Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm Lisa Clark.

I'm the chair of the Houston Planning Commission, and I'm calling this meeting to order at 232 p.m.

on Thursday, October 2nd, 2025.

This is an in-person meeting taking place in the City Hall annexed at 900 Bag B.

You may also monitor the meeting by viewing the viewing via HTV.

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

Consent and repeat speakers are allowed for one minute.

New speakers are timed for two minutes.

Speaker rules are found on the top portion of the speaker's 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 rebuttal.

And uh non-applicants and general speakers are allowed two minutes time.

There's not an option for rebuttal, even if you did not use your full two minutes, and you will not be allowed to speak again and cannot time pass your time to another speaker.

To establish a quorum of 11, I'll call the roll.

Chair Clark is present, Vice Chair Garza.

Present.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Baldwin present.

Commissioner Colvard.

Colvard present.

Commissioner Heich.

I'm present.

Commissioner Heinz.

Hines present.

Commissioner Jones.

Jones present.

Commissioner Khalik is absent.

Commissioner Mates.

Commissioner Porspertle is not here.

Commissioner Siegler.

Sigler present.

Commissioner Tahir.

Commissioner Victor.

Victor present.

Commissioner Mondopaca.

I was looking over there.

I didn't see you for a second.

And our Secretary Von Tran.

Tran present.

Thank you.

We have 13 members present, so we meet quorum.

Okay.

Uh gonna let you guys know that we have one item that's been withdrawn, which is item 74, Mill Plaza.

That means we'll not hear anything or take any action on this item today.

And now I'll call for 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 is the 2025 PCFU Platin Workshop will be held on Thursday, October 23rd from 8 a.m.

until 4 p.m.

At the third ward multi-center, auditorium room 129 at 3611 Ena Street in Houston, Texas, 7704.

You can register at Houston Planning.com.

I have uh the second announcement is that on Tuesday, October the 7th, from 6 to 9, our planning and development department will have some planners participating in the national night to out events.

We hope to see you there.

They will be in the sunny side, fifth ward, and third ward and near north side area.

So hopefully you'll be out and visit us.

They are going to be sharing uh some tools about planning.

Uh they'll be answering questions about ordinances and additional resources that are available to our community.

So 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.

And our website is Houston Planning.com.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Tran.

Now we'll move on to consideration of Planning Commission meeting minutes.

The prior minutes of September 18th, 2025 have been posted on the agenda.

May I have a motion?

Motion Baldwin, second Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Now I need a separate separate vote.

Uh so I need a motion for your prior minutes of our major thoroughfare and freeway planning meeting on September 18th, 2025 that were posted on the agenda.

Motion Jones.

Motion Jones.

Uh second Sigler, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

All right.

And we will move along to plating activity.

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

My name is Akilah Bidgee.

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

Sections A and B are items 1 through 93.

Sections A, consent items are numbers 1 through 45, and Section B replot items are 46 through 93.

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

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

Thank you.

Before we do that, we need to make a correction to the meeting minutes.

Commissioner Hines, was it for both meetings or just planning commission?

You were here, yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

So we'll revise that motion and second and move forward.

Okay.

Now I know I have some uh folks that need to recuse themselves.

Uh Commissioner Motas.

Yes, items nine, ten, seventeen, twenty-five, twenty-six, thirty-nine, and forty-five.

Thank you.

Commissioner Heich.

Yes, Madam Chair, I need to abstain from items four, eight, nine, ten, eighteen, twenty, thirty-seven, and thirty-eight.

Thank you.

Uh is there anyone else?

Okay.

So I need a motion for um items A and B, save and accept four, eight, nine, ten, seventeen, eighteen, twenty, twenty-five, twenty-six, thirty-seven, thirty-eight, thirty-nine, and forty-five.

Do I have a motion to hear?

Motion to hear.

Second, Victor, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Now I need a motion for those items four, eight, nine, ten, seventeen, eighteen, twenty, twenty-five, twenty-six, thirty-seven, thirty-eight, thirty-nine, and forty-five.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Jones.

Motion Jones.

To hear.

Second to here.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Our next item is C public hearings.

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

My name is Araceli Rodriguez.

Item 94 is Coastal Inclair Replat number one.

The site is located in the city limit, north of Reed Road and east of Jutland Road.

The purpose of the Wii Plat is to create 10 single family lots and two parking reserve and to revise the dentity table.

No variances are being requested with this item.

For legal review of the proposed replot will not violate applicable restriction.

The applicant has not met the notification requirement.

Therefore, um requesting um a deferral.

So applicant recommendation is to defer for the applicable request to allow time to meet notice.

That did not receive any public comment in event.

Madam Chair, it's a pleasure to commission.

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

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

If you wouldn't mind restating your name for the record, I'd appreciate it.

Yes, my name is Travis McGee.

All right, I'm the Civic President and also the South Park Super Neighborhood President.

And uh I've been the civic president for 23 years over there.

Chapter 42 is a horror ordinance to start off with.

Uh since they've been billing the drainage has gotten worse, our uh sewer lines has been getting bagged up and things like that.

So it was already flooding, but it flooded worse now because they're putting more concrete down.

They could build these things up to 75 feet in the air.

They could put at least four to six to eight on one or two lots.

So it's doing more good than harm.

I mean, doing more harm than good for our community.

It is pricing us out of our community or is flooding us out of our community.

So the more concrete you put down, the more water is going to be f trying to find places to go to.

So and I actually lived on clover when I was a kid.

So I I know the difference.

So it is Chapter 42 ordinance is just horrible for our area.

Some areas have lots 25,000 square feet, where they could put eight to ten of these structures on one lot.

It doesn't make much sense.

And then when the city come out and inspect, they don't do what they supposed to, because in the past, the feces and urine has started to bag up the people houses in different areas with the same exact type of construction due to the same ordinance.

So we we oppose this particular uh project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this item?

Okay.

Yes.

Commissioner Colvard.

Do we know why they didn't meet the required notification period?

So the legal notice that I posted on the new paper, it was published two days late.

So with the deferral, it will meet the 20-day requirement for notification for Chapter 42.

So then when if we defer it when it comes back, we would only, you know, if there is an issue with it, we can only defer one more time.

Right.

Which means we might reject it.

You know, I mean if it's, you know, right.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

All right.

And I was going to ask Mr.

Brown to get with Mr.

McGee, but he beat me to the punch.

Thank you, Mr.

Brown.

Um having no one else signed to speak, I will continue the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation of deferral.

Motion involved.

Second Hines, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Please note that Commissioner Porce Purdle is here.

Okay.

Item 95.

Item 95 is Virndale Landing.

The site is located in the city limit west of Kirby Drive and south of West Time Road.

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

No variances are being requested with this item.

And the applicant has met all the notification requirements.

Per legal, the proposed plat will not violate applicable restriction.

And that recommendation is to approve the plat, substitute the CPC 101 form condition, and a five B right-of-way dedication along Vernadale Street.

Staff did not receive any public comment in event.

Madam Chair, it is the pleasure to the Commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 95 is open.

I have no one signed to speakers.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Sigler.

Second Jones.

Second Jones, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 96.

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

My name is Dorianne Poe Flem.

Item 96 is Free Park Plaza.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits at the northwest intersection of Interstate Highway 45 and Park Place.

The reason for replot is to create one commercial reserve.

This item was deferred at the last planning commission to allow legal additional time to review the separately filed deed restrictions.

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

The applicant has requested that this item be deferred to confer with legal concerning the separately filed deed restrictions.

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

Staff has not received any advanced comments for this item, and the applicant has met all notification requirements.

Madam Chair, but please the Commission, you may continue the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 96 is continued.

I don't have anyone signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

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

Yes, Commissioner Mottes.

Question.

Can we just get a little bit more detailed about what the violation is?

And I I asked because there are already structures on the property, so I just um they currently in violation or so our the notes on our legal deed restriction reviews state that um the original deed restrictions are residential use.

Um I do know that the applicant has noted something about an amendment that was done in the last couple of years, but we have concerns about that amendment.

So that's why we have stated that there is a violation at this time.

Commissioner Colvard.

And is there an issue with the is there an issue with the fact that it's uh within the airspace at Hobby Airport?

I see a note there.

But that's not that's irrelevant, right, to this concern.

Outside my purview, to be frank with you.

I am here for deed restrictions, but Ms.

Pifflim, do you know the answer to that?

Oh, that's just a requirement.

It's in that uh it's it's in the uh tier, airport tier.

So it wouldn't have anything to do with the those deed restrictions, but they would have to adhere to the requirements of of being in the airport here.

Okay, thank you.

Did I close the public hearing?

Yeah, I think I did, and I was seeking a motion.

Motion Motas.

Second Covart, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 97.

Item 97 and Holy Street village.

The site is located in the city limit east of Sherpa Drive and north of West Timer Drive.

The purpose of the wee plat is to create two single family lot.

No variances are being requested with this item.

And per legal, the Papua Plat will violate applicable restriction because it does not reflect the required two fee site builder line between the lot.

The applicant has requested to defer the plot to allow additional time to coordinate with legal regarding this restriction.

So that recommendation is to the further plat heard the applicant request.

Staff did not receive any public comment in event, Madam Chair, is the pleasure of the commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 97 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay, I'll continue the public hearing.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

If not, I'll need a motion.

Motion, horse purple.

Motion.

Second Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 98.

98 Luka Resident.

The site is located in Houston ETJ in Harris County.

East of Cookendal Road and North of Que Forest Drive.

The purpose of the Wii Plat is to create one single family lot.

No variances are being requested with this item.

The applicant has met all the notification requirements.

That did not receive any public comment in advance.

Madam Chair, it's the pleasure to the commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 98 is open.

I have a speaker, Joseph Bryant.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Joseph Bryant.

And I'm opposed to this lot here.

Right, it wasn't a lot.

It was part of the uh golf course.

And uh we live right next to the Five EO Club, so we already have an issue with uh parking in that area when the residents that live there that's a member of the club when they park there and make it really key eyes and hard and difficult to get around the CODASAC.

Uh it was our attention that uh me and my family uh we would be the last house on that CODA sec.

And so when we saw a sign pop, we we really didn't know what recourse we had.

It's it's not a big lot, and uh a lot we have a lot of traffic in terms of the residents that walk through there, the kids is uh a way you walk through there, you get to the front of the neighborhood in the playground, and uh we have a lot of vendors and things of that nature to come through there.

So those are some of the biggest concerns that that I have as a as a resident there.

Uh the safety, the parking with the space already as tight as it is it is, and so I just wanted to come today and voice some of the concerns that some of the residents in the neighborhood have have been have been voicing.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Commissioners.

Any questions?

Madam Chair, if I'm individual.

Uh it's just simply deed restrictions or another defense that they may have to apply, reaching out to the homers' association and consider the deed restrictions, whether or not this was part uh included in the restrictions or not, since you say it was not part of the golf course or disabled the golf course.

So you just throwing out another suggestion is to reach out to the homers association and and have the conversation about the restrictions and inclusion and factors that that apply there.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Jones.

Any anyone else?

Okay.

So I will um continue the public hearing and seek a motion for deferral.

Motion Manda Park.

Motion Mandapaka.

Second Mata.

Second Motes.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 99.

Item 99 is New Florida's estate.

The site is in Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Harris County, Texas.

West along Doula Lane, north of Miles Street, south of Cyprus and off Euston Road.

The reason for replat is to create one lot and one commercial reserve.

Review by legal indicates that this plat will not violate restrictions filed separately.

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

There are no variants requested with this item.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

Staff has received advanced comments for this item concerning replating the portion of the lot into a commercial use.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 99 is open.

I have a speaker, Angela Nix.

Can I get clarity what the use of lot one would be then on the replant?

What can they use lot one for?

I understand that commercial on the bottom part, but what would the use be of lot one?

The lot um well the lot one would be for uh single single family.

Residential use.

Yeah, only yes.

And then the bottom one would be commercial.

Yeah, for commercial, yes.

Sure.

Yep, great.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Angela Nix.

Thank you so much.

My name is Angela Nix.

I'm representing the seven neighbors on East Morgan that face this particular situation.

And if you can imagine a big donut with 17 homes all backing up to this property.

And on October 12th of 2021, Pedro Flores opened a reception hall.

This hall is basically just a big metal building next to his personal residence.

Um it's roughly 4.4 acres total.

And then he poured a big black top next to the party hall.

So it's home, blacktop, party hall.

This reception facility holds a maximum of 250 people.

Uh most Saturday nights there are events going on.

Um so we as neighbors are against this because we're already suffering so much from what we've had to live with the last three and a half years.

And this is um many, many pages of his current both face active Facebook page with the most recent entry two weeks ago showing at Kinsenera.

The other pages are straight from his website.

Document camera, please.

And the front picture that shows the front of this venue.

You can clearly see my home right behind it.

So that just shows you how how close I am to this particular predicament.

So this also is a very partial list of all the times that the sheriff has been called.

Um not too long ago, the the music was so loud that a mirror in my bedroom fell off the wall from the base, the rattling of the wall, crashed onto the floor in my bedroom.

So there's this police calls.

Um it's my understanding that at least three people from East Morgan have emailed you with their concerns.

Step up quickly.

Yes.

So anyway, we are at the very least asking you to do some more research.

It's way more in person than it appears on paper.

He's already been doing this illegally for three years, and we're concerned what is going to happen if it's really a commercial lot.

Can he get a liquor license?

I mean, the it's just very scary.

And he's already operating outside the law.

So great.

Thank you so much for coming in.

Commissioners, any questions?

Commissioner Baldwin.

Ms.

Nix, do you happy to know if he has a certificate of occupancy for his use?

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Colgaard.

Have you engaged your council member as well on this issue?

No.

Yeah.

It's in the ETJ.

Yeah.

Gotcha.

And and so then do we know what the um So there was not a commercial permit before?

And they've been operating like this?

Well, this property is in the ETJ in Harris County.

Okay.

And I I actually have a voicemail on my phone from October 17th and 21 for 51 seconds, where Pedro Flores goes on and on about there's nothing you can do about it.

My business is a nighttime business.

It's always on Saturday nights.

There's nothing you can do about it.

Thank you, Ms.

Nix.

Thank you.

The representative from Harris County is here.

Okay, great.

Yes.

Good afternoon.

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

My name is Matt Tangan.

I would answer Colard's question.

I did some research into the permits that I could look up, and none of them mentioned a commercial building or facility at all.

So that's all I can confirm right now that I'm not saying there wasn't one, but I couldn't find one.

And to be clear, one is required, right?

Yes.

In this case, yeah, to operate as a commercial business, one wouldn't need to be required.

Yes, Commissioner Garza.

So my question would be that being the case, typically this body is only about bringing people into compliance.

There is no penalties or charges that we can put.

So what is what would be the situation for this particular item vis-a-vis permits and all of that?

So there is a link on the engineering department website where you can it's under several other things, so I'd have to send it to Dorian and she could um maybe disperse it to the uh resident of the area, but it's a way to you can kind of highlight and um ask questions about if something was permitted or not to the engineering department.

Okay, so Ms.

Poflin, will you get that information and provide it to Ms.

Nick so she can share that with her neighbors?

Okay.

Thank you so much for that.

We appreciate it.

Yes, Commissioner Baldwin.

I mean, I'm I'm inclined to seek a deferral for two weeks so we could check a little more into this if he's been operating illegally for several years and to know what the requirements might be.

I don't know anything about the ETGA, so I don't know about parking or signage or anything, but I'm inclined to head that down to the case.

I think your concern is is that we grant the requested variants, they may get a commercial lot.

Then we're kind of automatically saying it's a commercial piece and review.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions or comments?

Any additional folks that would like to speak.

Okay.

So we have a recommendation in front of us.

Um did I close a public hearing?

No, I did not.

I need to make it.

That's right.

I need to continue the public hearing, probably.

Yes.

I move to defer this for two weeks.

It's uh we'll let the county check into it.

Okay.

Motion by Baldwin, second by Colvard.

So we're continuing the public hearing.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 100.

Item 100 is Plaza Estates at Solo.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits, west along Solo Street, north of Interstate Highway 10.

The reason for replot is to create one lot.

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

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

The applicant has met all notification requirements, and staff has not received advanced comments for this item.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 100 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there any moment that wishes to?

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

Motion, Victor.

Motion Victor.

Second Hines.

Second Heinz, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 101.

Item 101 is reserved at Ruth Street.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits at the southwest intersection of Jackson and Roof Streets north of Blodgett Street.

The reason for replat is to create two single-family residential lots.

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

There are no variants requested with this item.

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

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

Staff has not received any advanced comments for this item.

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 101 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to speak?

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

Motion Jones.

Motion Jones.

Second forest purple.

Second porus purdle.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 102.

Item 102 is Talton Twins.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits at the northwest intersection of Talton Street and Surrey Street, west of Mesa Drive.

The reason for replat is to create two single-family residential lots.

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

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.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

Staff has not received any advanced comments for this item.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 102 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 Victor, second Matez.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 103.

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

My name is Ken Calhoun.

Item 103 is West Haven Estates, Section 1, partial replat number 11.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits, north of Westheimer, east along Nantucky Drive.

The purpose of the reply is to create eight single family lots and two parking reserves.

There are no variants requested with this item, and the applicant has met all notification requirements.

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.

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 103 is open.

I do have some speakers.

Roberto De Quino.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Roberto Daquino.

I'm the president of the Hormonia Association on the court on Nantucket Grove.

And I've been living at a 2525 Nantucket Unit 9 for the last 30 years.

And in that case, of course, that uh that will be a very sad very sad story.

Apart from this, um we have a fence which borders with the with the lot 170, which is our fence.

We in the last 30 years we replaced the fence twice.

Last time was when last year when there was the hurricane, and we all replaced our fence.

So I would like to know exactly what is the distance between the new houses that they wanted to build to our fence.

Not only, but I would like to understand if the developer intends to build his own fence.

We don't want the developer to use our own fence.

For example, which is the only way where the AT can get to his house.

I need you to wrap up real quick.

That because of the last hurricane is uh about to fall and to fall in onto lot 170.

On those easements, I need you to wrap up really quickly.

Sir I need you to wrap up your way over time.

The bell rang a while ago.

Sorry?

I said the bell rang quite some time ago, so I need you to wrap up really quickly.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

You don't have to stop if you had a last sentence you wanted to say.

Yes, just wrap it up.

I would also say something about this easement.

Uh in easement, which uh um a few years ago I talked to neighborhood protection uh because uh the electrical cables uh are in uh uh along those uh poles, the utility cables and uh with uh the trees that are on those easements can create a big problems.

Neighborhood protection came.

I was with the inspector, but nothing has been done.

In the easement, there is a lot of there are also a lot of animals.

Two years ago we had an invasion of a possum.

I'm going to have to cut you off now.

I'm going to have to cut you off now, because you're like two and a half times what what time you have.

But thank you so much.

Thank you.

Ms.

Owens, I know that you signed only to answer questions, but do you want to address any of those items?

Yes.

Okay, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners.

My name is Joyce Owens, and I represent the applicant.

And I have spoken to Mr.

Roberto.

Did I get it right on the phone?

And so he um he did express his concerns, and I have talked to the builder.

Um right now they don't know, they don't have their plans where this is going to be two stories or three stories.

However, they are committed to uh keeping the character of the neighborhood.

So I did express to them that that was important.

Uh regarding um, there is not a utility easement to my knowledge that's recorded.

However, we have reached out uh to our surveyors to actually look at that going down the side.

Um as far as the fence, he he he's very clear he does he doesn't he wants his own fence, and we're gonna uh go by that.

The developer will put their own fence in, and I'm sure it will be on the property line.

As far as the trees, I'm not aware of the trees, but I'm sure I'll let them know.

I know they recently cut the grass, so I'll let them know, and I'm sure they won't be able to build if there is a tree there as long as it's not in the right of way and requires a permit from the urban forester.

And I have spoken with the other neighbor.

Tell me your name again.

Sherry Whitley.

Ms.

Sherry Whitley.

I can speak to the cats because she has a permit from the city to take care of the cats.

You have a what cat colony?

She has a cat colony that resides on this property.

So she made me aware of that today.

And we will work with the owners to make sure because they are she's been taking care of them and medications and all of that.

So we're going to make sure that they get safely to wherever they are supposed to be.

She will.

So I am aware of that situation.

Any other questions?

Commissioners, any other questions?

Yes, Commissioner Garza.

Um, thank you for being here.

So on the Eastern Foundry, it's the right-hand side of the page.

Um, what is that?

It looks like it's just open space on the far right-hand side at the end of the driveway.

Is that a drainage ditch?

I don't have on my glasses.

Y'all help me out.

What is it?

It's a utility easement.

Utility easement.

Okay, so that is going to be remain unchanged.

Absolutely.

It's gonna be it has to remain.

And then it looks like the you have got a three-foot, uh, three to five foot surround, right?

Right, it has a three-foot emergency access easement.

Okay.

And then the other is a build-in line per D restriction.

All right.

So that's the same.

So pretty standard stuff.

Sir.

Pretty standard stuff.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Any other questions?

I have one.

What's your badge of honor there, say?

Uh today is my birthday.

I thought so.

So happy birthday.

Thank you.

My staff.

That doesn't mean we're going easy on you.

Well, that's good.

They should recognize your birthday.

Thank you, Ms.

Owens.

All right.

Thank you.

Anything else?

I think that's it.

And I will continue to stay in touch with the neighbors through the process, so they'll be able to know when they are going to start construction.

I think that's important for the neighbors, so we'll stay in touch with them.

Great.

We appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Whitley, did you want to speak?

Could you please come up, state your full name for us, please?

It's Cherry Whitley, and yes, I do have a uh feral cat colony license by BARC.

Um I lived on Nantucket for 40 years, and I understand the importance of trying to keep the population down, especially with cats, when I have a lot of problems of people not agreeing with what I do.

Um is actually kept the colony down to a minimal amount versus 5,000.

And every time I do get the kittens, I'm able to go to rescue pet movement who takes them in and moves them.

I have been doing this for 35 years, 40 years.

I've been on TV.

All I ask in sh um Joyce.

Joyce, thank you.

Joyce said she would uh apply with just don't kill them, don't poison, don't shoot them.

I'll do the best I can to move them.

Um it's growing over there.

I understand.

This is the only home I know.

The previous uh owners were feeding them.

So I've just kept the population down and I've spent thousands and thousands of dollars on food, on vet care, doing the best I can, but I do need the help of other people, which I don't get because I get screamed at a lot, but a lot of people are very appreciative of it.

So I'll work with Joyce in making sure that we do the best we can to move, because this is the only home these animals have known.

That would be great.

And I appreciate your efforts.

I am very familiar with uh RPM rescue pet minutes.

So thank you for all of that.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

Do I have anyone else that wishes to speak?

All right.

Hearing none.

I am still in public hearing, so I will close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza?

Second Maddows, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving to D, subdivision platz with variances.

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

My name is Jeff Butler.

I am sorry, Madam Chair.

I need to step away from this item.

Okay.

Does it give us a question?

Item 104 is Ace and Ivy River Oaks.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limit along West or this was deferred at the last meeting.

It is located along West Alabama, north of Richmond, west of Kirby, and south of Westheimer.

The applicant proposes a reserve for a mixed use development.

The applicant is requesting variances to allow for a zero-foot building line along three public rightway frontages instead of the required ten.

Staff recommends a second deferral per the applicant's request.

The site is located within the upper Kirby community near the city's transit-oriented development areas.

As such, the site is near numerous recent development that have opted into the city's performance standards where pedestrian enhancements are allowed in lieu of specific setback requirements.

The applicant has asserted that their development will provide similar benefits to the pedestrian realm.

In order for this application to demonstrate consistency with the intent of Chapter 42, it should achieve similar results as existing reduced building line performance standards, especially considering that this development is new construction.

The application does not feature qualities that can be favorably compared with nearby pedestrian realm improvements, and the applicant has been instructed to correct specific deficiencies.

The app has requested a second deferral to allow time to consider these requests and provide revisions.

We have received written comments with residents expressing concern over traffic, drainage, and neighborhood character.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Butler.

I do have a speaker signed, Jesse Amos.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

I am Jesse Amos, and I am a resident of the River Oak Square town homes, which are on Bamel Lane to the east of the proposed development.

And I oppose the variance which would allow the development to go forward.

It does not fit with the existing, it is not comparable to the existing apartment building to the north, which is an older mid-rise building.

It has no retail, and both the street level parking and the building are set well back from both East Side Street and Bammel Lane.

The main concern as the proposal exists is traffic.

Bammel Lane already is heavily congested with school traffic and cars cutting through between West Alabama and West Timer Road.

The proposed development has, I think, one access driveway access on Bamel Lane and multiple access driveways on East Side.

And the streets simply I do not think can handle that additional traffic.

I believe there also would be concerns with visibility at the corners of West Alabama and BAML and the East Side and West Alabama.

The area is heavily trafficked with cars and students on foot, and I think it would just create an even more unsafe environment for both the residents and the students.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for coming in, Commissioners.

Any questions?

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on item 104?

Okay.

Yes, Commissioner Garza.

Mr.

Butler, uh what is that?

What are um the two streets designated?

Are there minor collectors?

What are they, the two streets?

Eastside and Bamel?

East Side.

Well, BAML is a local street.

It's an 80-foot local street.

Eastside is a 60-foot uh collector, as is uh Alabama.

So can traffic calming devices be not by us, of course, but by the city.

Is there a possibility for traffic calming devices?

That's something we can speak to public works about.

I believe there is a signal at Eastside all the time.

There is, yes.

But if we could do something to help slow down the traffic and you know, all of that, uh that would certainly be pertinent.

Because today what we are talking about is nothing more than the setbacks.

If the setbacks were met, it would be a shall approve.

So yeah, we could I am sure the neighborhood would appreciate some type of traffic calming if that is available to them.

Certainly.

And then again, we are still discussing what the setbacks are going to be anyway.

Correct.

So during the deferral period, they are going to try and meet the recommendations that the Department has already made.

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Great.

Any other questions?

Yes, Commissioner Modes.

And it may not be what we are discussing today, but I mean there are three ingresses and e-gress on east side, and it seems a little excessive.

So I mean, are you talking to them about that?

Yeah.

The east side part of the development is problematic, both from the driveways that are there.

There are three double driveways.

And most of the ground floor is going to be surface parking.

And we also want to like to know some more about the columns that are going to line the perimeter of the site, too.

Just as far as thickness and how much they would affect visibility.

But does it meet ordinance?

Like does this configuration meet ordinance, or that's still it's a zero-foot setback all around, both on Eastside, Bammel, and Alabama.

The requirement is 10.

So they are asking to do zero, saying that they are providing pedestrian enhancements that mitigate the effect of having the building closer.

I guess I'm asking that question in relation to the ingress-egress.

Like your concern is a three in ingress-egress.

Yeah.

So on each one.

There's provisions in 42, both with the TOD and with retail commercial center developments that are a performance standard that allow for something like this, but they limit the driveways.

That is kind of where this is different from what those parts of the existing ordinance.

So we are trying to make ask them to make this development a little bit more like what the performance standards would allow, even though they don't technically apply here.

That answer your question?

Kinda?

Okay.

Any other questions?

Yes, Commissioner Colvard.

Just another thought to follow up on uh Commissioner Midas.

Um what about, you know, I don't know, mirrors or something, you know, to help.

Um I mean, just what other options do we have to ensure that there is more visibility and we know the first thing we have asked is just to trim the project where it's abutting the property line.

Right now it is zero feet.

Again, and there's columns along the entire site that we don't know the thickness or opacity or anything.

And then there's an enclosed area on Alabama closer to Eastside that we have asked for them to move back as well.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anything else?

Commissioner.

That answered my questions.

Okay, great.

Okay.

So you have a rec recommendation of deferral.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Matez?

Second.

Second.

Victor, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 105.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

Members of the Houston Planning Commission.

My name is Devin Crudel.

Item 105 is Bower Hockley Mason Track General Plan.

Madam Chair, this item was deferred at the previous Planning Commission meeting.

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

The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing along the northeast boundary and the second variance to allow a reduced center line radius of 1200 feet instead of the required 2,000 feet for a major therapy Mason Road.

Staff is in support of both requests.

The applicant is developing a general plan intended for commercial and light industrial use.

As shown on the major therapy and freeway plan, Mason Road bisex the center of the GP, and the applicant intends to realign the major therapy to get more consistent buildable area on the site.

The challenge with realigning the major therapy is that the major fairfair must be configured in a way that doesn't push any right-of-way dedication on the outtracks, which are can you go back one slide?

Uh Auday.

The outtracks are highlighted in yellow on the screen.

The realignment will have a center line radius of 1,200 feet and intersect the GP boundary in the same location as shown on the major therapy and freeway plan.

Justification for supporting the intersection spacing requests is to maintain separate traffic for light industrial use from the residential estates traffic.

This alignment has been discussed with Harris County Engineering's office, and they have voiced no objection to this request, and staff recommends granting the requested variants and approving the plat subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on this item.

Commissioners, do we have any questions?

Okay.

Do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion Jones.

Second to hear.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 106.

Item 106 is Baer Lair Nursery.

The site is located within Houston's city limits, south of Baylor Road, excuse me.

South of Baylor Boulevard, just west of Cook Road.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an unrestricted reserve to take access from a recorded 25-foot access easement.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a vacant 1.4 acre tract intended for plant nursery, which is similar to a garden center.

Within the site, there is a 25-foot wide access easement recorded in 2005.

The easement is a two-way paved roadway connecting the Baylair Voulevard and Cook Road.

The site will include a tent-like structure for floral and plant retail with a small office trailer.

We believe the plant nursery site is not a highly intensive use that requires direct frontage along the public right-of-way and the access easement function similar to an internal driveway.

Staff recommends granting the requested variants and approving the plant subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Crittle.

I don't have anyone signed to speak on item 106.

Commissioners, do we have any questions?

Yes, Commissioner Matez.

Since it is still similar to like a landlock, do you know they can get like utility active and an easement through I mean the public ACFIF easement is not the same as utility easement.

So the easement that is existing is mainly for roadway ingress and egress that is to remain free and clear.

I can't answer the utilities question.

I mean ultimately the responsibility to be aware of that.

So I'm just going to say that for the record.

Yes, ma'am.

Great.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

So Commissioners, we have a recommendation to grant the requested variants.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Sigler.

Second.

Garza, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 107.

Madam Chair, I am going to recuse from the next two items 107 and 108.7 and 108.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Heich.

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

My name is John Phillips Hidio.

Items 107 and 108 are to be taken as one item.

Our Blue Creek Trails, Peak Road Street Education and Reserves, and Blue Creek Trails Section 1.

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

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

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

There is also a request for a variance to allow a reduced curve radius of 1,000 feet in lieu of the 2,000 feet required.

This has been added since the deferral period.

Staff is in support of the two requests.

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

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

However, the applicant is proposing changes to the approved general plan right-of-way network as said right-aways were previously granted a special exception to reduce the radii to 1,500 feet in lieu of the 2,000 required.

But due to the due to the constraints of the placement of the existing connections shown in yellow, which small arrows, and the constraints of the placement of the existing, oh, sorry, and the 270-foot-wide center point fee strip shown in white.

Uh at the applicant is requesting to allow a reduced radii as low as 1,000 feet at the crossing of the fee strip.

Ford Bank County Engineering Department has no objection to the variance.

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

Madam Chair, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak for this item.

Commissioners, or any are there any questions?

Okay.

Hearing none, I look for a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion to hear.

Second Hines.

Second Hines, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 109.

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

My name is Tammy Williamson.

Item 109 is Holderith Telgi Tract GP.

The site is located within Houston's extraterrestrial tech extraterritorial jurisdiction in northern Harris County, west of Telgey Road, east of Barker Cypress Road, south of FM 2920, and bisected by future Holdereth Road.

The applicant is proposing a 440-acre general plan intended for single family uses and is requesting two variances.

One to exceed intersection spacing requirements along the northwestern GP boundary, and two to exceed intersection spacing along the southeastern boundary.

Staff recommends to defer the application for two weeks to allow time for the applicant to provide revised information and for further study and review.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Okay, all at once.

Motion, Victor, second, Jones.

All in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 110.

Yes.

I would excuse myself.

Thank you, Commissioner Matez.

Item 110 is Jubilee General Plan.

The subject site has over 1600 acre general plan located in the Harris County Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, incorporating the intersections of Jubilee Haven Boulevard with Bath Road and Mound Road southwest of U.S.

290.

The applicant is requesting a compounded variance to exceed intersection spacing along multiple right-of-ways to address the internal connectivity of the area of interest shown on the side.

Staff is in support of this request.

The area of interest is within the major thoroughfare and freeway plan grid of major thoroughfares of Jubilee Haven Boulevard to the west, Bath Road to the north, and Mound Road to the south, with functioning collectors of Horizon Wonderway dividing the two areas and LJ Scholarsway creating it the eastern boundary.

The general plan proposes large detention and drainage reserves, forming contiguous detention areas along the thoroughfares and collectors.

The area north of Horizon Wonderway is composed of three sections, with two of said sections taking direct access to the major thoroughfare of Bathe Road, and the third taking access from Horizon Wonderway.

In review of the area south of Horizon Wonderway, there are six sections being proposed where county engineer and city staff found potential pinch point shown in blue.

That could create traffic issues that uh at that intersection.

Staff requested the applicant provide a much needed connection to allow sufficient connectivity as such as that shown in the red.

The applicant has agreed to make this connection.

Harris County Engineering Department has no objection to the variance with the inclusion of the aforementioned connection.

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

Madam Chair, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Sidio.

I have no one signed to speak on item 110.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

All right.

Commissioners, if there is no questions, I need a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Heisch.

Second Heinz.

Second Heinz, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 111.

Item 111 is Salazar Estates.

The subject site is an over 30,000 square foot property located in the Houston corporate limits at the southeast intersection of West Street and East Cross Timbers, southwest of Jensen Drive.

The applicant is proposing six lots ranging from 3200 square feet to 6100 square feet and is requesting a two variances.

One, to allow a dual building line for the existing structure within Lot 1, and two, to allow a lot less than one acre to take access from a major thoroughfare.

Staff is in support of the requests.

The plan is being proposed to create individual lots for these six existing homes on the site.

Lot 1 is the only property taking access from major thoroughfare of age cross numbers, intending to use its existing access.

The applicant will provide a turnaround so that the parked vehicles will not have to back out onto the major thoroughfare.

The plat is also providing 17 and a half feet of ride-of-way widening to West Street.

West Street is a 25-foot-wide narrow right-of-way.

As a result of the dedication, the existing structure in lot one will be less than one foot from the new property line, but will be 17.7.7 feet from the edge of pavement.

The existing homes were constructed between 1930 and 1940 and will typically be exempt from the dual building line variance requirement, save for the new roof structure and columns placed to support the roofing over the concrete pad along the west side of the structure, shown in yellow.

Staff recommendation is to grant the requested variances and approve the plat subject to CPC 101 from conditions, including that lot one provide a turnaround.

Please note that the dual building line requires that the dual building line requires that should the existing structure ever be torn down or removed, the new structure will abide by the platted building lines.

Madam Chair, this concludes that's presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioners, uh Ms.

Owens is here if you have any questions.

Any questions?

Okay.

So I need a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Baldwin, second Sigler, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 1120.

Item 112.

Excuse me.

Item 112 is SMC group.

Uh this application was defer deferred at the two previous Planning Commission meetings.

Uh Madam Chair, this application was submitted with the variance request to not provide right-of-way dedication earlier this afternoon.

Earlier this afternoon, we did receive a revised plat that did include right-of-way dedication.

So on your agenda, you'll see our recommendation was to deny the request and approve the plat.

The variance request is no longer required, and this plat does meet Chapter 42 with the right-of-way dedication.

Perfect.

Thank you for that explanation.

Any questions, Commissioners?

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Matez.

All in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 113.

Item 113 is Tolu Bavana.

The site was the item was deferred at the previous two meetings and must be acted upon today.

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

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

The app 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 through the site.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is located within the Harris County ETJ on a block fronting Pitts and FM 529.

The applicant proposes a development consisting of athletic fields and detention with long-range plan to add structures for cultural events.

The site's T-shaped configuration results in occupying a large portion of the block with relatively little space along the abutting thoroughfares.

The applicant is required to address variances because the site encompasses three 1400-foot intersection spacing intervals, and that there is only 50 feet of public street frontage.

The applicant has secondary access to pets through an easement crossing center point property.

This would satisfy the frontage requirement if the plat boundary directly intersected with the right-of-way.

This has been supplemented by a recent land swap, allowing for a landlock track future access to the north.

The site's uses as athletic fields and community gathering will result in less burden on roads than typical development of this acreage.

Furthermore, the land swap and symmetrical configuration of the land to the north represents a better opportunity for East West Street in the future, should new development warrant it.

Staff recommends granting the requested variances and approving the plat for the CPC 101 form conditions.

And we have received no advance written comment.

Thank you, Mr.

Butler.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

All right.

Do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion Garza.

Second Porsperdle.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 114.

Item 114 is Windsor Heights.

The sites is located within Houston City limits in the Acres Home area, south along Dolly Wright Street and east of Harvard Road and north of Little York Road.

The applicant is proposing a private street development and requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not extending nor terminating with the Cul-de-Sec Parker Street.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a narrow track just outside of the Acres Home Mobility Study.

The area is a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial tracks with sufficient frontage.

The block length along Dolly Reich Street is about 2600 feet, and the nearest north-south street is just 330 feet to the east.

Staff believes the more valuable street connection is closer to the 1400-foot distance, making Vincent Street a more justifiable street extension.

Requiring the adjacent street to be extended would not greatly improve traffic circulation being within such close proximity to an existing North South Street, which is Phillips Street.

Staff recommends granting the requested variance and approving the plat subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Crittle.

I have uh Jose Mendoza.

Did you want to speak or are you just here for questions?

Okay.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

So I need a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Baldwin.

Second Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to E.

There's nothing under special exceptions.

Nothing under F for reconsideration of requirements.

So G, extension of approval.

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

My name is Adissa G.

Adishyoju.

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

Please.

Thank you.

Section G extensions of approval consists of items 115 to 125.

Section H name changes consists of item 20 126.

Section I certification of compliance consists of 127 and 128.

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, if there is no questions, I need a motion.

Okay.

So do I have a motion?

Second?

Second Matez.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

We have nothing under J or K, which is odd.

So we'll move on to Remon Numer 2.

Establish a public hearing date of October 30th, 2025 for city estates of Woodland Park, partial replat number one, Commons Park Place, partial replat number one, Commons Park Place, Partial Replat number two, Daimler Residence, Lazac Villas, Newman Manor, Partial Replat number 31, Northbound Residence, Plaza Estates at Go Forth, and Vista I Center.

I care.

Do I have a motion?

Motion high.

Second.

Victor, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving along to Remend Mr.

3, consideration of an off street parking variance at 4109 McKinney Street.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limit along McKinney Street, east of Milby and west of Lockwood.

The applicant proposes a restaurant in an existing commercial structure and a repurposed railroad caboose.

The app is requesting a variance to provide 19 parking spaces as opposed to the required 46.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is located at the northwest intersection of McKinney and Oakhurst.

The site was subject to a reduced building line variance approved by Planning Commission last year.

The Commission approved this request based partially on the pedestrian realm and active ground floor use.

Providing more on-site parking would displace the proposed seating area and or remove the commercial structure occupying the site.

Removing the existing structure represents a reasonable hardship and would be inconsistent with the intent of the approved variance.

In addition, the site is well served by public transportation as within a walkable street grid system.

The site would qualify for similar parking reduction if located a block to the west, which is designated a transit-oriented development street.

The site is within close proximity to the city's market-based parking area and features many common characteristics that justify reduced parking.

Staff finds the request to be consistent with the intent of the ordinance due to its similarity to the existing parking reduction programs.

We have received written comment from the public with those in support indicating that this will be a desired amenity and those opposed expressing concern over neighborhood parking.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Butler.

I have no one signed to speak on this item.

Uh Commissioners, any questions?

Oh, I do.

Yes.

Please come forward.

Sorry, I didn't have a sign-in sheet.

If you wouldn't that's okay.

Just if you wouldn't mind stating your name for the record.

Uh hi there.

My name is Christian Pepe.

Uh I live on Oakhurst and Walker Street, about four houses down.

Uh I am against uh the off-street parking because of the uh on on Walker Street especially.

Uh the streets are full of cars.

Most people have four or five cars on a property.

There are a lot of multifamily housing units there.

Um townhomes, um apartment garage apartments.

Uh there's not enough room uh to support a restaurant.

Uh people parking on the street, uh, at least in my opinion.

I think y'all should look into this.

Um there's not a permit parking.

Uh any anything like that available.

So I think the the city should look into that before approving anything.

Uh I think it would be uh very bad for um Eastwood, Greater Eastwood in the neighborhood.

Um I don't think the roads we have 18 wheelers coming down the roads, there are potholes, they haven't been redone in a long time.

I don't think the infrastructure could support something like that.

Um I yield the rest of my time.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay, thank you so much.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?

Okay.

So you've got a motion, yes, Commissioner Garza.

Mr.

Butler, how many parking lots, parking spaces are there on the lot today?

Well, uh it's not developed yet, but there is proposed 19 spaces.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Colvar.

And how many are required?

I believe 46.

Yeah.

It's I'll re-emphasize this is how we keep these old buildings.

Otherwise you tear them down.

And to maintain the character of these neighborhoods and these old historic deals, we're going to have to find some use for these buildings.

And this is an ideal opportunity for small businesses to open in that area and allow people in that neighborhood to have something to walk to.

The trade-off is some parking in the area, but I'm telling you, it works to maintain the character of the neighborhood.

And I'm supportive of it.

Right.

We just have to also balance that with the interests of the neighbors.

So we get it.

I just, yeah, if they are having driveways blocked and whatever else, that's a problem.

Any other questions or comments?

No.

Sorry, your time is up.

Yes, do you want to speak?

That would be great.

Come forward, please.

If you wouldn't mind stating your name for the record, please.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

My name is David Cisneros.

I am the owner of this parcel and also a resident of Eastwood, just a few blocks to the south of the property.

My own comment, uh just add additional context to this type of development is that despite being, you know, a historic uh beloved area, Eastwood itself is also extremely underserved from a retail perspective.

And to a degree, you know, the density that's being described of adjacent apartment dwellers and uh residences is actually in my mind a further endorsement that this site is going to have a lot of walkability and a lot of transit access and a lot of people arriving on bike.

Um I mean the the intent really is that through uh allocating space to the building and allocating space to like a a public realm or public feeling realm that can support you know uh quality retail that this is really in service of those exact residents and and we have received a overwhelmingly supportive uh commentary from the neighborhood.

So Commissioner Garza?

Mr.

Susanetus, you remember uh I've lived in the neighborhood for a long time.

And what was originally there maybe had 10 parking spaces.

So it was the grocery store, and it was like a strip center that was like a cleaners.

And the parking was in front, and it was believe me, there was no parking in the rear.

It's there was never any intention to have any parking there.

It's you know.

So anyway, uh just so you know, the the spot itself does not give itself to uh to uh to more parking.

And more importantly, as uh Commissioner Baldwin said, we get to save that building.

That building is 1912, I think.

Um it says so on the on the facility.

There's a date stamp.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So anyway, uh I'm very excited about the building.

It's been empty for at least 30 years, if not longer, and so I am very happy to see something going in there and preserve the building.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Yes, Commissioner Colvard?

Um just two.

So um if this variance was approved, uh Mr.

Butler, this would require ADA spaces, of course, at the original 47 or whatever, you know, using that calculation.

I can't remember if it's one or two, but it would still be required.

Right.

Two?

Two according to the standard.

Uh we have talked to the applicant.

There's one shown on the site plan.

Uh they're working on incorporating that, and they are open to the second space that's just not shown on their site plan.

Okay, yeah.

I mean, that would be my preference, obviously, for reasons.

Of course.

And and also um I, you know, I don't know.

I'm just trying to think of what could be done to help the neighbors.

I I get that there were a lot of comments in favor from the neighbors, and there were also some comments that where there were concerns.

And so I just would encourage um the owner, you know, the operator, you know, just to continue to work with the neighborhood.

And if issues arise where neighbor, you know, driveways are being blocked or whatever that they engage in towing or whatever, you know, signage and whatever else they need to do, you know, just to be good neighbors to them.

Certainly.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Yes, Commissioner Models.

Comment, I guess.

Um, my perspective on this has shifted thanks to Commissioner Baldwin over the year.

Um because ultimately, like I will totally own it to the fact that I am somebody who doesn't go places that I can easily park.

I'm just that's who I am.

And so it's it's kind of the risk, you know, you have argued all the time.

It's it's it's market-based parking.

It is the risk to the developer.

If he wants to take on that risk, let him.

And and so you can't do that.

Like, yeah, that's the risk that they're gonna take on by trying to make this work.

So they have every incentive to make this work, or else they go out of business, right?

Uh that's just the so I mean probably five years ago I wouldn't have been as in favor of this, but but now I'm I'm more receptive to something like this and would vote in favor of it.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Any other questions or comments?

Yes, Commissioner.

I do just find in the neighborhood when we put these small little coffee shops and things, so many people do walk there.

I mean they really do.

And and this gives people in that neighborhood something to walk to that they so desperately need.

So thank you.

Anything else?

Okay.

And I have no one else that would like to speak.

All right.

So you have a recommendation from staff to approve the parking variants.

Do I have a motion?

Motion to hear.

Second Baldwin.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay.

Our next item is public speaker, public comment.

I do have a speaker.

We all know him, Mr.

Carlos Espinoza.

Hello.

Good.

Oh, sorry.

How are you doing?

Hi, good afternoon.

Uh Madam Chair, members of the Houston Planning Commission.

My name is Carlos Espinoza.

I'm just here happily to announce uh you guys know us as applicants.

You know, a lot of us here.

We talk with Director Trent, a lot of developers are here, architects, and other colleagues from different companies that I've known over the years, by working here at the C and working here in the private sector.

We are forming the Houston Land Planners Committee.

We want to work with you guys, with the city and then uh the staff to talk about uh advocacy for Chapter 42 and some changes that we saw parking being a big issue still.

So we're just putting together a lot of our minds and just talking to the city and the director and the staff so we can find a better way to make Houston a better place to live.

So that was just a quick little announcement so we can be here in your minds and happy to be here.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that wishes to speak?

Pardon me.

If not, we will adjourn this meeting at 349 PM.

Thank you, everyone.