watson side and on the Euclid side.

And these are showing a 15-foot setback, are they not?

So it would meet that criteria.

Well, we uh I would suggest that further investigation needs to be done because we don't believe there's any way that that can happen given the way that these uh these lots are set out.

Um again, there would be inevitable uh traffic problems and and impact.

Is is as this group knows, I know I'm out of time.

But just to finish answering your question, that this area is just north of where all the I-10 construction is going on now.

This we're talking about a four-way stop at this intersection that is already uh suffering from horrible traffic.

With what's going on with I-10, it's even worse.

Uh the people constructing these properties would inevitably have to use that part of Watson, and it would cause a traffic tie-up of uh I would say horrible proportions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions?

Okay.

Our next speaker is Mary Anion Wright.

Hi.

Okay, first of all, that's the funniest story I've ever heard.

I live on Balum, which is just a couple blocks away from there.

This horrible traffic situation is crazy for them to build two houses.

Secondly, Mr.

Baldwin just spoke to Mr.

McConn right there and said there's no legal reason that this can't happen.

I don't want it to happen, but there's no reason that it can't.

Mr.

McConnell then said, well, let's do a deferred situation, or can we do deferred situation?

He said, Well, possibly.

Okay.

I just want you to know one of the people that are really pushing for this that lives actually on the block requested that they go and speak to the people that are doing this.

Okay, I did.

I picked up the phone and called them.

They spoke with me.

And she said, Girl, I have a full-time job, kids, life, and the developer would likely pay me my hourly rate.

I'd be happy to consult with them.

Otherwise, I'll see them in planning.

Okay, that's the type of people we're dealing with right now who happens to be very good friends.

They're all attorneys together.

I think like the husbands might even work the same firm.

Okay.

Then we have um in the past, and if you want to put this up on the document camera, you can.

It was in the past when the same attorney who is really fighting this that lives on the street was paid by the Woodland Heights Civics Association to sue or defend another neighbor in another property plotting issue.

This stuff has to stop.

Yes, their attorneys, we get it.

They're attorneys, they can go ahead and they can come up here and speak all this stuff about not meeting this, you know, legal requirement that they meet the requirements.

Everybody knows that the land can be replotted, and they're trying to pull everything out of their hat because it's on their block and they don't want it to happen.

This has to stop.

We cannot continue to get bullied by attorneys because they're attorneys.

This has to stop.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Adam Turner.

Hi everyone.

Thank you very much for being here in Junior Jobs.

I know you have to make some uncomfortable decisions.

I am not an attorney.

I'm actually pretty nervous speaker.

Don't be nervous.

But we don't buy a simple geologist.

I am a neighbor, however, and um so I have a lot of concern about the replot that's being proposed here.

Um I don't know all the legal requirements, but I do know that we live in the historically protected area, and it's a very sensitive area, right?

We're in this little island of historically protected homes that are getting just built up all around us.

And that's that's totally fine, right?

Those are not historically protected areas, they're building up all around us.

Uh but it seems to be making the neighborhood smaller and smaller all the time.

Um when I saw the sign go up for for public comments, um it it of course made me quite concerned because this is a historically uh well, it's in the historic uh neighborhood.

It's a non-contributing lot, um, but still part of that that neighborhood and part of that deed restriction.

And just really I do not see um how two homes can be built on there and be uh consistent with the the guidelines that are going to be required.

So I request that this is denied based off the fact that it's just would be impossible for two homes to be built there consistent with the historic um preservation guidelines.

I also have uh petition signed by most of the block um stating a similar threat.

I don't know if I want to put it on the uh I don't know how these things work.

Uh it's here.

You can give it to staff.

They can they'll take care of it.

Awesome.

Document camera.

Um so uh it's about 20 odd people on there that basically say the same thing that we are just um uncomfortable with the idea of of replotting this and and trying to see how two homes could be built there.

Um again, thank you so much.

Really appreciate your time and your efforts.

And uh yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Baldwin.

I think you have a question for the speaker?

Yes, absolutely, sorry.

You know, I'm your neighbor, I've restored a house or two over there in that historic district.

Excellent.

This body really doesn't have the ability to deny this.

I mean, it meets all of our criteria.

You guys probably need to work most at the historic commission for what they were placed back there.

That's that's what's gonna determine your your beef is you know what is the architectural style of the homes that are going back there.

That is uh function of the historic commission.

Yes, sir.

We're bound by state law if they meet all the criteria of the deed restrictions.

And and we post these notices to see are they in fact violating some deed restriction?

That's that's the main purpose of putting up the science so that you could bring to us something that we didn't already know.

But if they do meet the deed restrictions, then we're all we're bound by law to approve this.

The the concerns of traffic and drainage are addressed at permitting and through public works, and you guys can continue to monitor that, but there's very little this body could do to stop this procedure.

Just wanted to make sure you knew.

Yes, sir.

Appreciate the advice.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Brown, are you still here?

Yes.

Mr.

Brown can speak to you out in the hallway when we're done with this um item and talk to you about where it goes next.

You know, no, it goes to historic commission, but what is POP public works look for and and all of that, so he can help you out.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you very much.

Really appreciate it.

Thank you.

We appreciate it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Our next speaker.

Quick question.

I'm sorry.

Yes.

Minimum lot size in this neighborhood or no?

Five thousand?

Oh, okay.

Yeah, they meet the minimum lot size.

Okay.

Anything else?

Okay.

My next speaker is Adrian Ruthfin.

If I mess that up, please feel free to correct me.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

I don't know if you can project that.

Um, thanks for hearing me, and I appreciate you hearing this case or whatever it is.

I'm not a technical person relative to these types of things.

I am uh Adrian Ruthfin, my husband Les and I live on Euclid.

We're a few houses down on that south side of the block of Euclid.

Uh 708 Euclid.

We're in a definitely a Wilson property.

I have documentation that says our house was sold by the Wilson Realty in 19 early 1900s.

I think it was 1909.

The houses are beautiful, everything else.

We've lived there for 40 years almost.

Um we did the deed restrictions were put in to preserve the Houston.

Historic heights, the historic core of the Windland Heights.

And I don't remember exactly when they were put in.

But um I'm concerned about the deed restriction violations.

The the issue is this this one issue I know right off is this 15-foot offset from the from Euclid.

Um we just went through a COA on a house that's being built right next to us.

That house had a closer offset than the 25 feet that the houses are on that side of the block, they're set back 25 feet from Euclid.

And the historic district restrictions define the there is a definition in there that anything that goes in there has to honor the same setback that is a pre-existent on the block.

And that is 25 feet, they determined, they agreed with the CLA for the other house, and they required that, or it was 26 feet, something like that.

And so they they required that that builder move his design back to accommodate that situation.

Now, the other thing is that the restrictions say you can't build something taller than two stories.

Now, this property, I don't like Mr.

Conn, I believe it was, uh said the houses, we don't know exactly what they're going to look like.

But all I know is this is a document that was a flyer in front of the in the box.

And it's go ahead and wrap up.

I need you to speak into the microphone.

Okay, sorry.

That's okay.

But on that, it says two forty-one hundred square foot new construction homes.

And I can't imagine, and another requirement is that the garage has to be not attached to the house.

So these are deed restriction requirements.

So 4100 square feet, I can't imagine a two-story house fitting on this piece of a lot, achieving 4100 square square feet.

They're basically townhouses.

And one of the reasons that we also did the restrictions was not only to um to preserve the the properties in terms of the meaning of the area, but we but was also to kind of keep from uh townhouses going up in the woodland heights.

And so I think there's going to be some major issues with this uh meeting meeting deed restrictions, as the others have said.

I understand that you're just technically following the letter of the Houston definition of what a pro and what and what current yet is a 5,000 square foot line.

But that would be a single house, you know.

And and well, these are single houses too, but still between the garage and the multi-stories and everything, I think it's going to be a problem.

And the offsets from the front from Euclid.

Right.

So, yeah.

So this body here, what we're doing is just the actual plat.

We don't control what's, you know, the pro what it looks like, how many square feet it has.

Um hearing all this, would it be?

Well, there's nothing we can do, as but I'm trying to do that.

Well, the it has to be approved through this body to go to that body.

Okay.

All right.

Well, we'll just have to work on this.

So that's Commissioner Baldwin is right.

That is really where to go to have this discussion.

Yeah.

All those points would be made at historic, and they are not likely to get that attached garage to approve at historic commission because that's not a historic mocker property.

But your arguments are going to be at historic commission.

Uh and they can't violate the deed restrictions at the historic either.

There'd be another round of review of the deed restrictions.

So if the garages can't be attached, they won't pass historic either.

Just so you are clear.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

But we do appreciate you coming in and sharing your comments.

All right.

Thank you.

The last speaker I have signed is Did I skip over somebody?

Okay.

Nicholas Williams.

Presentation view, please.

Hi.

I uh I live next door to this property.

Um to add to what others have said, I I understand that the role of the Commission is to, you know, the replat is a separate kind of uh item from what the historic commission does, but uh I I believe that by approving this replat, you are forcing the Historic Commission's hands in in a way that that wouldn't otherwise be you know something that that works.

Um I think part of, you know, that there have been a number of of things that others have brought up here, including a 25-foot setback.

Um there's been an application by the owner of the property on with the historic district hasn't been heard yet for the two new properties or the two new homes to be built on the pro forma replat.

Um these are clearly not consistent with the guidelines.

It demonstrates that the applicant doesn't understand the guide what the guidelines are.

And so I believe that by replatting this the application of the replat states that um uh the replat is not an effort to avoid any type of restrictions on the property.

By doing this, I believe that the owner would be avoiding what is a restriction on the property to maintain similarity with the historical context, which is the entire south side of this block.

Um there is not a special minimum lot size, but it could be a special minimum lot size.

In hindsight, you know, the neighbors on the south side of seven of the 700 block probably should have got together and done that.

And if with based on the math I understand it could have been north of 7500 square feet.

All of the lots on the south side of the lot or south side of the block are large single homes with large backyards to break that up and introduce a lot that faces Watson Street is completely counter to the historic context of this area, and therefore I think marks a you know departure from the like these restrictions that are that are in place today.

And so I think I think it's just um not um appropriate in that regard, but I appreciate everyone's time.

We appreciate you coming in.

Um this is, um I hate to repeat it.

I know that you probably understood, but it has this has to come here first before it goes to the Historical Commission.

Everything that you just described is what they'll be looking at.

So nothing we can do here.

This is a shall approve.

Um so as Commissioner Baldwin spoke so clearly on.

Our hands are tied on it.

But all we're approving is the replat.

That's it.

It does not give them the ability to disregard uh guidelines, historical requirements, none of that.

I do have a question.

Yes.

So actually, this is for Ms.

Mickelson.

Hi.

So we have heard from a couple of people about a 25-foot setback that I it sounds like they're they're addressing some kind of restriction that it has to meet what the others on that block say.

If I understood what the point was.

Can you please weigh in on that?

So what I'm looking at in the deed restriction documents here is an original um setback was set out in the very original deeds back, you know, when this property, these properties were all first sold off for a 20-foot front setback, not 25.

There was later in I'm looking at this now document filed uh neighborhood committee to revise the deed restrictions, which somewhat expanded them.

And the portion in here on page three says one resident shall be constructed or permitted for every 2500 square feet of contiguous property subject to these restrictions.

All new restrictions all new structures in excess of one story shall be built at a minimum of three feet from the property line on the sides and back, and new structures shall be built, shall be placed at least 10 feet from the property lines on all borders, which abut a public street, or 45 feet from the center, whichever of the center of the street, whichever is greater, uh shall constructure shall contain more than three stories or floor levels, nor more than 40 feet high.

Now, what I can't tell from the documents in front of me is if these were finally ratified and adopted.

So that's a question.

But the opinion we we receive from neighborhood services is that the proposed development is in conformance with the residential only perform uh provision and in compliance with the setback.

So are these conflicting?

And if they are not.

But so they're these are not conflicting from the original.

She did not believe they were conflicting from the original.

Okay.

Okay.

Commissioner Victor?

And that was that was a similar question, Ms.

McGillson, but I wanted to make sure that we did.

Our team, your team reviewed these deed restrictions and we verify that they do not violate the deeds restrictions because this body cannot do anything if there are deed restrictions that are violated.

We cannot move forward with it.

So we wouldn't be able to.

Is that correct?

And then these will go forward when applications come forward to the Historical Commission.

Right and make sure.

Because again, even if a replot is approved and there is some error in that approval, it can't make a deed restriction null and void.

An applicant must still must still meet those requirements.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Carza?

This is not necessarily for you, but you brought up a point which is none of the houses face Watson Street, correct?

Correct.

They all face they are all facing East-West Streets, Euclid and Bayland, so on and so forth.

So you're more familiar, Commissioner, than I am with Historical Commission.

Would I and again, I'm not going to hold you this because that's not our job.

There's nothing that restricts them from not facing Watts.

From not facing.

Okay, that would be my question.

And I've either with Matt Hanson, he did these deed restrictions.

They were very thorough.

They are there are more than adequate signatures.

I reviewed them multiple times or whatever.

And look, I I don't like this either, but it meets the criteria.

There's nothing the Planning Commission could can do to stop it.

Historic Commission uses the guidelines for the Woodland Heights Historic District.

And if those are, you know, if the new proposals are not in keeping with that neighborhood, you have got a very good chance of convincing that Commission that they shouldn't do something that is not appropriate for the neighborhood.

That is your fighting chance to make a huge difference.

I promise you.

The issue is that the with the replat um you have lots that that any type of application with the historic commission wouldn't pass spot for the replat.

And you would be by accepting the replat, you would be forcing the commission to say either you can't build a house here at all.

Different ordinance altogether.

Chapter 42, Chapter 26.

They are totally different ordinances.

It's not referencing Chapter 26.

It's referencing the restrictions in Chapter 42.

We have done this before.

It does not limit the historic commission in any way.

You can go to the building across Coltivary over there and go and look and see how that building is sitting there vacant because it meets the criteria, but it had to pass historic at the same time.

There are multiple examples that your your v best chance of making your arguments are with the Historic Commission.

And there is nothing we can do to stop it.

Just to emphasize, Historic Commission is very thorough in their deliberations.

Unfortunately, we are legally bound to act on this item.

Understood.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Garza.

Yes, thank you.

Is the applicant here by any chance?

I believe so.

Could you come forward, please, sir?

One is I want to thank you for being here.

Of course.

I appreciate these things.

Absolutely.

So you can see that I don't want to use that expression, but I'm going to use it anyway.

This seems like a hold your nose and vote for it.

But again, I I want to make sure that you work with the neighborhood and the Historic Commission to make sure that because you don't want to waste your time and your money.

You want to submit the appropriate thing at the appropriate place, meeting all the rules and regs so that you don't have to go back and forth and back and forth.

And so I would simply ask that you meet with them, uh Historical Commission, and possibly the neighbors, um, to figure out the first time around that you you are meeting all the rules and regs of both not only our group, but the Historical Commission.

You can see you have got a passionate neighborhood.

You want to be a good neighbor.

I do.

I do.

And your buyers want to be good neighbors too.

Exactly.

And I completely understand.

I met with the Historic Department actually multiple times.

Yes, good.

Everything I do, I do a lot of due diligence.

I'm by the book.

I follow the laws, I follow facts.

A lot of things that were presented here were opinions, not facts.

That's completely fair.

A lot of things that were said are not.

I'm sticking to the facts.

Could you say your name for the record?

Oh.

Yeah, I guess they're going to uh Anthony Monaco.

Um the developer on the project.

Yes.

Um I understand their concerns.

I wish I could just build one house too, but not a lot of people can afford four million dollars.

Yes.

Commissioner.

That's it.

That's the only reason.

I'm trying to make uh the neighborhood nice, follow all the rules, work with the historic department.

I'm also okay working with neighbors.

No one's approached me, and when I have tried to talk to them, no one's completely fair except someone mentioned something about attached garages or have to be separate.

So that's again, that's also an opinion.

There's work with the historic department.

There are some that have been approved with that.

The rule is it has to be behind.

That's behind 50 percent of the property, right?

The draw just to be back.

Those pictures that they showed, those weren't real drawings.

That was just like my average team throwing.

We understand that you have you have made a commitment to speak obviously to the historical commission, make sure that you are completely in line with all of the rules and regs that would apply here.

Yep, met them three times already with Market Tech there.

They're working through everything to try to make something that works for everyone by following all the rules and make the neighborhood nice.

All right, thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions?

Okay.

So you have a recommendation by staff.

Excuse me, I've got to close the public hearing.

I need to close the public hearing for item 68 and seek a motion for staff recommendation of approval.

Second.

Motion.

Baldwin?

Second Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to D subdivision platforms with variance requests.

Good afternoon, ma'am.

Excuse me.

Madam Chair and members of the Houston Planning Commission.

My name is Jeff Butler.

Item 69 is Ace and Ivy River Oaks.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limit along West Alabama, north of Richmond, west of Kirby, and south of Westheimer.

The applicant proposes a reserve for a mixed-use development.

The app is requesting a variance to allow for zero-foot building lines along three public rights away frontages instead of the required ten feet.

Staff recommends deferral to allow time to submit revised materials by noon next Wednesday.

Staff has received written comments with residents expressing concern over traffic, drainage, and neighborhood character.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Butler.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Commissioners, if you have no questions, Madam Chair.

Yes.

The applicant is here.

Okay.

He would like to speak.

Okay.

Come forward, please.

State your name for the record for us.

My name is Luis Baina, and I am the architect on the project here.

And this is my first time.

This is crazy exciting.

I didn't realize that you guys do this regularly.

This is amazing.

This is amazing.

Well, what I'll say is uh the project before you uh and the exhibit shared are completely in their infancy.

By all means they are a conversation and an invitation to that.

And so what we would like to provide, like many of the competing projects in the River Oaks, you know, and my firm at House and Robertson, of course, you'll see some of our names splattered on some of these upcoming developments.

We want to be very sensitive to that.

And every time we have been, I think you have seen some of the developments, even the River Oaks itself, some of the main projects, show that and create something really special for the city.

So this time taken here, I'm mostly here just to say how welcoming we want to be, how open we are to take this week to provide more exhibits or more information that hopefully you know meet the expectations and in many ways hopefully provide a little more excitement to the concerns that you are receiving, probably via phone calls, courier pigeon.

I don't know how this works, but I am sure there is a very exciting way how these concerns come in with the case.

There is a form of communication.

Yeah.

Whatever that is.

Absolutely.

Well, it's only that to be here in good faith to answer any initial questions, and of course.

Oh, continue.

I do too.

Yes, Commissioner Colvar.

Thanks.

So I did see that there was a public comment provided in our packet about the fact that it is right next to Lamar High School.

Um, and I think that they were concerned both about the impact of the high school, but also flooding and drainage, which that is a separate issue, not ours.

But um, I do this is I mean, you have kind of seen now what we try to encourage, you know, the developers, and and you are the architect, but the developers to work with the community and make sure that they are minimizing impact to the neighboring community.

So I just wanted to make a point that that was raised, even though they are not here today, whoever it is.

Yeah.

Even though that's not it, I think maybe the concern is to an incident that has happened on site.

That is what I read in it, that uh someone might have been struck or clipped by a car in its existing form.

We will take that and obviously look at the existing curb cuts and see if there is a way to say, well, this is what happens as is, this is what happens with us.

But of course, curb cuts and as you mentioned, drainage, not part of the replat, but can provide a very serious answer as to how this can be prevented.

Yes, Commissioner Garza.

Um BAML Lane does not go through to West Alabama at this point, does it not?

It does.

It does go through.

I totally was on the wrong road.

Because I thought that BAML dead-ended right behind Kirby Ass House.

No.

It continues.

It does go.

This portion here, both Eastite and BAM will come down to meet West Alabama.

A taste of this uh as part of the exhibit is uh the true owner of the project who is out at the moment, is surrendering uh a good portion of the West Alabama for its expansion.

And some of the exhibits, as you can see, we, while it's in its infancy, you can see that we are trying to even pull the project back and welcome some of that expansion into the retail end.

Of course, scale, how massive is this thing?

Its respect is to try to provide, as you can see kind of here in the exhibit, lots of retail, lots of green, lots of pasale and activity, a pickleball court for active use.

This is not successful if there is not public use to it, and the more sealed private, you know, multifamily use really set back as far as possible so that it you know it doesn't seem like it's overbearing.

Commissioners.

Okay, thank you so much for coming in.

Absolutely, thank you.

Okay.

Anyone else that wishes to speak on this item?

All right.

So you have a recommendation.

I close the public hearing already.

You have a recommendation to approve.

Uh need a motion.

Motion hinds.

Defer.

Defer.

I'm sorry.

Is it motion?

It's not a public hearing hack.

I am looking at the wrong thing.

So it is a recommendation to defer.

Motion Heinz.

Motion Heinz.

Second colleague.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 70.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Houston Planning Commission.

My name is Devin Cruddle.

Item 70 is Bower Hockley Mason Track General Plan.

The site is located in the ETJ of Harris County, east of the Grand Parkway and north of Bower Hockley Road.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow reduced 1,500 foot center line radius for a proposed major fairfair Mason Road instead of the required 2,000 feet and to exceed intersection spacing by not extending the stub street through this tract.

Mason Road is proposed to bisect this general plan in a southeasterly direction.

The applicant attends to realign the major fairfair starting along the northern boundary and has requested a deferral to allow additional time to finalize this proposal.

Staff recommends deferring the plat per the applicant's request.

Thank you, Mr.

Crittle.

I don't have anyone signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

You have a recommendation in front of you.

I need a motion.

Motion Jones.

Second.

Second force purple.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 71.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the planning commission.

My name is Tammy Williamson.

Item 71 is Generation Park East GP.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in eastern Harris County, bounded by East Sam Houston Tollway North, North Lake Houston Parkway, and Dewson Parkway.

The applicant is proposing a 2,000-acre general plan intended for commercial uses and is requesting two sets of variances.

One to exceed intersection spacing requirements along a portion of the GP boundary and several rights of way.

And two to have a reverse curved centerline radius of 1,500 feet in multiple locations in lieu of the ordinance required 2,000.

Staff is in support of the requests.

For the first two requests of the first variance, the applicant is requesting to exceed intersection spacing along the GP's southwestern portion by not providing public street connectivity south and west.

A portion of Sheldon Reservoir extends north of North Lake Houston Parkway and borders the subject site's southwestern boundary.

Adjacent to that is approximately 160 acres of wetlands owned by the Texas Park and Wildlife Department.

The need for a public through street connection in this area is minimal, especially in close proximity to the intersection of Beltway 8 and North Lake Houston Parkway.

The remaining intersection spacing variance requests are located around two areas within the general plan.

The first area, which is for large single-user industrial space, is located within Major Thoroughfares Timber Forest Drive and North Lake Houston Parkway to the west and south, and the proposed local street Common Dock Drive and a 375-foot wide HLMP transmission corridor and gas pipeline.

The ordinance does not require the crossing of the transmission corridor.

Strict interpretation of the ordinance would require an east-west street from Timber Forest Drive to Common Dock Drive and a North South Street from North Lake Houston to intersect with that required East-West Street.

The applicant is requesting to provide neither.

With the intent as a single user for a large industrial site, the intersection spacing requirements will only serve to provide internal circulation within this area.

Not requiring East-West Street and the corresponding North South Street would not greatly negatively impact the regional circulation.

The final intersection spacing variance request is not to provide an east-west public through street east from Common Dock Drive.

The intersection spacing along Common Dock Drive between North Lake Houston Parkway and the transmission corridor is only approximately 1,500 feet, exceeding by only 100 feet, and the site is intended for a single commercial user.

The second set of requested variances is to allow a center line radius of 1,500 feet at reverse curves along major thoroughfares, Timber Forest Drive, and Generation Parkway, in lieu of the ordinance required 2,000 foot radius.

The tighter curvature is an effort to cross both the pipeline and the transmission corridor at close to a 90-degree angle.

The applicant has already begun the review process with Harris County Engineering to ensure safe mobility, as the major thoroughfare roadway design will have to comply with Astro standards based on the reduced radius.

Harris County Engineering has no objection to the requests.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variances and approve the general plan subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

Staff has not received any public comments in advance.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 71.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, if you have no questions, I'll seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Montepark.

Motion Montepaca, second MADES.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 72.

Item 72 is Northwest 99 Business Park GP.

The site is located within Houston's ex-territorial jurisdiction in northwest Harris County, southeast of the Grand Parkway, along proposed Jurgon Road, and west of Mushke Road.

The applicant is proposing a general plan of 236 acres for industrial use and is requesting two variances.

One to exceed intersection spacing along the Grand Parkway, and two to exceed intersection spacing along Jurgen Road.

Staff is in support of both requests.

For the first request, the Grand Parkway at this location does not have a feeder access road, and cross streets are limited to those underpasses already planned, in this case, just the two major thoroughfares.

This segment is not grade separated, therefore, an exemption from the ordinance requirements is not by right.

However, the intent of the ordinance is still maintained.

The second request is to exceed intersection spacing along Jurgen Road by not providing a second north-south street to connect to the proposed East West Street.

The general plan proposes one internal collector street from further west on Jurgen Road that extends north and then west to connect to Old Mushke Road at the northeastern end of the GP.

The intended large industrial sites will be served by this collector street system, and additional internal streets would not greatly improve traffic circulation.

Likewise, south of Jurgen is Harris County Flood Control District property to aid in regional drainage, so no streets will be extended south.

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 101 form conditions.

Staff has not received any public comments in advance, and this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 72.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Hearing none, Commissioners, you have a recommendation in front of you.

Do I have a motion?

Second Mandepaca.

Motion Jones, second Montepaca, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 73.

Chair, I need to recuse myself from 72.

Yes.

Yes.

And staff would like to take item 72, 73, and 74 together.

Yes, please.

Item 73 is Oakhill Reserve GP and item 74 is Oakville Reserve Section 3.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Northwest Harris County, east and along Decker Prairie Rosehill Road and north of FM 2920.

The applicant is proposing a general plan of approximately 100 acres and is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing along the GP's eastern boundary by not providing a stub street.

Staff is in support of the request.

There are no east-west through streets along the east side of Decker Prairie Rosehill Road, south of Spring Creek until FM 2920, a distance of more than 6,000 feet.

Further east of the subject site is a network of existing and proposed minor collectors designated in an effort to resolve the lack of intersection connectivity for the area.

From the northernmost corner of the site to FM 2920 is approximately 3,760 feet.

However, requiring an east-west street from the subject site to stub into the large developed acreage tracks of the Holly Creek Unrecorded subdivision is unlikely to be extended, nor result in a completed network.

An opportunity for a future connection from Holly Creek to westward to Decker Prairie Rosehill Road could be from the hooked terminus of Holly Creek Trails, and likewise various opportunities from Holly Creek Trail eastward to Cobbs Road.

Harris County Engineering has no objection to the request.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variants and approve the general plan and Section 3 plat, subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

Staff has not received any public comments in advance.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak for item 73 or 74.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

All right.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation for both 73 and 74 to have a motion.

Motion Montepaca.

Motion Montepaca.

Second Victor, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 75.

Item 75 is Rod's campus on the pond.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in northern Harris County, south of FM 2920, and west of TC Jester Boulevard.

The applicant is proposing two reserves restricted to commercial use and is requesting two variances.

One, for both reserves not to have frontage along a public street, but instead to take access from an existing roadway easement, and two, not to extend or terminate in a cul-de-sac Braden Braden Hall Lane.

Staff is in support of both requests.

The site is currently partially utilized for commercial purposes.

The southern portion of the site was platted as a commercial reserve in 2016 and granted the same lack of frontage variants to take access via an existing access easement.

The same access easement would provide access to the subject site's proposed reserves as it has done for several decades.

For the second request, the current intersection spacing along the western boundary from FM 2920 to Albany Klein Drive is approximately 2,500 feet.

The Braden Hall Lane Stub Street is only 422 feet from the East West Major Thoroughfare, and requiring an east-west connection at this location would not significantly improve traffic circulation and would only usher commercial traffic through a residential area.

As a condition, we've also that Braden Hall Lane will be gated, and so no public access will be through the stub street from the residential, commercial, commercial, residential.

Harris County Engineering has no objection to the request.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variance and approve the plat subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

Staff has not received any public comments in advance.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak for item 75.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay, Commissioners, you have a recommendation to grant the requested variance and approve the plat.

Do I have a motion?

Motion.

Motion Montepaca, second MADES.

Did you have a question?

Well, I was just going to say I'm I'm pretty familiar with this company, and yeah, those are not the type of trucks that we would want.

Going to a residential committee.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay.

So we have a motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Madam.

Yes.

Okay, let me see.

I'm sure I think we do.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Thanks, Commissioner Baldwin.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now we're moving on to item 76.

All right.

Item 76 is San Jacento Memorial Site Expansion.

The site is located in the ETJ of Harris County, west along Beltway 8th, just north of Interstate 10 and south of Wood Forest Boulevard.

The applicant is requesting the variance to exceed intersection spacing by not extending multiple stub streets and to allow access through a recorded access easement.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a vacant 17-acre tract intended for cemetery and related uses.

The site is bounded by Beltway 8 to the east, Galena Park Elementary to the north, and the Houston Manor subdivision to the west.

There are numerous streets from the subdivision that are required to be extended to address intersection spacing.

Justification for not requiring the street to be extended is based on the use of the property.

This development is an extension of the existing San Jacinto Memorial Park.

This site does have sufficient frontage along the beltway.

However, the site will get vehicular and pedestrian access through a recorded access easement connecting to the existing memorial site.

Granting this variance will allow the cemetery site to be extended without introducing public traffic through the site.

Staff has not received any objection to the request and recommends granted the requested variants in approving the plat subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 76.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay, Commissioners, you have a recommendation to grant the requested variants.

Do I have a motion?

Motion, colleague.

Second.

Second Hines.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 77.

Item 77 is SMC group.

This item has been deferred twice.

Excuse me, this application has been deferred one time, sorry.

The site is located in Montgomery County, north of Major Therapy 1314 and east of Valley Ranch Parkway.

The applicant is requesting a variance to not dedicate 15 feet of right-of-way along Mayor Road.

The applicant is proposing a multifamily site with 25 units along a public right-of-way which is 30 feet wide.

The applicant has been made aware that Montgomery County is not in support of the requested variance to not dedicate the required right-of-way.

The dead end portion of Mayor Road is not improved, and the applicant is considering acquired has excuse me.

The applicant has considered acquiring a portion of the right-of-way from Montgomery County and has requested a second deferral to present this proposal to uh Montgomery County.

Madam Chair, this concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak for item 77.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation to defer per applicant request or have a motion.

Motion via plan.

Second.

Okay.

Second Rosenberg, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 78.

Item 78 is Tulugu Bavanum.

The site was deferred, or excuse me, this item was deferred at the previous meeting.

This item was deferred at the previous meeting.

The site is located within the ETJ within Harris County, west of Pitts, north of FM 529, and east of the Waller-Harris County line.

The applicant proposes a reserve for a community and recreation center.

The applicant is requesting variances to allow for a 50-foot right-of-way frontage instead of the required 60 feet, and to allow for excessive intersection spacing by not requiring a north-south and two east-west streets for the site.

Staff recommends a second deferral for further study and review.

According to HCAD, the plat would separate an budding acreage tract from access.

We have discussed possible solutions with the applicant to address this issue and expect to have an adjusted plat by next meeting.

And we have received no advanced written comment in this item.

Thank you, Mr.

Butler.

I have no one signed to speak on item 78.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation to defer.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Sigler.

Second Montepark.

Second Montepaca.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 79.

Item 79 is the Texas Petroleum Group Greens Road.

The site was deferred.

This application was also deferred to the previous meeting.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limit, north of Beltway 8 and south of the George Bush Intercontinental Airport.

The applicant proposes a reserve for a new gas station.

The applicant initially requested a variance for a five-foot reduced building line along Greens.

They have since withdrawn the variance and have removed the five-foot building line from the plat.

The application before you has been found to meet Chapter 42 per the CPC 101 form conditions.

And staff recommends approval, and we have received no advanced written comment.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 79.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation for approval.

Do I have a motion?

Motion, colleague.

Second highish.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, I am going to recuse myself from the next two items 80 and 81.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, let's move on to E, special exceptions.

Staff would like to take items 881 together.

Yes, please.

Items 80 and 81 are Blue Creek Trails, Peak Road, Street Dedication and Reserves, and Blue Creek Trails Section 1.

The subject site is an over 25 acre property located in the Fort Bink County extraterritorial jurisdiction, north along Grand Parkway 99 at the intersection of Peak Road.

The applicant is proposing two detention reserves and a dedication of portions of a major thoroughfare of Peak Road and the major collector Meadow Ranch Parkway.

The special exception being requested is to exceed the minimum intersection spacing along a major thoroughfare to allow Meadow Ranch to be less than 600 feet from Lavender Pines.

Staff is in support of the request.

The proposed offset is 512 feet, which is only a 15 percent deviation from the standard and the intent within the intent of the ordinance.

The proposed right-of-ways are a majority of the MTFP right-of-way alignments in the overall general plan.

However, the applicant is proposing changes to the approved general plan right-of-way network that was previously granted special exceptions.

The current proposal would require additional variances or amendments to the proposed alignment to comply with Chapter 42.

Staff recommendation is deferred is to defer the plat for two weeks to allow the applicant to coordinate with staff in Fort McCoy Engineering regarding the proposed major thoroughfare alignment.

Madam Chair, this concludes that's presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 80 or 81.

You have a motion to defer in front of you.

I mean, excuse me, a recommendation.

Trying to jump ahead here.

Motion, Garza.

Second Jones, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to F.

Reconsideration of requirement.

Item 82 is MHOF storage.

The subject site is a nearly 10-acre property located in the Harris County extraterritorial jurisdiction, north along M.

Hoff Road between the major thoroughfares of Kermere Road and Hagar Road.

The applicant is proposing one large commercial reserve and one single family residential lot, and it's requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by now providing a north-south or east-west street through the property.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is proposed to have a storage facility with detention in the southern portion and a two-acre lot along the local road Mhof Street.

The application was deferred last cycle as there was an initial intent to leave the northern two acres of the property undeveloped, which created concern for future potential development.

In the deferral period, the applicant has altered the layout to remove those concerns with the proposal of the lot.

The subject site is within a strong right-of-way grid as Cremier, future Cremier Road, Waller Spring Creek Road, and Higgard Road are all major thoroughfares.

The Palmus Park Thomas Park subdivision to the west was granted a variance to not provide any northwest or east uh north-south or east-west streets.

As such would hinder any east-west streets going through the subject site.

The large surrounding tracks do not incur heavy traffic and have a sufficient frontage and connection to the existing right-of-way network.

At this time, right-of-ways dedicated within the plat are not needed and should be and should forward development trigger requirements for North South Street.

There are other opportunities between the subject site and Thomas Park.

Harris County Engineering Department has no objection to the variance.

Staff recommendation is to grant the requested variance and approve the plant subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

Madam Chair, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on this item.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation to grant the requested variants.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Mondopaca.

Second Matas, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chairman refused from item 83.

Okay, please note.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Item 83 is Kirkendall Village Section 1.

This item was deferred at the previous meeting.

The site is located within the ETJ within Harris County along Kirkendall Road between Huff Smith Kirkendall and the Grand Parkway.

The applicant proposes a subdivision of single-family lots along public and private streets.

The applicant is requesting reconsideration of a previously approved special exception to allow less than 600 feet of intersection spacing along a major thoroughfare while removing a condition to restrict the intersection of Dowdale Arbor to right in and right out.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is located along Kirkendall between two proposed collector streets, Lindsey Road to the north and Avalon Lake Crest to the south.

The applicant proposes a local street that is the greatest distance between these two intersections.

The applicant has was recently granted a special exception to do this, with a condition that Dowdell Arbor be restricted to right turns in and out.

The applicant is now requesting to remove this condition.

The condition was intended to coordinate with a future traffic signal located at a planned intersection of Lindsay Road.

However, constructing the street will involve coordination with other affected property owners, leaving its timetable uncertain.

Grant the request would allow for the applicant to move forward with Dowdale Arbor as a signalized entrance to the development while allowing for construction of Lindsay Road in the future.

Staff finds the request to be a practical alternative to strict interpretation of Chapter 42 and recommends approval.

Harris County has expressed no objection, and we have received no advanced written comment.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 83.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation to grant the requested special exception to have a motion.

Motion Mondipark.

Motion Mondopaca.

Second Victor.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving on to extensions of approval.

G.

Chair.

Just a reminder, I need to recruit from 84 and 90.

Yes.

Okay.

And I believe Commissioner Heis, you've got a couple in here, too.

Yes, Madam Chair, abstain from items 86 and 87.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the planning commission.

My name is Adesso Giadeshyoju.

If it please the Commission staff would like to take G H I and J as one group.

It does please the Commission.

Okay.

Sections G, extensions of approval consists of items 84 to 94.

Section H name changes consists of no items.

Section I certification of compliance consists of item 95.

Section J Administrative consists of no items.

The planning and development department requests the approval of all staff recommendations for sections G, H, I, and J.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion pours purple.

Second.

Second Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to K development platform variance requests.

Item 96 is 1702 Hardy Street.

The site is located along Hardy at Harrington Streets, west of Elijah, within the near North Side Complete Community.

The applicant proposes a single family home on an existing lot.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a five-foot side building line along Hardy instead of the required 20 feet.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is located at the northeastern intersection of Hardy and Harrington Streets.

The site is part of the Cascara subdivision, which was recorded in 1891.

A home was constructed in the northern 42 feet of the original lot, leaving the site measuring 24 feet wide by 68 feet deep.

When factoring in both the southern and western setbacks and visibility triangle, the site offers few options to develop using strict interpretation of Chapter 42.

The applicant proposes a rear-facing garage and parking pad accessible from Hardy.

The perpendicular garage and on-site parking will discourage parked cars from obstructing the right-of-way.

Staff finds this to be a practical solution considering the site's size and size and corner location.

Staff recommends approval and we have received no advance written comment.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on.

Yes, I do.

I'm sorry.

I do have the applicant here if we have questions.

Anybody have any questions?

Okay.

So now you have the recommendation for approval from staff.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Sigler.

Motion Sigler.

Second Garza.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 97.

Item 97 is 1817 Sharp Place.

The site is located along South Shepherd, west of Sharp Place, and south of West Gray Street.

The applicant proposes a small addition to an existing home with an existing rear-facing garage.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow this addition to be situated 10 feet from Shepherd rather than the required 25 feet for major thoroughfares.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site consists of a home fronting Sharp Place within the River Oaks community.

This street consists of lots fronting a landscape courtyard with garage access to the rear.

The subject site is one of multiple homes with rear access along Shepherd, a condition predating Chapter 42 and the 25-foot building line requirement.

It's something else, not keep going.

Thank you.

The existing home has long encroached over the building line, and the applicant is seeking to add a 360 square foot addition to it.

The existing driveway along Shepherd features a turnaround, reducing instances of cars backing into the thoroughfare.

In addition, Shepherd is a 70-foot thoroughfare with numerous intersection space intersection space less than 600 feet apart, resulting in slower speeds than a typical major thoroughfare.

Furthermore, the request is compatible with a similar variance granted by the planning commission on a property to the south.

Staff recommends granting the requested variance, and we receive written support from the River Oaks Property Owners Association.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Butler.

Sorry about that.

Okay.

We are on item 97.

I do have a speaker, Miss Jennifer Poole.

Yeah, question.

Okay.

Do you just for questions?

Okay.

So Commissioners, uh, do you have any questions?

Okay.

So you have a recommendation of approval.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Hines.

Motion Jones, second Hines.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

All right.

Moving on to Ramon Numeral 2, establish a public hearing date of October 16th, 2025 for the following.

Bradford Village, Enjoy Properties, Estates at Laura Cope Road, Fairview Patio Homes, Hazard Street Vista, Nantucket Villas, Newport Greens Acres, Green Acres, Spring Stubner Commerce Center, Springdale Estates, Springdale Hill, Springdale Place, Yamakam Estates, and Vaughn Street Project.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Heisch?

Second Mates.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

Yes.

16th.

I said 16.

Okay.

Yes.

Yeah, but thank you.

But I did say, because that's what is on my agenda.

Okay.

Thanks.

Okay.

So we need to go back and reconsider item 94.

So I I don't know who made the motion in the second.

Oh, I have it.

Okay.

No, I don't.

Okay.

That was the MD Anderson.

Cancer Center East.

Who made the motion?

The whole thing.

Okay.

That's why it's not written there.

Okay.

We re need to reconsider item 94.

Do you know?

I don't think you need to reconsider per se.

I just asked that you have another vote with the Commissioner recusing us.

Okay.

To make that clear.

So I want to vote just on this item.

Okay.

All right.

So I need to.

Okay.

So I have a motion by Colleen to.

I'm sorry.

We just want to clean up that record.

So I have a motion by Commissioner Kolick.

Second by Garza.

Second by Garza.

Colvard.

All in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Okay.

Moving along now, thank you to Remember Numeral 3, consideration of a Blue Star Inn slash Hotel Motel located on South Sam Houston East Parkway.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Roman number three, Blue Star Inn and Suites located at 8401 South Sam Houston East Parkway.

The site is located along the South Beltway 8 between Telephone Road and Black Hawk Boulevard.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a hotel to take access through a recorded access easement instead of having direct access to the service road, major therapy, or four-lane public street.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a vacant 37,000 square foot tract intended to house a 40-room Blue Star Inn hotel.

Strict application of the rules requires the hotel to have frontage and take direct access from the service road, major therapy, or four-lane local street.

In this scenario, the site does have sufficient frontage along the service road, but there is no curb cut for direct access to the travel lanes of the service road.

The hotel is proposed to take access from an existing access easement that has direct access to the service road.

The access easement is 25 feet in width and is shared amongst multiple commercial sites.

This is a common practice for development along service roads and feeder roads.

Justification for supporting the request is that Texas Department of Transportation limits the number of driveways within close proximity of existing curb cuts.

Staff has notified the council office of this request and has not received any objection, and staff recommends granting the requested variance, and this concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on Roman numeral three.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a motion recommendation for approval.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second to hear.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

So I have no one signed to speak for public comment.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

All right.

Hearing none, we will adjourn this meeting at 4 20 p.m.

Thank you.