Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Lisa Clark, and I'm the chair of the Planning Commission.

And I'm calling this meeting to order at 2 32 p.m.

on Thursday, December 4th, 2025.

This is an in-person meeting taking place at the City Hall Annex at 300 Bagby.

You may also monitor the meeting by viewing via HTV.

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

Consent and repeat speakers are allowed one minute.

New speakers are timed for two minutes.

And speakers, let's see, what does that say?

Oh, the rules.

Speaker rules are found on the top portion of the speaker 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.

Non-applicants and general speakers are allowed two minutes time.

There's not an option for a rebuttal.

Even if you did not use your full two minutes, you will not be able to, you will not be allowed to speak again, and time cannot be allotted to another speaker.

Before I move on, I did want to say I hope everyone had a thank happy Thanksgiving and welcome to the Planning Commission.

So now to establish a quorum, I'm going to call the roll.

Chair Clark is present.

Vice Chair Garza.

Present.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Present.

Commissioner Brooks.

Present.

Commissioner Carroll.

Present.

Commissioner Heisch.

Commissioner Hines.

Present.

Commissioner Pham.

Oh, excuse me.

I I skipped.

Excuse me, excuse me.

Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Mates.

Commissioner Naranjo.

Not here.

Commissioner Pham.

Here.

Okay, sorry about that.

Commissioner Pierce?

Here.

Commissioner Poris Pertle.

Forest Perthle present.

Commissioner Sareem.

Is she here?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm getting used to where everybody's sitting.

I'll get there.

Give me another meeting or two.

Commissioner Shepard.

Present.

Commissioner Siegler is absent.

Commissioner Sykes.

Present.

Commissioner Victor is not here.

And Commissioner Mondopaca is not here.

And our direct our Secretary Von Tran.

Tran present.

16.

Okay.

So we do have a quorum of 16.

And now I will move on to I don't have any withdrawals, so we don't have to worry about that today.

And no changes in recommendations.

So we'll move on to the director's report.

Did you note Commissioner Naranjo?

Just okay, thank you.

Okay.

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

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

Welcome.

I just have a few updates from the planning department today.

First, I'm happy to share that Ms.

Arva Howard has returned to assist us in as legal legal counsel for the planning commission.

Welcome.

Welcome.

Ms.

Arva.

Many of you may remember from her previous years.

She brings a great deal of experience from her time in the city city legals department.

And we're great grateful to have her support while we work to fill the in-house position.

Second, just a quick reminder that our final commission meeting of this year will be Wednesday, December the 18th.

We appreciate all your time and effort that you've dedicated this year, and we look to wrapping up a 20 uh a strong 2025.

And finally, we love to hear from you.

The planning department is always looking for ways to improve, and your feedback is incredibly valuable to us.

There is a QR code on the sign-up table.

It looks like this that links to a very, very short survey, just four questions.

It should take only two minutes to complete.

If you have a moment, we really love and appreciate your input.

So thank you again for your continued support.

In closing, the planning and de uh the planning 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 as well, Houston Planning.com.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Tran.

Okay, so I skipped the um approval of the meeting minutes.

So we're going to go back and uh seek a motion for approval of the November 13 2025 Planning Commission meetings.

Motion Mates.

Motion Matas, second uh see I'm going doing gonna say Garcia.

Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Okay, now we're going to move to uh remember number one, presentation and consideration of the 2026 Planning Commission meeting dates.

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

My name is Araceli Rodriguez.

Um Madam Chair will have to take together together.

That's good, thank you.

Okay.

So before you today for your continuation is the 2026 Planning Commission meeting date and the May 3rd Fair Freeway Plan meetings.

All meetings are held here in the City Council Chamber, City Hall Annex, beginning at 2 30 p.m.

on Thursday.

Typically following a bi-weekly schedule.

The three-week cycle occurred around the city adopted holiday schedule just at July 4th, Thanksgiving, and Christmas New Year.

So subdivision platform middle period open at 6 a.m.

on Friday following commission meeting and closed on Monday at 11 a.m.

On holiday that fall on Mondays, the submittal period is extended to Tuesday.

Along with this, you can also find the 2026 chapter 26 submittal date to submit parking variances and special parking area application.

This adopted date will be published in the newspaper before January 1st, 2026.

Chair, this conclude my presentation.

Thank you.

Do I have a motion to approve meeting dates?

Motion Pors Pertle.

Second SIEC.

Second Sykes, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

And that was meeting dates and submittal dates.

And I know that you already probably caught him, but Commissioner Mondopaca came in.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now we're going to move along to plating activity, subdivision and development platform, remember numeral three.

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

My name is Maria Tolar.

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 85.

Section A consent items are numbers 1 through 46 and Section B replot items are numbers 47 through 85.

If it pleases the Commission, staff would like to move consent item number 17, Fairbanks Landing Section 1 to be with item 98, Fairbanks Landing General Plan in the variance section.

There are no other items that 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, save and accept item 17.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioners, uh do I have any abstentions?

Yes.

Commissioner Pierce abstaining from items number two cut your mic on for me, please.

I'm sorry.

That's okay.

Um Abstaining from items 10, 11, and 12.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Mattis, 2223, and 51 through 54.

Okay.

Commissioner Carroll 91.

Okay.

Madam Chair, I'm going to stay.

Commissioner Heisch abstaining from items 2, 3, 10 through 16, 51 through 54, 57, and 58.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Yes, Commissioner Shepard here, Section A.

Items 2, 3, 20, 21, 32, 33, 42, and 45.

Uh Section B, uh 51 through 54, and 84.

Okay.

Okay.

So I'm going to tell you all up right up front, I'm going to mess this up.

That's a lot.

First of all, we're going to take item 17 out and then uh save and accept items 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 20, and 21.

I skipped those.

23.

The next ones are 32, 33, 44, 45, 51 through 54, 57, 84, and 91.

Did I get them all?

58.

Thank you.

And 42.

And 42.

I leave anything else off?

Okay, great.

Okay.

Wait, what?

Is there anyone else?

Yes.

Do you have another one?

Okay.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Do I have a motion?

Motion.

Baldwin?

Second Heinz.

Second Heinz.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Okay.

I made a list.

Oh, thank you so much.

Yes.

Yeah, it does.

Okay.

So now we're voting on items 2, 3, 10 through 5 16, 2021, 22, 23, 32, 33, 42, 44, 45, 51 through 54, 57, 58, 84, and 91.

Do we get them all?

Oh, thank goodness.

Do I have a motion?

Motion.

Motion for Spurtle.

Second.

Hines.

Hines, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Okay.

Man.

All right.

Now we're going to.

Public hearings.

Yep.

C.

Replats requiring public hearings with notification.

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

My name is Ken Calhoun.

Item 86 is Aslan Places.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits, north along Madeira Road between Thorne and Trumpet.

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

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

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

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

Staff's recommendation is to defer the plat to allow the applicant time to send revised material that meet the deed restrictions.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 86 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there any anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

I will continue the public hearing.

And if Commissioners, you don't have any comments or questions, uh make them get a motion for um deferral.

Motion to defer Garza.

Motion, Garza.

Second Matas, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 87.

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

My name is Dorian Poeflim.

Item 87 is Colonial Heights Annex.

The site is in Houston extraterritorial jurisdiction in Harris County, north of Colonial Parkway, west of Cady Ford Bend Road, and east of the Grand Parkway Highway 99.

The reason for replat is to create 61 lots and four reserves.

The applicant is requested a variance to allow landscape reserves to be replatted into lots.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a replat of a landscape reserve reserve H and a portion of a landscape reserve reserve C that was created with the Colonial Heights subdivision in 2024.

The property is part of the Park West Green General Plan and is still under developer's control.

The lots are in similar size of the adjacent section and will expand single family development and provide landscape reserves throughout the property and compensated open space reserve.

The proposed subdivision is conducive to the single family development patterns in the neighborhood.

The applicant will be required to sign a mutual agreement to take access to the adjacent type 2 PAE Colonial Commons Drive with the Colonial Heights subdivision prior to recordation.

Harris County Engineers Office Polls no objection to this request.

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

All notification requirements have been met.

Staff's recommendation is to grant the request of variance and approve the plat per 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.

Poe Flam.

The public hearing is open for item 87.

I don't have anyone signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay, hearing none.

I'll close the public hearing and I ask a question.

Do we how many lots are in section one?

In section one?

Right.

This is section two or the adjacent tract anyway to the west that's that's tied into this community.

There were uh I believe it was 90 lots, but they are actually replatting two of the lots away.

So and the combination of the of the the two sections is only would be 150 lots.

Okay, that's where I was going.

But I will say I get the intent and the way Chapter 42 is written, but with these small lots, 15 home sites in a very small tract of land, you know, and one entrance exit is going to be challenging for those who live there.

I recognize it follows the ordinance, but I don't think the intent would be somewhere in the 14 to 15 units to the acre.

And that's what I am seeing here.

So just just a comment, you know, it's going forward, but I just recognize there is going to be a challenge in the future within uh points of ingress and egress.

Thank you, Commissioner Jones.

And uh as always, we will make that on the record, and I see Director Tran vigorously writing over here.

So in the future, if there are you know changes or additions to Chapter 42, all of these things will be taken into consideration.

Thank you.

Okay.

So do I have any other comments or questions?

If not, then I will seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Mandapaka.

Motion Mendepaco.

Second.

Second, Shepherd, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 88.

Item 88 is Lewis State.

The size in Houston corporate limits, west at the intersection of Bell Green Drive.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I apologize, I'm gone.

Good afternoon, uh ladies and gentlemen, Chairs and Commissioners.

My name is John Phillips Cidio.

Item 88 is Lockett Manor.

The subject site is a nearly 8,000 square foot property located in the Houston City limits at the southwest intersection of Lockett Avenue and Van Eden Street north of Old Spanish Trail and east of Almeda Road.

The applicant is proposing two single family residential lots, and there are no branches requested with this item.

The applicant has met a notification requirements.

Staff has received multiple advanced comments from the residents of the AHOA and the subdivision stating the proposed plat violates active deed restrictions.

This is a replat of lot 13, block 3 of the Central City Subdivision.

The plat was deferred last cycle per applicant request to further coordinate with legal.

Review by legal currently indicates that the plat does not violate separately filed deed restrictions.

Thank you, Mr.

Sidio.

I do have speakers signed.

Oh, let me hold on.

Let me close the public hearing.

And I have my first speaker is Alfonso.

I think that's the public hearing.

Pico.

I'm sorry.

Were you saying something to me?

Continue public hearing.

I think you said close.

Oh, did I say close?

I'm continuing the public hearing.

Our first speaker is Alfonso Pico or Pilo.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

I have been a part of this community for 25 years.

I feel that I feel that to divide this lot into two lots.

Is not a ideal.

I feel that to divide this this lot into lots is not a good idea.

Central City is based on single family homes.

You can take your time.

Go ahead if you have more to comment on.

Were you done?

What's that?

Are you done?

You can say more.

Oh, I'm done.

Okay.

Thank you so much for your comments.

We appreciate you coming in.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Vene Chandra Sandra Kev.

I know I butchered that, so please correct me.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Good afternoon.

I am I have been living in this neighborhood.

And can you state your name for the record?

Yes, ma'am.

My name is Vinay.

Chandrakar.

Okay, thank you.

I live in the Central City subdivision for the last ten years.

I am opposed to replatting.

The lots in our subdivision range from 7,000 square feet to more than 14,000 square feet.

Replatting to 3783 and 4200 square feet.

It's uh really does not conform to the character of our neighborhood.

It will be disproportionate in size compared to other properties.

And it's also a violation of our deed restrictions.

There used to be a duplex on this lot, which was a non-conforming structure in this neighborhood, but it was grandfathered.

And now that they have demolished, according to our deed restriction, any non-conforming lot cannot be subdivided.

So it's a violation of our deedistriction as well as disproportionate in size compared to other properties in the neighborhood.

That's why I'm re opposed to repletting.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for coming in today.

Our next speaker is I am sorry I can't read it.

Is this um Gaetran G A I T N?

Thank you.

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

Yes.

Hi there.

Good afternoon.

My name is Herardo Gaitan.

I am a resident of Central City.

I live in 6918 Van Eden Street.

I also object to this application and ask for you to reject for your vote to reject.

The president of our civic association is here, and he will speak next about the deed restrictions and why these are in effect, and this is a violation of that.

I will be speaking about the uh lot size, the average lot size is 8,511 square feet.

Sixty percent of the lot sizes in Central City are more than eight thousand one hundred and sixty square feet.

This lot that is discussed is eighty-eight, seventy-five square feet, which is average right near the average of our neighborhood.

I have brought a map and with individual lot sizes for your review today.

Dividing the lot would result in half of the average lot size and will change the character of our neighborhood, especially because it will set a precedence of dividing lots throughout uh this neighborhood.

There are currently 31 vacant lots.

And if we allow this application to go through, it will sets a precedence and it will certainly uh not only affect the character of the neighborhood, but also uh exacerbate the stormwater drainage system that is already deficient.

I have brought these pictures of flooding, which we are currently experiencing every time it is.

Document camera.

Thank you.

And um these pictures are what we experience when there is a medium rain.

We've been talking with City Councilwoman also who is helping in addressing this, but this overdevelopment will exacerbate this uh situation.

And for this, I ask you to vote to reject this application.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Daniel Goldberg.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thanks for having us.

So I'm the president and also the attorney for the Civic Association.

I volunteered for neither and I get paid for neither.

Um had these identical lot sizes since 1939.

In 2022, we hired Wilson Cribs, which is the law firm which has advised the city of Houston on how neighborhoods, old neighborhoods with old deed restrictions with all sorts of bad terms that people don't want anymore, or terms that have long expired, how they can revive it.

This law firm's material is on the city of Houston's own website.

I hired this law firm so that we could get these deed restrictions reenacted the proper way.

And that's exactly what we did.

We sent out a notice of our intent to start up this uh this commission, sorry, the committee to get new deed restrictions.

That was in April of 2022, after a sufficient period of time and public notice to include also mailings to everyone and then some in the neighborhood.

We then gathered signatures.

We counted up the signatures in a specific way permitted by the legislator.

This is Texas Property Code 201.006 B2.

This is a count of properties that specifically allows for a simple majority of the separately owned parcels, separately owned parcels.

And the whole purpose of this count, as opposed to option A, which is just to do a vote per parcel, or option C, which is to do by square footage was to negate the just wrap it up real quick.

We send out the notices in proper time.

We got the simple majority out of the 66 required votes.

We got 35 before we then submitted the notice for the actual petition to file this the deed restrictions.

A year lapsed during which anyone could have asked for an exclusion.

Not one single exclusion was filed other than by the Texas Medical Center, which owns a string of properties.

They filed one single affidavit for their one single exclusion, even though they have a string of properties because they understood it's a vote per separately owned parcels of land.

This property owner missed his opportunity to do so, and now he wants to replat.

The deed restrictions do not permit it.

The deed restrictions are in effect, and we are very much begging this Commission to not alter the face of this entire neighborhood in a way that creates what will have to be townhomes, because on a property as small as what this guy is proposing, a normal size home just won't be able to fit.

We worked real hard, we spent a lot of money, we spent a ton of time, and we got a majority of our neighborhood to want these new deed restrictions.

Granting this replatting will do away with all of that, and we'll open up the floodgates to other developers that are waiting, chomping on the bit in order to redevelop their properties that they own in ways that are not what we all know and love and why we all live in this neighborhood.

Single family home residential requirements.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

We appreciate your time.

Any questions, Commissioners?

Yes.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Sir, we visited someone with Wilson Reed recently.

Have you visited with your I mean, I'm very familiar with Wilson Reed.

Have you visited with them in the last week or two since the city's weighed in that maybe these deed restrictions are not valid?

So going into this hearing as of yesterday morning, we are feeling quite certain and confident in our legal position.

It was only yesterday afternoon when someone spoke with John Cedio that we learned that uh the legal department might be having some doubts.

So yesterday afternoon I scrambled.

I called up both the name partner that we had hired, Tony Marr, and also the associate, Samuel Baskin, to speak with him.

Tony's hair was on fire because he had his own deadlines going on.

Samuel Baskin is off traveling in Utah, so neither one of us could speak, neither one of them could speak with us.

I'm an attorney.

I was confident myself because I litigate property law all the time.

That's what I do.

But I still hire them to make sure that we get it right.

And we chose option two based upon their advice, knowing that the count would then tilt in our favor if we don't allow those that own multiple properties, which are almost that, multiple of which are property developers that want to alter the land.

So we chose this route, which is option B, to negate the power that someone that owns multiple properties would have over someone like Mr.

Pico that owns one single property.

You are not maybe with the city.

Um I have indeed visited with a city attorney.

I scrambled this morning after a court hearing to send out my position via letter to the legal department, and I got that letter out around 1230 p.m.

where I just try to walk them through, and I haven't um had an opportunity to speak with them.

I would have done all this sooner.

I I promised you all had I known that there would be this sort of opposition.

But just to lay out, here's the timeline, here are all the documents, they're all been properly filed stamped, they're all recorded with with the county.

Um here are the public notices, and here is specifically the certified mail that went to this particular property.

Here's the record.

The Texas Medical Center was the only one to uh to file the exclusion.

Please reconsider this.

But I hadn't heard yet uh back from the legal department.

I'm sure we will.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yes, Commissioner Jackson.

Thank you.

Uh has the association sent this property owner your firm position, and if so, has the applicant replied to that position?

No, sir.

We have not.

Um we had attempted to communicate in a previous round of replatting.

The same developer came before y'all a couple of years ago trying to build an apartment building on this piece of property.

So he was asking for a variance request at the same time.

And I will note he played the same identical games when all of us took time out of our calendars to write opposition letters to schedule time for us to come on over here.

He at the last minute pulled the agenda item from the hearing only to reschedule it.

We all um voice our opposition.

I try to get in touch with him at the time, no response.

And then again, right before the hearing, rescheduled it before then pulling it completely so that you all don't deny it.

Fast forward a year and a half, year or two or so, and we're here again with a new game plan for replatting rather than apartment building.

Um it was the same game.

We had a hearing, I think November 13th.

We all schedule time off from our calendars.

We all submitted um the objections which you all received.

And then at the last minute, he pulls it from the agenda item to put it on this agenda item.

I'll note one more thing.

Um the same individual developer who does not live in this neighborhood and will not be impacted by by the by what he is doing to the neighborhood.

In the previous round, played these games where he didn't put up a board at all.

That was one of our objections, which caused him to put it on the next uh hearing date.

And then this round, he didn't put up his uh the poster in time before the November 13th one.

We objected to it.

It was one of our grounds.

He put it up a couple days before.

And then it was only a week and a half ago or so that he goes up and I have a photo of this.

I don't know if I can get it up on here.

He tapes a small strip of paper that says December 4 on this giant board.

So most of us didn't even know that he was changing it from one date to another.

We believe that this is purposeful and completely fits within this pattern of behavior of what he is doing and how he is treating our neighborhood.

Again, one he does not live in and has no plans on living in.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Okay.

I don't have any other speakers signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

Yeah, great timing.

Come on up and state your name for the record.

Yes, my name is Jill Yaziji.

I am a resident of Central City subdivision in Houston, Texas.

And I'm here to speak on behalf of our residents.

I apologize for uh appearing late at the meeting.

I've been able to do that.

You're not late, you are right on the park.

No worries.

Um how much time do I have?

Okay.

And I don't plan to take all of it.

So I am here as a resident of Central City.

Of course.

My neighbor.

Um to oppose the variance being requested, because we believe that it's a willful encroachment of developers for economic gain, and it's a flagrant violation of our deed restrictions.

Uh the city allows, if the city allows this variance, we can reasonably expect townhomes to pop up on each of the 12 to 13 vacant lots in the neighborhood.

So my house, which my family built in 2009, you know, large, beautiful home and where we have resided since then, has an empty lot right next to it.

And if you allow this variance to continue, then that lot is up for grabs for the next developer.

We believe uh, of course, I have not had the context of uh my neighbor Danny's argument, so I can kind of build on them, but we strongly believe the deed restrictions have been in place, and we were aware there were some kind of issues with the deed restrictions, and that's why we worked on them in um coordination with our council, and then we recorded new deed restrictions in 2022, and I believe that this commission has had a uh record of the deed restrictions.

Go ahead and you can finish up.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I would say that this defies a lot of precedent in 2005.

The Houston Chronicle wrote an article regarding the uh possible encroachment of then TMC on the deed restrictions.

And after a lot of discussion, there was an amendment, the constitutional amendment that was passed in November of 2009, specifically because our residents said there were deed restrictions in place that each developer, including TMC, should respect.

And uh uh then Governor Perry signed a bill, I believe it was uh Senate Bill 7, if I am not mistaken, in 2006 as a response to the encroachment and the sort of process of trying to say that this community is not dead restriction restricted.

I would greatly appreciate your um considering of all the evidence that you have so far and appreciate you letting me speak.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for coming in and sharing your comments.

I don't have anyone else to sign to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to Mr.

Sidio, would you restate what your recommendation is?

The current recommendation from the city is to approve the plat subject to CPC 101 conditions as per legal review in the case that the plat does not violate the separately filed restrictions.

Okay, hold on.

Hey going.

Um I am going to let legal speak.

Ms.

Howard?

I am concerned about approval for this.

The first is because of the notice.

Um there was a comment that a little strip of paper was put over an old sign saying December 4th, and that may not be sufficient notice to satisfy the notice requirements under the ordinance.

I am looking at the deed restrictions, and I don't know what the development is going to be, but it appears to be consensus that that is going to be townhouses.

And the restrictions that I am reading right now exclude townhouses and condos, things with common walls as being outside of being a single family use.

This morning.

And to take action when we don't know what a judge will rule, I don't think that would be wise.

So I don't know about Commissioner Garcia, you wanted to say something.

Director Trant.

If I may, I just wanted to clarify that our uh attorney just really is speaking about new information that just arose this morning.

Uh so we did not have this information prior to our recommendation.

I just wanted to make that clear to the audience and everyone on this commission.

Thank you.

And that's true.

I mean, I am I am listening now.

So based on the information that was there prior, that could have been a valid recommendation.

But with a judgment pending and notice being an issue, I just don't think it would be prudent to make any determination today.

I will also add that the subdivision is creating lots that are uh larger than the minimum loss size of 3500 square feet.

We would suggest calling on the applicant to confirm whether or not there is an intention to do townhomes as interpreted or if it can, because it could also be a single family home, but we just want to get that confirmation from the applicant.

Right.

Commissioner Sharan.

Lots of questions.

Yeah, that was just my next question in regards to the DID restriction.

Is there a minimum lot size specified in it, or is it just town homes versus single family homes?

Thank you.

Okay.

Unfortunately, we would have to defer to legal to make that interpretation.

From my brief review, I don't see a minimum lot size.

I do see use restrictions and definitions.

I don't know if this is all the restrictions that I have available.

Yes, Commissioner Garza.

Look, I got it right.

Mr.

Cidio, um I know there is a lot of questions right here with regard to the deed restrictions.

Can the neighborhood put a minimum lot size in place while all this is being debated?

Deed restrictions-wise.

Deed restriction-wise?

I mean that would be on there because that is something that would be.

I mean, they would be counter to one another, is my point if they put minimum lot size ordinance in place.

So special, they could uh provide it, however, as this is an act of application, this would predate the classification of the special lot size.

But they could do that.

But they could do that, but that would not be a good idea.

They could make an application which would put a halt on anything new coming into the neighborhood on those other 18 lots.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

Is the applicant here, Mr.

Sidio?

I am one to clarify.

Are you the applicant?

Are you the applicant?

Okay.

So, Mr.

Sidio, maybe you would need to need to help me.

Um, since this has been deferred twice, the only thing we can do today would be the we would we could look at we have to take action.

We could end up denying it.

Or as the applicant, you could ask for an extension, a 30-day extension.

Have you done that?

Uh we already extended it.

It was November uh 13 and November.

That was a deferral.

Yes.

But you only get two deferrals.

And after you finish two deferrals, then they have the Commission has to take action.

As it stands right now, they'll probably have to deny it because there are so many questions going around.

What I am asking you is your only other option is a 30-day extension.

Or withdraw it.

No, we'll extend it, but we we provide all the information, all the restrictions.

There is no deed restriction.

We will provide all the information.

So I I understand that and I appreciate that, but you also have to understand that our legal, who is who represents us, is um seeing some questionable information.

And so as it stands today, she is not agreeing that there are no deed restrictions.

I don't know what judgment is.

Well, but we can do this after.

We can do this after.

Do you want to request a 30-day extension?

Okay, you need to do it in writing before we take a motion.

I'm sorry.

Commissioner, who are we speaking with?

Did you introduce yourself?

Karim Dadelahi.

Okay.

And you're the owner of the property.

Yes, he is the owner.

Thank you.

All right.

Okay.

So other questions while we wait.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Can we get clarification on the rules regarding the notice and the taping of something one inch later?

He'd have to redo it.

Yeah.

You would have to redo it, right?

Yeah.

It's not acceptable notice.

It's not acceptable.

No.

Yeah.

The uh the text is the same.

I think in legal.

The requirement is that it is legible from the right-of-way.

Of course, this is kind of up into interpretation.

The picture, of course, here is uh within the slides, so it's kind of hard to determine whether that it is.

Of course, the rest of it is certainly I believe that could be considered legible, but uh your child challenge that that's more of a subjective aspect.

For someone like me, it would never be legible.

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean it's tiny.

Yeah.

So we can deny it based on that fact.

You could, or if he is asking for a 30-day extension.

We could grant that also.

He can redo his notification.

That gives you time to redo notification.

And yes.

And I think legal.

So, Madam Chair.

Commissioner Chick.

Because we're up in the air momentarily, do we want to post the next one?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Does the Commission agree?

Yeah.

I think consensus is good.

Okay, great.

We can I'll move that we move it to add in 96.

Thank you.

Okay.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay.

So we'll move along to 89.

Item 89 is Lewis State.

The site is the Newton Corporate Limits, west at the intersection of Bell Green Drive and MacArthur Street, east of Grand Briar Greenbrier Avenue.

The reason for replat is to create one lot.

Review by legal indicates that this plat does 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.

There are no variants requested with this item.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

Staff has not received any advanced comments for this item.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 89 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.

Wait a minute.

Did I have a speaker?

Yes, I did.

On 89, yes.

Sorry about that.

Hold the motion.

Ms.

Owens, did you want to speak or just questions?

Okay.

Do we have any questions for Ms.

Owens?

Okay.

All right.

Garza Jones.

Okay.

Motion Garza.

Second Jones, all in favor.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 90.

Item 90 is Marina Place, partial replant number one.

The site is a Newton Corporate Limits, side South, I'm sorry, along East 43rd Street, east of Oxford and Main Streets.

The reason for replat is to create two single family residential lots and increase the density from two dwelling units to four dwelling units.

The plat was deferred at the last planning commission, awaiting legal review.

Legal has reviewed the deed restrictions and has indicated that this plat will violate restrictions filed separately.

The recommendation, staff's recommendation is to disapprove the plat.

Staff has not received any advanced comments for this item.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 90 is continued.

I have uh the applicant who is here to speak, Richard Ojeda.

Good afternoon.

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

Good afternoon.

My name is Richard O'He.

Um I would just like to request a 30-day extension for the plot.

Have you done that in writing?

Not yet.

Not yet.

He has?

Okay.

You have.

Dark is I did it.

Okay, got it.

Okay, yes.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Sir, do you what do you hope to accomplish in this 30 days?

Do you have the information about the deed restrictions that would imply that this legal department was not correct?

Because we don't want to waste anyone's time.

We're not able to undo deed restrictions.

Yeah, I don't.

I'm not the owner.

Um he sent me here with uh a few minutes of time to show up.

So just grasping at straws is what it looks like.

So I couldn't tell you, sir.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Thank you.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

All right.

So I am going to Madam Chair.

Yes.

Commissioner Garza.

We're going to be voting on the extension of the 30-day versus a disapproval, correct?

Yes.

Yes, because he gave it in writing, yes.

So there's the motion that we have to do.

I'll move to disapprove.

Okay.

I will second that.

I have no reason to extend when there is no valid reason to extend when our legal is weighed in and the owner himself didn't have the wherewithal to come himself.

Okay.

So we have a motion to disapprove the 30-day extension and the application.

Is that correct?

Okay.

And the second was by MODES.

Commissioner Mates.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thanks, everyone.

Moving to 91.

Item 91 is Riverwood on East TC Jester Boulevard, partial replat number one.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits, north of East TC Jester Boulevard and west of West 14th Street.

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

The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow a lot to take vehicle access from a 30-foot access easement in lieu of public street frontage.

Staff's recommendation is to defer the plat for additional information concerning the ownership and location of the access easement.

Review by legal indicates that this plates restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

Staff has not received staff has received advanced comments for this item.

The questions and the comments were concerning about the uh the small lot that uh that's being the additional small lot that is being created.

So they are opposed to the size of the new lot that that's being created.

Um staff has not staff has received the advanced comments for this item.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

Madam Chair, please Commission, you may open a public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing is open for item 91.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

I will continue the public hearing.

And I believe before we vote, I have an abstention.

Commissioner Carroll, so she's going to abstain from this item.

Okay.

So we have a recommendation.

We have a recommendation to defer.

Do I have a motion?

Motion bold.

Second high.

Second hinds.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 91.

92.

Item 92 is Roxton City Homes.

The item was deferred last cycle to allow time for the applicant to coordinate with legal.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits, south along Roxton Road between Morningside and Green Briar Drive.

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

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

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

Steph has staff has received a handful of comments from residents of the neighborhood and members of the HOA.

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

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

Thank you.

Item number 92 is open.

I have, let's see, two or three speakers.

Our first speaker is Victor Lewes.

And I see there is two names on here.

Only one person can speak at a time.

Which one wants to go first?

May I go after the POA?

After who is the POE?

Our property owner's association.

Well, who is that?

Who are you and what is Okay, and who are you?

Okay.

Come forward.

State your name for the record, please.

My name is Ray Frierson.

I am a I am a resident of Southampton Extension.

I have been a resident for the over 40 years.

I am also on the board of the POA.

As a board member of the Southampton Extension POA, I urge the Houston Planning Commission to delay for three months any ruling on the replatting request by the owners of 2337 Roxton to allow time for the completion of ongoing POA actions with the City.

In 2004, the Civic Club changed its structure to POA.

With widespread community support, the POA amended its deed restrictions in 2019.

Some of the deed restrictions applicable to 2337 Roxton are minimum side easement of five feet on each side of the structure.

Minimum front and back setbacks, 25 feet and 3 feet respectively.

Maximum height limit of 38 feet.

The City has enforced POA deed restrictions since the POA formation in 2004.

Should the Commission eventually approve the requested replatting of the 50-foot wide 6,000-foot lot, each resulting property would have a buildable width of only 15 feet.

The POA asks that the Commission make clear in any ruling that each such replatted property is subject to deed restriction enforcement.

The POA intends to use all legal remedies to achieve enforcement.

A compliance structure likely would degrade neighborhood property values.

Roxton and surrounding residents are here today in forced to protest the impact of this replatting on their property values.

The POA has also pursued special minimum lot size block.

I need your wrap up pretty quickly, okay.

To date, five of its eight streets have been so designated.

The POA is in the process of seeking city approval for its remaining streets, including Roxton.

Such designation will preclude the replatting requested here by 2337 Roxton.

Thank you very much.

Commissioners, any questions?

Yes, Commissioner Motz.

So have you all submitted in the application for special minimum lot size on this blockface yet?

Or are you just in the I guess getting it started on your end?

We're just protesting it from our end.

No, on the application itself.

You said you are in the process of applications, including the street.

Right.

We uh five of the five of the eight streets have already done the designation.

Are you talking about the special minimum lot size?

Correct.

Right.

Five of the eight streets that's been done.

We're just having a lot of the other.

I guess I am asking what it where is the status of Roxton.

In process.

Has it been submitted to the CID?

Have they been submitted to the city?

Uh I don't know the answer to that.

No.

Okay.

The answer is no.

Okay.

If it had, I think it would have impacted this case, but if it had then unfortunately may not.

You are right.

It is still still in process.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Baldwin.

Can we get legal to weigh in on these side setbacks and the front setback?

Yes.

Ms.

Howard, are you ready to weigh in?

Okay.

I'll take the next speaker if you don't mind, Commissioner Baldwin.

Okay.

So are you the next speaker?

Yes.

I the name is Michael Massey.

I am on the Board of Directors for the POA for Southampton Extension.

I am going to save the Commission a little bit of time.

I will rely on what Ray just read to you.

But I want to make one thing clear.

If you make a pre-mature approval of this subdivision of this property, at the moment, no property on Roxton is less than 6,000 square feet.

And some of them are larger than that.

As we go through the minimum lot size application, which I guarantee you, based on the level of commitment that we are getting from the neighborhood, we will be facing the calculation of exactly what minimum lot size shall be for that street.

Putting two 3,000-foot properties suddenly in the mix is going to greatly downgrade the minimum lot size that they'll be able to accept from the city.

That is clearly going to have a negative impact on the neighborhood.

This neighborhood is over a hundred years old.

It reminds me of the discussions you have been listening to for a number of these discussions.

The developer is a California developer, has no idea what our neighborhood is.

All we are asking is that you wait long enough to see whether there is consensus, which I am quite sure there is.

You'll hear it in the next speakers.

And come to a decision to give room to this street to protect itself.

If you don't do that, we're going to get overrun by the same things that I have listened to in this hearing since I got here.

It's an invasion of divisions and subdivisions to this lot will be 15 feet wide of building property.

If you can just imagine regular streets in your residential neighborhood with a 15-foot-wide property.

It's unbelievable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner, any commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

All right.

Try this again.

Our next speaker is Victor Lewis.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Victor Luce.

I am a resident of on Roxon Street.

As neighbors, we who live on this particular block, 2300 block of rocks, and we want it to be noted that we are strongly opposed to dividing the lot into two separate lots.

We are concerned it will undermine the market value of our own property, which is our greatest asset.

We worry that dividing it will violate the architectural uh integrity.

The it will uh degrade the community character that we have established, the diminish the neighborhood appeal that attracted us to this neighborhood.

We have lived there for quite some time.

We have lived here for most of our professional lives, raised our families there.

We plan to retire here.

And our sentiment reflects the strong opinions of our neighbors on this same block.

Those property owners who could not attend have registered their concerns, voice their oppositions in the attached signatures that I have here.

The signatures represent 75 percent of property owners who do actually live on this property block of Roxton.

Like us, they are equally invested in what happens to our neighborhood.

They worry that dividing the plot into two lots will erode the uh community character that was established with the Southampton extension.

We do not, as residents, want to lose the appeal of our neighborhood, nor do we want to diminish this neighborhood as it was designed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Lewis.

If you wouldn't mind leaving that signatures with staff, my wife has the originals.

Okay.

All right, great.

Thank you.

And are you, Ms.

Kay?

Yes.

Okay.

I'm Charlene Cade.

I live next door to the property in question.

Um we have canvas the entire block, and everybody that we have talked to, which is 75 percent of the residential property owners, have voiced opposition to this, as do we.

And I think there is somebody else from the neighborhood to speak.

Obviously, a lot of people could not be here today for various reasons.

I myself plan to retire and age in place in my home, and this is not a good time to have my property value diminished, or the character or integrity of my neighborhood affected.

So I think we all feel similarly, if there's any way we can manage this with either a deferral or whatever it takes.

Uh, everybody that we have talked to is in full agreement with us.

So we just appreciate your consideration.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Commissioner Baldwin.

At some point I just want to weigh in to the neighbors.

We hear what you are saying, but to be clear, the law doesn't grant us the ability to just defer this for 90 days.

If it meets all the criteria, then we are bound by state law that says we must approve it.

If we can prove that it violates some deed restriction, then that would give us some recourse, which I am assuming legal is weighing in.

But if it if it there is no prohibition against subdividing, it can be subdivided.

We don't have the ability to not grant them the ability to subdivide.

It would have those side setbacks, like you are saying, I guess they could build a 15-foot wide structure.

But I just want to be clear, we don't have the latitude to just do what we want.

Thank you for that clarification.

I am going to ask that in a minute.

You need another minute.

Okay.

But we cannot defer.

Okay.

And we can't defer.

Madam Chair, Mr.

Calhoun, we have already had one deferral because of the Thanksgiving cycle.

We cannot defer again, correct?

Yeah, we had a three-week cycle, so we could we can only defer once.

Yes.

Can you come forward, please?

He has a very shaken right.

Hi, my name is Michael Bubis.

I realize what I am about to say is in direct contrast to what you just said, but I want to at least give my own words.

Our neighborhood has always been defined by its character, modest, well-kept two-story homes, tree-lined streets, and a sense of continuity that has lasted for generations.

It's not just the buildings, it is the feeling of stability of knowing that the place we chose to raise our families will look and feel the same tomorrow as it did yesterday.

That stability is now being threatened by the proposal to build multiple three-story houses right in the middle of a street that is made up entirely of older two-story homes.

Let's be honest about who benefits from this kind of change.

It's the families who live who it's not the families that live here.

It is the residents who care about maintaining the safety, consistency, and charm of this neighborhood.

The only people who stand to gain are the builders, outsiders who will profit from the construction and then move on, leaving us to deal with the consequences.

These consequences are real.

A pair of oversized, out of scale houses disrupts the architectural rhythm of the entire street.

They block light, they intrude on privacy.

They create a visual imbalance that erodes the historic character that makes our neighborhood what it is.

Once we open the door to this type of development, it becomes harder to close it again.

Little by little we risk transforming our community into something unrecognizable, not because residents wanted it, but because developers saw an opportunity to maximize profit.

We are not against growth and we are not against progress, but growth must make sense for the people who already live here.

Progress should enhance a neighborhood, not overshadow it.

What is being proposed does not serve the community, it serves the developer.

So I urge you to consider what is at stake.

We're not just protecting buildings.

We're protecting the character, harmony, and quality of life that make this neighborhood home.

Let's make sure that the people who live here, not the people that profit here are the ones whose voices matter most.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

I am sorry, sir, but you can't come back up and speak.

No, you only have one opportunity.

Yeah, you can't come back up and speak.

You cannot come back up and speak.

I'm really sorry, but that's the rules.

And I have to put five percent.

I have to abide by the rules, sir.

Thank you.

Anyone else that would like to speak?

Okay.

Madam Chair, I have some questions.

Okay.

All right.

So a hand back there.

Yes, please.

If you want to come up and speak, please come forward.

Thank you.

Thanks for coming up, yeah.

Is it on?

Yeah?

Thank you for the opportunity.

Uh my name is Jorge Bisbal.

I am not a developer from California.

I've been living in Houston, Texas since 2003.

I build in California, but I build more than 25 to 30 custom homes in Western University and other areas, uh even in the Rice Village.

So I am not a developer from California that came, snatched the land and now want to uh abuse the neighborhood.

No, actually, to me it is very interesting to see that the uh HOA they allow to build duplexes, which are kind of substandard homes instead of a single family homes in smaller pieces of land, like in this case if we replot.

Um we of course do not want to fight anyone, we don't want to violate any rules.

If there are rules that we have to abide to, we will, and then instead of two houses, we will build one home.

And not a problem.

I mean, we are a builder, so we can build anything that uh would be great for the neighborhood.

Now about the charm and all this thing of the neighborhood, most of the houses are not really well kept.

So of course bringing modern houses is going to disbalance, but also gives opportunity to new families that want to live in the in the area, you know.

So this is how we see it.

Uh and we will abide if the city allows us and uh and we split that and we can build and we will build two.

If not, we will build one house.

My only question is that about building lines, because the city has only building lines at the front.

And that works for us.

But if we divide and then we have to abide to the to the HOA, which we need to do five and then five, then the fifteen uh the fifteen feet width of the house, that's that it will be a ridiculous house.

It will be like a funnel.

So we're not gonna build that.

I can tell you flat out, if there are deed restrictions on that piece of property, that make enforce five foot on every side.

Okay.

Then you have to adhere to it.

We can't override.

No, no, no.

That was my question.

My main question because if I replot, then I get that.

Yes.

Then I have to go five feet per per house, then is it doesn't work for me.

So basically I'll do the house, do you know?

Right.

Okay.

Commissioners, any questions?

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Commissioner Jones?

With that, uh, you are still going to be contending with potential firewalls if you are less than five feet.

You do know that.

Yes.

Yes, absolutely.

One and a half hour firewalls, yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

No other questions.

Commissioner Baldwin, you keep looking like you want to say something.

Well, I what I want to do is move that we move this item beyond item 96 to give Ms.

Howard just a little more time before we can weigh in whether or not there are these side setbacks or not, because I think that determines a lot of things.

Because we could plat it with the five-foot setbacks.

You still build one house on the two lots.

If you don't want to build the one, you know, so it doesn't destroy his ability to build one house on two lots.

But we need clarity on the five-foot setbacks.

So I move that we move this item past what was the old 88 after 96.

There are.

In the HOA, but there.

Okay.

Okay.

So I am hitting that we defer this item but past the one that we are going to do after 96 to get legal levels.

All right, so we'll put that one behind the other one that we put behind 96.

Yes.

Okay.

So we have a motion.

Do I have a second?

Second porus purdle.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

We'll come back to it.

Okay.

I think y'all are just messing with me because you are making my agenda a little difficult here.

Okay.

So now we're going to move on to D, subdivision plates with variance requests.

And item 93.

Item 93.

Item 93, Cooper Reserve.

The site is located in Houston ETJ in Montgomery County, north along Grand Parkway and east of Deer Run Lane.

The applicant requested a variant on section 193 to allow a residential lot to be replotted into an unrestricted reserve.

Staff recommendation is to defer the plot.

The property is a partial replot of Cooper Estate subdivision that was recorded in 1983, where this laws are restricted to residential use by plot.

Therefore, the applicant is requested a variant to allow the we plat to change the use from lot to an unrestricted reserve to develop a commercial site.

At this time, staff will like to defer this plot to allow the more time for the applicant to coordinate and get support from adjacent property owners.

So staff recommendation is to defer the plot for additional information.

They conclude my presentation.

Thank you, Ms.

Rodriguez.

I don't have anyone signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to speak on 93?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation for deferral.

Do I have a motion?

Motion.

Motion but no Pallad rose's hand.

Okay.

Motion ballard.

Who was over here?

I heard this.

Okay.

No bill, sorry.

Okay.

Motion ballard, second ball went.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 94.

Item 94, North Airport Logistics Center.

The site is located in Houston ETJ in Harris County, west along Way Ford Road and north of Farm Market 1960.

The advocate requested a variant to exceed the intersection space and requirement along media collector way for street.

The distance along way four is about 4,0300 feet.

Therefore, per chapter 42, the applicant must dedicate an equal public street through the site.

The property is intended for industrial development.

And providing this street dedication would introduce industrial traffic into the future residential area to the west, creating conflicts between incompatible and uses.

So granting the variant would avoid industrial vehicles from passing through the residential neighborhood.

Also, the subset site and the surrounding track already have adequate footage and assets to the assistant public street.

Harris County has no objection to the variance request.

That recommendation is to grant the request to variance and approve the plans substitute the CPC 101 form condition.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't have anyone signed to speak for item 94.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

So uh I need a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion psyches, second.

Motion psyches.

Second Mondapaka.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 95.

Item 95.

South Airport Logistics Center.

The site is located in Houston ETJ in Harris County, east along Wayport and north of Farm Market 1960.

The advocate request an invariant to not extend or terminate Clairefield Lane with the Kulissack.

Staff is in support of the request.

The property is proposed for industrial use with a detention pond.

Clairefield Lane, a local public street currently stopped into the easterly property boundary.

So the applicant is required to extend this street to meet the ordinance.

So granting the variant will help to avoid introducing industrial traffic into the assistant residential neighborhood to the each.

Harris County has no objection to the request.

That recommendation is to grant the variant and approve the plat substitute to the CPC 101 informed condition.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 95.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

I think I have a speaker.

We are good.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Questions from any of the commissioners?

Okay.

Do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion Mondapaka.

Motion Mondapaca.

Second Jones.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 96.

Item 96, Victory Villas.

The site is located in the city limit at the intersection of South Victoria Drive and Long Street, west of Shepard Drive.

The applicant requested an invariant to allow a 20-foot builder line instead of 25 along May Thoroughfare, South Victory Drive.

Staff is in support of the request.

The applicant proposes to reply one lot into a multi-unit residential MUR reserve to develop a possession-friendly project in accordance with the MUR performance standards.

The development will have four residential units facing the street with vehicular assets and parking located at the rear of the site.

While the MUR performance standards allow a 15-foot bugline along major thoroughfare with right-of-way up 80 feet or less in width, South Vitro Drive is 130 feet wide and doesn't qualify for the building reduction.

However, South Victoria Drive consists of two 50-wide travel lanes separated by a 30-feet draining ditch, creating a wide street cross-section, providing substantial separation between the vehicular traffic and the adjacent development.

So allowing the proposed 20-foot bullet line will still meet and preserve the intent of the ordinance, providing adequate pedestrian realm and ample buffering along the street.

The percyplan, the pedestrian realm is about 18 feet wide with a minimum 10 feet safety buffer and a minimum six-foot-wide sidewalk with no driveway access to South Victory Drive.

The proposed structure will be located about 28 feet away from the curve curve, providing appropriate separation from the travel lanes.

Therefore, stat recommendation is to grant the requested variance and approve the plat subject to the CPC 101 form condition.

And staff did not receive any public comment in events.

Thank you, Ms.

Rodriguez.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a motion of granting the request of variance and approve the plat.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second, fam.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Okay.

So now we're going to move along to item 88, which that's the first one we pulled.

The applicant has submitted in writing and verbally requested a 30-day extension.

However, as we are going to a three-week cycle for the Christmas holiday, the extension would only go to December 18th, which would be our next commission.

So this would effectively be a 30-day request, but only effectively be a two-week deferral.

Does that give time for the notice?

For notice, well, for notice for this, it's still an act of application, so they would only have to update the sign, which they can't do that on Monday.

I think we would have require a picture of a revision after the sign uh by end of day Monday.

Okay.

And then Ms.

Howard, did you want to weigh in on the D restrictions?

I would need that time.

You need that time.

Okay.

Okay.

Relevant questions.

Okay.

Great.

All right.

Motion Baldwin for the 30-day extension.

Well, to December 18th.

PAM second.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Who seconded?

A fam.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now we'll move along to item number 92.

Go ahead, Mr.

Cowan.

You ready?

Okay.

Yes, ma'am, I'm ready.

Yeah, I know.

I'm confused too, don't feel bad.

Do you have any commentation?

Uh recommendation uh is to approve.

Okay.

And it it's an HOA question, so we need legal input.

Ms.

Howard, are you ready to have input on this one?

Um item 92.

There was a question about um do the deed restrictions apply to this lot.

Can they subdivide it and put town homes on it?

Sorry.

Yeah, with the side setbacks.

Yeah.

I mean if they apply, then yeah, all of that applies.

Yeah.

Right.

Oh, we did.

And we can't defer this one again either, correct?

Can we encourage our applicant to make a 30-day extension?

Can we bring the applicant back up?

Where is the applicant?

That's I don't believe the applicant is here for this one.

Okay.

We can't do that.

Okay.

What are the setbacks that he is requesting?

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, so say that.

I'm sorry.

I'm getting chatter from every direction.

Yeah.

Okay.

My only question, and again, if we don't want to uh step on anybody else's rules, my only question is the following.

Um if we replot the lot into two lots, okay?

And my bill lines are, as it was on the screen that what we submitted to the CT.

10 to start the house, but if we have a garage is 20.

So basically my bill line will be 20 at the front.

No build on no build line in the back and none on the sites.

Okay.

We don't we don't control that.

What would control that is exactly what we're asking our legal for advice.

Yeah.

Do the deed restrictions apply to this lot?

Exactly.

That was my question.

So if we did that.

Well we can't guarantee you.

So all we're looking for today is we are not prepared.

There's some questionable stuff.

Our legal has been looking at.

We're asking you, are you requesting in writing for a 30-day extension, which would basically take you to the time is money?

I'm going to give one house.

Because this is just too much time is makes no business sense.

So you understand though, if even if we approve this and it violates the deed restrictions, you'll still have to follow the deed restrictions.

They'll just file a lawsuit against you and you'll spend more money.

No, no, no, no.

If I build one house, it's it I don't I don't I will follow their deed restrictions.

Because one house I have one lot right now.

So I can build one house in one load.

Sir, sir.

Uh call to order.

Thank you.

Okay.

Go ahead.

So right now I have one lot.

I can build one house and I'm okay with the these restrictions of 5-5.

When I am not okay in if if I build two, because then I will have to leave 5-5, so my houses are not wide enough.

But I want to be clear.

Even if we approve this plat without the five-foot setbacks, and it's determined tomorrow that they really are five-foot setbacks, you have to meet the five-foot setbacks.

You'll just be in a lawsuit with the homeowner.

I think what you just said, Commissioner Baldwin is he would meet it with one house.

Yes.

He wouldn't do the replacement.

If you approve right now, I don't record and their the jurisdiction apply.

I don't record the plot, and I have one property, one house, and everybody is happy.

So you do you wouldn't rather wait for a deferral.

No, time is too much.

Okay, I need order, order, order.

Yeah, I already deferred it once, and in order to do no more and to get to know them.

And again, we're neighbors.

I'm not from California.

So uh I will be La House uh Build House.

So yeah.

I mean you do understand this could get denied.

I don't know how the Commissioners are going to vote.

So if it gets denied, I believe one house, and I'm happy.

Okay.

So it's fine.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions?

Yes, Commissioner Matez.

Not to covolate anything, but my takeaway from the comments earlier on the application were that those aren't in place yet.

That's why they asked for the 90 day.

And they do have to do that.

Okay.

Yes, arva.

Yes.

I mean, how are you saying?

But the restrictions have a 25-foot front set back, six feet on the side property lines, and 10 from the side street lines.

Right.

Right.

And he is asking for something contrary to that.

Right.

That's correct.

I will move that we deny the application.

Based on recommendation that we have to do.

I will second that.

Can we I need to I need clarification if we can do the motion that way.

Can we make a motion that says we are going to deny an application because he states verbally that he is not going to apply comply with the which we don't know what setbacks they are, quite frankly.

But if he is saying that he is not going to comply.

Okay.

I thought he said he was going to comply with one house, that he couldn't comply with two if the five foot all around applied.

He can't he can't do that.

So he said if that was the case, he would do one house on both the lot.

But this application is asking for more than one house.

Right.

So that's what is being denied.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarification.

We needed that on the record.

So we have a recommendation of denial by Commissioner Baldwin.

Do I have a second?

Second sites.

Second Sykes.

Thank you.

I didn't hear who it was in all the commotion.

All in favor?

Opposed?

I am going to oppose.

Okay.

Please note that Commissioner Gars opposes.

Okay.

Motion passes.

Moving on.

And I I do want I just want to state we are not trying to be mean up here and not let people come back and speak, but there are rules and we have to comply with them.

And so I do have to call for order when we get out of order.

So I appreciate everyone's understanding.

Moving along to F, reconsideration of requirements.

Item 97 is Bonita Grant.

The subject site is a nearly one acre property located in the Houston City limits, south along Canal Street, southeast of Navigation Boulevard, and west of Delano Street.

The applicant is proposing a commercial reserve and is requesting a variance to not dedicate five feet of widening and to allow a zero-foot building line along North Live Oak Street.

Staff is in support of the request.

The applicant is proposing a commercial reserve.

Sorry, the applicant intends to rehab the existing structure and to create a hotel site with 96 rooms.

Elevations show the main structure will be revised, but there will be additions made on top of the existing structure that would be within the existing ten-foot building line encroachment.

There will be no additional encroachments at the ground level, but the but to do the additions, the applicant must request a reduced zero-foot building line.

North Live Oak itself is only two blocks in length, being spanning 775 feet between commerce and Saltus.

The right-of-way payment along North Live Oak itself is 35 feet, providing sufficient means for ingress and ingress for the proposed use without additional widening.

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

Thank you, Mr.

Sidio.

I don't have anyone signed to speak on item 97.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Seeing none, I will seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Baldwin.

Second Jones, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

And we are doing number uh 98 and 17 together.

Okay.

Item 98 is Fairbanks Landing General Plan and 17 is Fairbanks Landing Section 1.

The subject site is an over 124-acre property located in the Harris County extra-territorial jurisdiction, east along Fairbanks North Houston Road and north of West Road.

The applicant is proposing a general plan.

Oh, sorry.

The applicant is proposing a general plan and is requesting a variance to not provide any north-south streets to the property.

Staff is in support of this request.

The property itself has multiple existing conditions that hinder the extension of a north-south right-of-way.

There is a hundred and seventy-foot wide Harris County Flood Control District drainage channel and easement that blocks the extension of right of ways within the western half of the subject site.

Commerce Plaza at Fairbanks and Fairbanks Industrial are plates to the south that were both granted the same intersection spacing variants to not provide north-south streets.

So any right-of-way extension south of the site would have no options for connection.

Fairbanks North Houston Center GP to the north did create three stubs bearing south towards the subject site, one of which is the extension of the major thoroughfare of Hollister Road, which has already been dedicated to the right-of-way by the site.

The other two stubs are blocked by a large detention pond and existing Harris County flood control channels that hinder any connection to the north from the subject site.

The general plan does provide an east-west street that connects Fairbanks North Houston to Hollister Road.

Once fully dedicated, Hollister Road will provide a strong conduit for traffic and connectivity.

Harris County Engineering has no objection to the variance.

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

Madam Chair, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed up to speak on 98 and number 17.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Hearing none, if the Commissioners, you don't have any questions.

I will need a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Mandapaka.

Motion Mandapaka.

Second porus purdle.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 99.

Item 99 is Katie Aquatic Team for Youth Incorporated.

The subject site is a five-acre property located in the Harris County extraterritorial jurisdiction, east along Peaks Road and south of Beckendorth Road.

The applicant is proposing an unrestricted reserve and is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not providing an east-west street through the property.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is proposed to be an aquatic swimming center for youth with an eastern third of the property intended for detention.

The site is one of few properties that can provide an east-west connection on Peak Road, as other sites around the area have been approved without an East West Street, and options for a viable East-West connection are limited.

However, the property directly to the east has multiple existing homes and structures shown in light blue squares.

And further east is a transmission corridor with existing towers shown in dark blue circles, all of which greatly hinder an extension of a right-of-way east of this location.

The variance was previously granted to this site in 2018, but it was not recorded.

The properties to the immediate south could provide a better or more applicable option for an East-West Street that could connect to other right-of-ways further to the east without the impediment of existing homes or towers.

Harris County Engineering has no objection to the variance.

Staff recommendations to grant the request of variance and approve the plat subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

Madam, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I do have a couple of speakers.

Our first speaker is Andrew Allemand.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Commission.

My name is Andrew Allemand from Beacon Land Services.

I think we are all on the same page with the mayor to the variants, so I won't go into that.

I will ask if it is possible to leave the unrestricted designation.

So you'll get to hear from the owner here in a second.

There are not-for-profit swimming-based academy.

And as they move forward with their development, go to seek funding.

It is obviously a lot easier to get funding and go through the mechanics of title if you have an unrestricted property.

And so because the staff, if if they are worried about density coming into play later, like if I think that is what we understood.

If the property was to go into like a single family configuration, that would require a replat, and then that replat would have to be filed with the commission, and that would give you an opportunity to then upsize the street and do what you need to do on that regard.

So I don't think there is really a merit for designating it as a commercial reserve, and it does the applicant some good.

And so I think both sides are addressed, and that's that's the only thing we are asking.

Staff's recommendations otherwise are fine, but just leave it as an unrestricted reserve.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

Ms.

Howard, is that possible for us?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Did you want to say something, Mr.

Sidio?

I have another speaker.

That's fine, but thank you very much.

Okay.

So you are Paul Travis Sandifer.

Correct.

I am the director for the youth sports organization.

Okay.

We thank you very much for your consideration and everything.

We are able to keep that.

That's just what my board was asking me to do.

You missed said more than hello.

Sorry.

That's okay.

Paul Sander for Katie Aquatics, I'm the director.

My board had asked me to come and be here in case was needed.

Sounds like I may not be needed, and I appreciate the you guys looking at it.

And if we can keep that unrestricted designation, that would be great.

Great.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Yes.

Only for Mr.

C do you want to make sure that when we make the motion, we can in fact do that.

So we had asked them in review to put consider the potentiality of converting to commercial as they have submitted as unrestricted.

In coordination, we realized uh you know if they do have the option to maintain that.

We don't really have any uh other grounds because we do have concerns not so much with converting to multifamily but to convert a single family but to multifamily.

If there is an apartment complex, we want potentiality for other connections to the right-of-way for fire safety and other aspects.

However, if the only thing that we could convert to would be commercial, that in fact would still allow multifamily in the in the ETJ, so it would effectively not do much at this point.

So we're okay with leaving it as it was submitted with an unrestricted reserve.

So we aren't changing it or leaving it as it is.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Sidio.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

All right.

Well, Commissioners, you have a recommendation in front of you for approval.

Grant the request of variance and approve the plat.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garzon.

Motion Garza, and that does include just leaving it as unrestricted.

Sorry.

I have a lot of seconds.

It was Heinz.

I think Heinz was next.

So uh Garza and Heinz.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 100.

Item 100 is McKay Air Center.

The subject site is an over 9-acre property located in the Houston City limit, west along McKay Drive, north of Will Clayton Road, and east of proposed Umbull Parkway.

The applicant is proposing an unrestricted reserve and is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not providing an east-west street to the property.

Stavage support of the request.

The site is proposed to be a warehouse distribution center, taking direct access from McKay Drive.

The site is over 2600 feet away from Umbo Westfield to the north and less than 1400 feet away from a Case Center Drive to the south.

This indicates there would be better placement for an east-west right-of-way further to the north to meet intersection spacing requirements from both Umbull Westfield and McKay Center.

Two other applications, Broadmore Health General Plan and McKay International Trace Center were both approved with markups to provide an East West Street through their sites as extensions of Warehouse Center Drive to the West, effectively placing this as shown in the out alignment.

Staff recommendation is to grant the requested variants and approve the plat subject to CPC 101 from conditions, intending an East West Street to be provided further north to coincide within the overlapping intersection spacing window from both Umbo Westfield and McKay Center, still meeting Chapter 42 intersection spacing.

Madam Chair, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Sidio.

I don't have anyone signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation in front of you to have a motion.

Motion Mata's Okay.

Second, sir.

Sir, I want to say your name right.

So Ram.

Okay.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving along to G, extension of approval.

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

My name is Akilah Bidge.

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

Yes, please.

Sections G, extensions of approval consists of item 101 through 116.

Section H name changes consist of item 117.

Section I, certification of compliance consists of no items.

And 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 to have a motion.

105 and 108.

Anyone else?

Yes, Shepard abstained from 105.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Yes.

Director Tran.

Do y'all want to leave the room or do you want to stay?

We could stay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

So do we have to um we have to pull those out?

No.

No, we just today.

Um.

So we have G H and I.

J.

J.

Which has nothing.

And so we are going to note that uh Shepherd and Heisher is abstaining from 105 and Heisch from 108.

Uh do I have a motion?

Motion.

Motion por Spurtle.

Uh FAM second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

All right.

Okay.

Development plats with variance requests.

Thank you.

It's tiring today.

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

My name is Ramon Jaime Leon.

Item 118.

Uh 2250 Bart Led Street.

This site is located south of South south of Southwest Freeway along the west side of Greenborough Drive.

At the northwest corner of Barlett Street and Greenborough Drive.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 20-foot building line instead of the required 25-foot setback.

Staff is in support of the requested variance.

The corner lot was platted with the Chevy Chase subdivision in 1928.

The subject site has frontage along both Bartlett Street and a local street and Greenbrier is the major thoroughfare.

The applicant is proposing a new single-family residence.

The proposed structure will sit approximately 34 feet from the back of curb along Greenbrier, which will allow which will not hinder any site visibility and will not be injurious to public health safety and or welfare.

The proposed 20-foot building line along Greenbrier Drive is keeping with the character is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood as many residential properties in the area are set back closer than 25 feet building line.

Green Bar Drive is a one-way north street that is.

Furthermore, the applicant has received the original site, has revised the original site and is uh now taking access from the local street.

Staff recommendation it recommends approving the requested variance to allow a 20-foot building line along Greenborough Drive, a major thoroughfare for a new single-family residence with the condition that the applicant coordinates with uh Houston Public Works to approve uh to provide a uh uh six-foot uh sidewalk and encloses the existing curve cut along Greenborough Drive.

Sorry, what I meant about uh HPW was the uh the curb cut.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Just wanted to clarify that.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

Uh we have one speaker sign.

Ms.

Poole, did you want to speak or are you just here for questions?

Okay, thank you.

Any questions, Commissioners?

Okay, so you have a motion for approval.

Do I have a excuse me?

Do I have a motion?

Motion Baldwin.

Second Matez, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed, motion carries.

Item 119.

Item 119, that is uh 12230 Bohem Street.

The site is located within the Houston corporate uh limit along Gessner, uh south of Katie Freeway and north of Memorial Drive.

The applicant proposes a second story addition to an existing home.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a 20-foot building line along Gessner Drive rather than the 25-foot required for a major thoroughfare.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is located at the northwest intersection of Gessner and Bohem with a within the memorial community.

The site consists of a home fronting the in internal cul-de-sac with a secondary frontage along Bohem and Gessner.

The home meets the setbacks shown on the plat, which includes a 20-foot building line along Gessner Drive.

The applicant is requesting a variance to alter the existing structure within the existing setback instead of abiding by the 25-foot building line required for a major thoroughfare.

The subdivision predates Chapter 42 and has numerous other homes within with a similar setback.

In addition, the home will retain vehicular access from the cul-de-sac, allowing Gessner pedestrian realm to stay interrupted.

Staff finds the request to be consistent with the building line requirement and recommends approval.

Thank you.

I don't have any speakers signed on item 119.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Were you raising your hand?

Homeowners we are here that has any questions.

Okay, great.

Any questions, Commissioners?

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so you have a recommendation for approval.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Jones.

Second fam.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 120.

Item 120.

It was actually deferred once.

459 Faust Lane.

Uh the site is located within the Houston corporate limit, south of West South and South and West of Memorial and East of Bellwood 8.

The applicant proposes a new single-family home on the corner.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 10-foot building line for a side-facing garage rather than the required 20-foot building line.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is located at the corner of Broken Bow Drive and Faust Lane within the Memorial Bend community.

This neighborhood was subdivided with 25-foot building lines and 10-foot setbacks for the corner properties.

However, this in this case allowing the garage entry to remain along the side to be allowed.

Uh since uh the only sidewalk affecting the property is along the primary frontage.

In addition, the site features a 17-foot uh back of curb distance to broken bowed pavement, allowing the allowing for sufficient distance if the sidewalk were installed at a later time.

Staff finds the request to be consistent with the intent of Chapter 42 and recommends approval.

Staff received comment from public uh expressing concerns over the impact on utilities and drainage.

Staff has also received no objection from Memorial Bend Architecture Review Committee.

This concludes my presentation.

Great.

Thank you.

Um again, Ms.

Poole, are you here just for questions?

Okay.

All right.

Any questions, Commissioners?

Well, Commissioner Baldwin for staff.

Yes.

Let's just be clear.

On broken bowel, there are no sidewalks?

No.

But if there were to be one, there would only be 18 feet from the back of the sidewalk to the deal, right?

I mean, that's not enough for a pickup truck.

Right.

Um, however, I bel I uh had conversations with the applicant.

I believe they're submitting a sidewalk modification, which will um keep the um the would keep with the uh alignment of the safety buffer that runs uh as as to be proposed.

So is a part of our motion.

Are we sure that there would be at least 20 feet distance between the sidewalk and the garage door?

17 feet.

Is that the requirement?

17 feet is from the curb, isn't it?

It's from the curb, yes.

Yeah, not the sidewalk.

Well, the car block the sidewalk.

No.

Okay.

That's the same thing.

There you go.

Better question.

Yeah.

Okay.

Commissioner Jones, you had a question.

I wanted to share that the Memorial Super Neighborhood does not oppose this reply.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

Okay.

So Commissioners, you have a motion for approval.

Do I have a recommendation?

I mean motion.

Second maddase.

Okay.

Motion fam, second mattes.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 121.

Item 121, 5343 Inchor Street.

Um.

The plan uh sorry, the site is located south of Interstate 10 at southwest corner of TC Jester and Inker Street.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 12.5 foot uh building lane instead of the required 25 required uh along TC Jester, a major thoroughfare.

Uh that the planning department is recommending to defer for further study and review and to allow the applicant time to respond to concerns over safety and the state of hardship.

Okay, thank you.

Um I have Miss Owens here.

Did you want to speak or did you uh just be here for questions?

Come on up.

Oh, no, you put the right one.

It's just me.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I'll talk to you in a minute.

I was just trying to confuse you like I am.

Okay.

So I have no one signed to speak on 121.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation of deferral.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Baldwin.

Garza.

Second Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 122.

Now you'll be up, Ms.

Owens.

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

My name is Ed Buckley.

Item 122 is 519 West 30th Street.

The site is located along the 610 North Loop on West 30th Street between Shepherd and Yale.

Site consists of a single family lot within the Garden O'S community.

The applicant is proposing a new single-family home and is requesting a 10-foot building line in lieu of the ordinance required 25-foot building line along a major thoroughfare.

The site is constrained by a 50-foot DD restricted front building line.

The proposal would leave approximately 25 feet from the closest part of the proposed structure to the edge of the pavement.

The existing home and subdivision predate the feeder road and the 25-foot building line requirement.

The site backs up to a concrete sound barrier that separates the site from travel lanes of the freeway.

This allows for smaller structures to be built within the 25-foot setback without interfering with traffic or public safety.

The application achieves a similar result to the Chapter 42 provision allowing for one-story garages to back up to a major thoroughfare.

A portion of the home will also be within the 25-foot building line.

The request is similar to variances previously approved in the area and is in line with many other structures built prior to the 25-foot building line requirement.

Staff recommendation is to approve the variance request for a 10-foot building line along the back of the property.

Thank you.

Ms.

Owens, now did you want to speak or just questions?

Okay.

Commissioners any questions?

All right.

You have a recommendation of approval in front of you.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Baldwin?

Second Garza.

Second Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed motion carries.

Thank you.

Now we're moving along to have to do my public hearings first if I can open the page.

Roman numeral four establish a public hearing date of January 8th, 2026 for Bayou Trail replat number one, Cato Estates, Copperwood Water Plant Reserve Replat number one and extension, estates at Wooding Street, Fairway Creek, Fernwood Estates, Gulfway Terrace Partial Replat number one, Milwaukee Village, Popalote Park, Tidwell Square, and Windsor Place Edition Partial Replat number four.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Haiish.

Second Porsperdle, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed, motion carries.

Roman numero five, consideration of an off-street parking variance for 5317 Inchor Street.

Roman numeral five is 5317 Anchor Street.

The site is located east of TC Jester Boulevard and west of Dutering Street on the south side of Anchor Street.

The applicant is proposing to convert a warehouse to a gymnasium and is requesting to provide more than 25 percent of the required parking at an off-site location more than 500 feet away to provide a partial pedestrian path to the offsite parking which will be mitigated by providing shuttle service and to provide a total of 79 on-site and off-site parking spaces in lieu of the ordinary required 88 parking spaces.

Staff recommendations to defer the item for further study and review.

Thank you.

Okay.

So I have some speakers.

My first speaker is DeMarco Howard.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Howard, if you'd state your name for the record please.

My name is DeMarco Howard.

I am the owner and founder of the arts.

I am also part owner of the structure or facility.

We are simply asking that the parking spaces on our site be uh smaller so that we can use a parking garage which we have a lease with which is a little bit over the distance that is required.

We have a lease with them it is currently inactive.

We also have an agreement with the building that is to the west that we just got a verbal commitment with yesterday to use their parking as well.

We have about a thousand students that we house over the year we provide physical activities for the to do outside of you know playing video games, running the streets, so we're just trying to do something good for the community.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

Commissioners any questions?

Commissioner Baldwin What's their age?

What's the age group of these children?

We have from three to 103.

No no I'm the age of them are they 18 years old with cars or are they 12 years old?

So most of our students are dropped off.

Parents do not say in the front of our facility we have a U-turn so they drop them off they leave they come back pick them up typical age.

Typical age is from five to twelve we do have some teenagers who have like one or two cars but they park in the garage okay commissioners any other questions okay thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Terry Strouder I am just yielding questions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Ms Cobb Hi there.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, as well as members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Renisha Cobb, just in case that is needed for the record.

I am a resident of the neighborhood where the off-street parking variants is submitted for the arts facility located on Inchor Street.

I respectfully speak in opposition to the request variants as it is currently written.

The request variance relies on additional parking spaces located at 5225 Knowder Street or 5217 Knowler Street.

Both were mentioned in the variants I'm not sure which one is the valid one but I also hear that there's going to be some parking to the west that was also mentioned earlier by the previous speaker the owner.

Nevertheless of which garage or space is intended there are no sidewalks or accessible pedestrian paths fully connecting those parking areas to the arts property.

In addition the arts facility itself lacks a complete sidewalk in front of the building requiring pedestrians so that includes clients, caregivers and staff to walk this in the street to reach and exit the arts entrance.

This presents significant and ongoing safety hazard for pedestrians, clients, and the neighborhood community, especially for those with disabilities, including but not limited fiscal and cognitive.

The surrounding streets already experience frequent congestions, especially on waste uh collection days, um, as well as during an events where nearby houses and businesses have activities.

There is also a planned hotel development on the same block uh Nolda Street as reference for the parking garage, and that's going to further intensify the amount of vehicles in the area.

Ensuring clear, unobstructed street access is essential to this, so that emergency vehicles like fire police, medical responders, and city services like waste management trucks can move freely at all times.

Additionally, this variance request does not include mitigation strategies for managing on-street parking, pedestrian safety or the pickup drop-off line access.

Facilities of this type typically generate significant pickup line queuing.

You guys probably know that from like school um areas, uh which adds to additional congestion.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay, thank you, Ms.

Cobb.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay.

And the last speaker I have signed to speak is Eric Kim.

Could be Rem, if I misspoke, please correct.

You spoke right.

Okay.

Yeah.

Uh good afternoon, and uh thanks for the opportunity.

I live on the Inker Street, and I I know how the traffic is every day.

So my main thing is we have a railroad right in front of us.

And uh from the I-10 TC jester to uh uh the railroad is really narrow.

Uh when whenever rail passes, the traffic goes all the way around from there to IT and Field Road.

So I mean, people really cannot move anything around.

And the right now the parking situation already is we have a bar across the street and another workup facility.

People are parking.

We have such a narrow street, but pure parking on the street.

And street parking is already uh scared.

And they have a little spot if you allow it uh we have a little spot on the railroad track next to there just an empty uh crest spot.

I think maybe city on that.

That uh is the place most I uh most likely a lot of people were parking there.

And to go to that facility, you have to cross the major TCGS road, which is like poor way lane.

It's also quite dangerous too.

And my really main concern is like it's going to make uh uh create a lot of a traffic jam there.

Um which we already experienced any time we pass it.

And it seems like it's gonna add up on other time, drop up time and pickup time and all that.

And so they need some kind of ways to uh generate more parkings without uh regiment being uh so much trouble because I I am I am right across the street from there.

I mean I can walk there in two minutes and I see how it is every day.

Uh thank you so much.

Thank you.

We appreciate you coming in.

Uh Commissioners, any questions?

Um I have a question, Mr.

Buckley.

Um they're saying they are parking on the streets, but are those no parking signs?

Uh several of the surrounding streets have prohibited on street parking.

Um I think that the main feedback that we got from the residents is the pickup and drop-off are a concern.

So that is one of the issues that we are gonna be discussing with the applicant is how to mitigate that in the next couple weeks.

Mr.

Howard, you are the applicant, right?

You have the opportunity to come back up and clarify if you'd like.

Thank you again.

So none of our clients ever park on the street.

There is physically no space to park on the street.

All of our clients park in our lot, which is the diagram that I just showed you, or that is on the screen, or at the parking garage.

Um like she mentioned on trash days, trash cans line the street.

There is no physical way for us to park in the street.

None of our clients ever walk across TC Jester because we pay for a parking garage on Nolder Street for them to park at.

We do not have our clients walk to our facilities.

We have four vans that we purchased to transport them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions, Commissioners?

Okay.

You have uh you want to restate the motion, please?

I mean the recommendation.

Yeah, recommendations to the further requests for further study and review.

Thank you.

And what exactly are we studying and reviewing?

Uh several things.

Um as the applicant stated, they uh may have a lease agreement with a different neighbor, which would change the request and allow them to provide more parking at a off-site facility that does meet the distance requirements.

Um I mean that that's that's the primary thing.

We would also like to review some options for circulation during pickup.

That's not directly under the planning department's purview, but it could be related to parking, so it's something that we want to address.

Yeah.

Yes, Commissioner Carroll.

Uh what are the hours of operation in the days?

So when does pickup and drop-off typically occur?

I will defer to the applicant on that if that's okay.

So during the day we have maybe five or six staff members.

We don't start our operations until 3 o'clock when school gets up.

So from 3 to 8 is our normal operating times.

Our pickup times are from 5 to 5.30, and then 7.30 to 8.

Those are the windows.

And again, we are able to move those windows to more accommodate traffic.

And this Monday through Friday or seven days a week.

Uh on Saturdays, we operate from 9.15 to 2 o'clock.

After 2 o'clock, we have birthday parties, but all of those people park in the garage.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Yes.

Sir.

Are you in business now at this location?

Yes.

What are you doing different?

What are we what what is different?

Different from what was there?

Or it was a tool um distribution center.

But you are already running your camp there already?

Already.

Already.

So trying to figure out what it is that we are doing if you are already doing this.

So I guess the only thing is that we're going to be able to do that.

Getting into compliance.

The only request we are asking is to allow us to continue to use the garage and not have, I guess, the limits for parking that would are supposed to happen.

The I forgot what I was going to say before that, but we're just trying to operate so that we can use that garage.

And how long have you been operating in this location?

Since May.

May of this year.

Yes.

Okay, gotcha.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Jones.

No.

Change your mind?

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Mr.

Buckley, help me clarify w what brought this about.

So we're really kind of worried about this sign over here just exploding.

The shortest answer that I can give uh in fact that the only answer that I really have enough information to give is that the applicant is requesting a change of views at the site.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners.

You have got a recommendation in front of you to defer for further study and review.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Heinz.

Motion Heinz.

Second, uh Ballard.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now we're moving along to Raman numeral six, consideration of an off-street parking variance for 107-50 Westview.

Roman numeral six is 10750 Westview Drive.

The site is located north of I-10, north of Westview Drive, and west of Beltway 8.

The site consists of an existing big box retail store with a planned expansion of the pickup area.

The proposal will include a structural addition and new landscaping.

The applicant is requesting an off-street parking variance to provide 588 parking spaces rather than the required 632.

The proposed construction will increase the building square footage, which increases the parking requirement by ordinance, and proposed landscaping will reduce the number of parking spaces on site.

The existing store was constructed in the mid-1980s prior to the off-street parking ordinance.

The proposed construction will better facilitate pickup shopping and is expected to reduce demand for parking overall as patrons picking up online orders will spend less time at the site.

The site is surrounded by commercial uses and major thoroughfares, reducing the possibility that spillover parking will disrupt residential areas.

Staff finds the request to be a practical alternative, strict interpretation of Chapter 26 and recommends approval.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

I have no one signed to speak.

Does is there anyone that wishes to?

Yes.

Come forward, please.

Hello, my name is Adam Barnes.

I am just here to answer questions, so if you have any slides.

Great.

Are there any questions?

Commissioner Baldwin.

If there's not enough parking in Walmart goes broke, they'll find some place else to go.

It's called market-based parking, kind of like the deal with the kids center over there.

The market dictates how much parking they need in Walmart.

Well, if it makes you feel better, I was there the other night.

With my daughter, and it's Christmas shopping, and there were half the parking lot was empty.

There you go.

Market-based parking works.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anything else?

Anyone else wants to speak on this item?

All right.

So Commissioners, you have a motion, a recommendation in front of you.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Jones, second ball one.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to Riman Numero 7.

I'm not going to repeat that all time.

I'll let staff do that when they come up.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and the Planning Commission.

My name is Tanya Sawyer with the Planning and Development Department.

The Planning and Development Department has received an application to renew a 5,775 square foot special minimum lot size for the area located in third ward.

The 2400 to 2500 block of Cleburn Street, South Side, between Emancipation Avenue and Live Oak Street.

The minimum lot size ordinance for this block was originally approved by City Council on November 22nd, 2005.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the application to City Council for approval.

According to our analysis, the application area consists of eight single family residential lots representing 80 percent of the total area.

A minimum lot size of 5,775 square feet exists on five lots in the application area.

Evidence of support is not required for renewals per ordinance section 42-207.

All property owners were provided notice stating that a protest of the application must be filed within a 30-day period.

One protest was filed, and we also received an email letter of support from the property owner of 2406 Cleburn.

The application area is located in Washington Terrace Subdivision, which was platted in 1925.

Staff would like to note that this is a minimum lot size renewal, meaning the application is the applicant is requesting that the ordinance be extended for an additional 20 years.

Because the original designation was established prior to October 10, 2007, the renewal does not include single family restriction.

Staff recommend that the Planning Commission forward the application for city council to City Council for approval.

With that, Madam Chair, we are ready to continue the public hearing.

Thank you.

The public hearing is continued for Riman Numero 7.

I do have a speaker, Leeroy Johnson.

Good afternoon.

Good evening, uh Madam Chairman and to the Planning Commission.

Uh my name is Leroy Johnson.

I'm here because I had filed an application to extend the special minimum lot size.

I had one got a letter saying I had a protester, so I was here to come.

So we recommending that the all we want to do is preserve the lot size character of the neighborhood.

Right.

Very good.

Thank you for coming in.

Commissioners, any questions?

All right, is there anyone else that wishes to speak?

No.

Come on up.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Ernest Johnson, and I'm a property owner on 2406 Cleburne.

I am in favor of the application also to preserve the integrity of historic third ward also.

Great.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate you coming in.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation.

And we have a recommendation from staff to approve.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Ballard.

Okay.

I heard Shepard first.

Ballard second.

All in favor?

Posed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there anyone here that wants to make a public comment?

Oh, did I skip eight?

Huh?

I'm just in a hurry.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

So we're moving along to Roman numeral eight, public hearing for consideration of a special lot minimum lot size block for East Sunnyside Court Subdivision Section 3.

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

My name is Jacqueline Brown.

Staff is requesting that this application be deferred for two weeks to allow the planning department time to notify residents that the proposed square footage has changed from 6,947 to 6,820 square feet.

The planning and development department received an application for the establishment of a 6,820 square foot special minimum lot size block for the 4,900 to 5,000 block of Mayflower Street, North and Southsides between Coffee Street and Chain Street.

The application is located in the East Sunnyside Court Section 3 subdivision.

And staff is requesting that this application be deferred for two weeks.

With that, Madam Chair, we are ready to open the public hearing.

Thank you.

The public hearing for Roman numeral eight is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

I will continue the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation of deferral.

Can we get clarity though?

There was no opposition.

No one filed.

No protest.

No.

What do we need the two more weeks for?

To notify that the calculation has changed since we sent a notification to the neighborhood letting them know that it was a specific value, and since that's changed, we want to let them know of the new value.

Does it open back up the protest period?

Oh, does it open the protest period?

Back up?

Yes.

It would, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Do I have a motion to defer?

Motion guards.

Second hinds.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Now public hearing, remember numero nine.

Is there anyone that would like to make a public comment?

Okay.

Then I am going to adjourn this meeting at 4 39 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.