From City Hall Annex.

It's the Planning Commission meeting right here on HDB.

Chair of the Houston Planning Commission, and I'm calling this meeting to order at 243 p.m.

on Thursday, December 18th, 2025.

This is an in-person meeting taking place in the City Hall Annex at 900 Bagby.

You may also monitor the meeting by viewing via HTV.

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

Consent and repeat speakers are allowed one minute.

New speakers are timed for two minutes.

Speaker rules are found on the top portion of the speaker sign-in form, which are attached to the agenda.

Council members speaking on an item are not timed.

Applicants have their allotted two minutes time as well as rebuttals.

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

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

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

Chair Clark is here.

Vice Chair Garza.

Present.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Baldwin here.

Commissioner Brook Ballard.

Present.

Commissioner Carroll.

Present.

Commissioner Hines and Heisher not here.

Commissioner Jones.

Here.

Present Jones.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mata is not here.

Commissioner Naranjo.

Here.

Commissioner Pham.

Fam present.

Commissioner Pierce.

Present.

Commissioner Poris Pertle.

Present.

Commissioner Serum.

Did I did I?

Sure.

Okay, so Rem.

Okay.

I will get it right, I promise you.

Uh Commissioner Shepard is not here.

Commissioner Sigler.

Sigler present.

Commissioner Sykes.

Present.

Commissioner Victor.

Commissioner Garcia.

Present.

Commissioner Mondepaca is not here.

And Secretary Von Tran.

Tran at present.

Thank you.

We have 16 members, so we have established our quorum.

Okay, I want to before we get started too far in.

I want to let you guys know there's some withdrawals today.

Item 43, Broad Oaks Grove, 94, Oakview Farms Estates, and 119 Navigation Boulevard will not be uh heard or uh actions taken on those items.

And now I'll call for the director's report.

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

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

Welcome.

I'd like to share some information about the upcoming 2026 MTFP.

We will begin scheduling the mandatory pre-submittal conference with staff starting January 6th.

This pre-submit submittal conference will run through February 20th.

If you have any questions regarding the MTFP process, you may contact our planner, Jeff Butler.

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

You may also visit our website at Houston Planning.com.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Tran.

Now we need to take a look at the minutes that were attached to your agenda.

The minutes of tw uh December 4th, 2025.

Do I have a motion for approval?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second, Ballard.

Second Ballard.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay, we're going to move on to Roman numer one, plating activity.

Uh want to make sure.

Do we have any abstentions from anyone?

Go ahead.

Oh, yeah.

Number 95.

Uh ETC gesture.

Thank you.

Sorry.

That's it.

I think that's it.

Yeah.

So did you hear that number 95?

Okay, great.

Thank you.

It uh Sykes on 100.

Sykes on 100.

Okay.

Any others?

All right.

Very well.

Do I have anyone presenting?

Remember number one?

100.

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

My name is Maria Tovar.

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

Sections A and B are items one through 89.

Section A consent items are numbers 1 through 37 and section B replot items are numbers 38 through 89.

No items need to be taken out of order.

And if there are no changes to staff recommendations, there are no changes to staff recommendations.

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

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on any of these items.

Um I do have the one abstention, which is um number 95.

Commissioner Carroll.

So I'll need a motion for approval, save and accept item 95.

We're not there yet.

We're not there yet.

Am I just moving along?

You mean no 89.

Oh, 95.

You're right.

Okay.

I was looking at the hundred is being passed, but all right.

I have no abstentions for A and B.

Do I have a motion for approval?

Motion Baldwin.

Motion Baldwin.

Second, Victor.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Now we'll move along.

C.

Yeah.

Public hearings.

To see public hearings.

Good afternoon.

Uh Madam Chair, members of the planning commission.

My name is Ken Calhoun.

Item 90 is Aslan places.

This item was deferred last cycle to allow time for the applicant to comply with deed restrictions.

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

The purpose of the reply 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 not violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately as long as the final plat shows the three-foot interior side building lines along along each lot and 25 foot front building line along uh the right of way.

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

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

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak for item 90.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

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

Motion, Garcia.

Second it's saying.

Second setting.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 91.

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

My name is Dorian Poflim.

Item 91 is Cato Pines.

The site is located in Houston Corporate Limits, north of Cato Road, west of Greenwood Street and Wayside Drive.

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

Review by legal indicates that this plat does not violate restrictions on the pay face of the plat of 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, but please the commission, you may open a public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 91 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 Sigley.

Motion Sigler.

I I heard one over here.

Second Garcia.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 92.

Item 92 is Gateway Villas.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits, not along Mount Carmel Street, east of Rook Boulevard, west of uh Belfort Street.

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

Review by legal indicates that this plat would not violate restrictions on a face of plat are 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 the commission, you may open a public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 92 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion for motion poor as purdle.

Second Sykes.

Second Sykes, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 93.

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

My name is John Phillips Oliu.

Item 93 is Lockham Manor.

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

The applicant is proposing two single family lots.

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

Staff has received multiple advanced comments from residents stating the proposed plan violates active deed restrictions.

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

The plat was previously deferred and granted a 30-day extension to come before the commission today for consideration.

You said legal has comments.

Might have.

Okay.

You do?

Yes.

Okay.

I have not received all of the information concerning ownership.

And the information that is missing may impact the ultimate opinion with respect to this replat.

So that has been requested this morning.

So I need time to get it and then to review it.

Okay.

Does staff have an answer to that?

Are we gonna have we been requested to do another 30 day or that would be at the owners or the property owners or the applicants be as a but you haven't received anything in writing?

Well, we just kind of came to uh information just as commission, so I would like to give them the opportunity.

Okay.

All right.

Well, I do have some speakers.

Our first speaker is Daniel Goldberg.

Hello, everyone.

Hi.

So um you heard my thoughts the last time.

I won't add to those.

Um I'll just state what we believe to be going on in terms of how we reach the threshold number needed for these deed restrictions to be actually enforceable.

And if you reach that this conclusion, then you can walk backwards and say, therefore, this application for the replatting is indeed in violation of the deed restrictions.

We worked under 201.006 B of the property code, which allows for a simple majority count over 50 percent of all owners of separately owned properties.

So it's not a count of all lots, it's instead a count of all owners, which the legislator created to negate the power that owners of multiple different properties had.

We did a Go ahead and just wrap up quickly.

We did a contemporaneous title search in 2022 that revealed that there were only sixty-six different owners.

And out of that, we then got more than the simple majority necessary.

If there is not sufficient information yet to prove what we are telling y'all, we're requesting from y'all, do not approve this.

Your approval here will result in a forever change to our neighborhood, just based upon we don't know everything quite yet, um, which we are imploring you to not allow that to be the cause for approval.

If anything, this should be the cause of disapproval.

The developer didn't come up with any information.

The developer punted this decision.

You need to go ahead and wrap up.

Two separate times.

Once because he didn't put up proper notice, the next time because he heard our objections.

He used up his two deferrals, and now at this juncture, when the legal department might not have all the information that's necessary, we shouldn't be the ones that are at a disadvantage and told, well, because we need to make a decision and there isn't enough information.

I appreciate it.

I hate to cut you off, but walk away backwards.

Yeah.

Doing the wave.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Here to answer questions if you all got them.

All right, thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Paul Pasala.

Good afternoon.

If you could state your name for the record, please.

Yes, ma'am.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

And my name is Paul Pasella.

I'm a resident of uh Central City.

And uh basically, you know, I just wanted to kind of give my two cents saying that we are have it again.

I don't know the technical details per se in terms of legal legality and as such, but I'm just being a normal resident, considering the HOA deed decisions that we have, and based on what I know, even when I was building my house, it's meant for single family house.

And uh, we were trying to kind of keep our environment the same way, not to change in any fashion because it's a small subdivision and we wanted to kind of keep the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood.

And we don't want to have too much traffic and whatnot.

And also we have some families with the young kids and whatnot.

So just opening it up to the public, we don't know what's gonna the neighborhood gonna turn into.

So I just want to make my two cents saying that I appreciate given the fact that you don't have all the technical details as to make a decision.

Uh while doing that once you have the information and uh making the decision, just keep in mind that the neighborhood uh single family and the people that are living in there kind of has a big impact, whatever the decision is being made here, and I do expect to do have a due course in making the decision.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Coming in.

Our next speaker is Corina Rosales.

Hello, my name is Karina Rosales, and I serve as the HOA Vice President.

I'm here along with my the rest of the residents to oppose the replying on 6904 Van Eaton.

As per the applicant's previous arguments, um in the last meeting that the neighborhood does not have deed restrictions is categorically false.

We have provided document we have been provided documents by legal that included all these restrictions as well as our new active deed restrictions.

Therefore, there is an acknowledgement that these deed restrictions do in fact exist.

Upon speaking to the developer that was hired by the applicant, they also commented that they were not ascertaining whether these did restrictions existed.

What they were saying is that they does not apply to them.

Also, further um acknowledgement that these due restrictions do indeed apply.

As for any investors interest or interesting parties buying uh properties in our neighborhood, our neighborhood monument clearly states, as I will show you in this picture, that this is a deed restriction.

Document camera, please.

All right.

Go ahead, continue.

This is a deed restricted uh community.

What we are asking is for legal to review our deed restrictions and confirm that the restrictions did and do indeed apply to this property.

The one fundamental conforming deed restriction in our current uh restrictions is a single family housing.

Our active did restrictions have a grandfather clause 3.4 for non-conforming uh structures such as duplexes that exist at the time of filing.

I would like to enter this picture into evidence that this was indeed a duplex when this um property was sold to the applicant.

However, when he tore down this duplex, that grandfather clause does no longer apply to this applicant, and the lot is then uh subject to the same deed restrictions as all the other properties, which is single family housing.

Um wrap up really quickly.

And I just want to mention that the rec that there was an exclusion record added um for the deed restrictions on this property last time, and that was for a property on um 20 2932 PASIN that has no bearing on the property at 64 uh 6904 Van Eaton.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Peter Arnes.

Mr.

Arnes.

Hi, I'm Peter Arness, resident of Central City.

Hello again.

Uh the deed restrictions are currently being challenged in a suit, one of the district courts in Harris County in a suit that the Civic Association brought to enforce these restrictions and pending a decision.

Um I would just like to say I believe the neighborhood has done everything proper and appropriate.

We've hired lawyers, we've hired law firms, we've followed all the uh rules that we're supposed to follow by the city to make sure all these deeds are in place.

Um I don't feel it's upon us to have to prove that they aren't enforceable.

I think that should be upon the developer who's wishing to do this.

Uh and just in summary, I'm just gonna say, you know, if you reject this application, you affect the life of one businessman.

He sells the lot, he takes his profit, he takes his write-off.

It's done.

Never has to deal with it again.

Um if you approve this application, you affect the lives of sixty residents, and you're gonna alter the character of a neighborhood that's been there for almost a hundred years.

Um again, if legal doesn't have all the information, I request that they should delay this and not find in in favor of the applicant.

To me, that just doesn't seem like a fair thing to do.

So thank you for your time your consideration.

Thank you, Mr.

Arness.

Our next speaker is Alfonso Cepico.

If I pronounce that incorrectly, please let me know.

John, can you lower that, please?

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Alfonso Pico.

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

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

Central T is based on single family homes.

That's it.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate you coming in today.

My next speaker is Vinet Chandra Shandrakov.

I'm sure I butchered that one, so please correct me.

Good afternoon.

Um my name is Vinay Chandrakar.

I am opposed to replatting.

In Central City, the lots are minimum lots of 7,000 square feet and about up to 14 and a half square feet.

Creating replotting would create two lots disproportionate in size compared to other lots.

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

It used to be a duplex before it was demolished, and it was grandfathered that time as a non-conforming lot.

After demolition, it lost its grandfathered clause, its uh grandfathered status.

And our deed restrictions, section 3.4 clearly states any lot that was grandfathered lost, loses its grandfather status.

It cannot be replatted.

And it's a clear violation of our deed restrictions, and I'm opposed to it.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for coming in today.

The last speaker I have signed is uh Gerardo Gaytain.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Commission.

I was here last last one, last year.

Would you mind stating your name for the record, please?

This is Herardo Gaetan.

Thank you.

I am a resident in Central City.

I was here last in the last hearing, and one of the recommendations from the Commission was for us to pursue and explore minimum lot size uh special minimum lot size application.

We have submitted that, and that has already progressed.

Uh so that has been accepted, so we're in that process.

If uh that does not help in this particular case, uh it does show uh the support in the opposition by the neighborhood of acting quickly in order to prevent this from uh being subdivided, as all the other speakers have said.

Uh there are deed restrictions that apply, and it prohibits uh subdividing this lot.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

And good job on the minimum lot size.

It will not affect this application, but it will help you uh in everything in the future.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Baldwin.

Oh, I thought you wanted to say something.

Was that what you were gonna say?

Okay.

That's the last speaker I have signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

Please come forward.

And if you could state your name for the record.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman.

My name is Jill Yaziji, and the last name is Y Like Yellow, A Z I J I.

I'm very used to spelling my name on the You heard from me last time, and I'm here simply to reiterate that we have properly recorded and enforceable deeds.

We know one thing, and that's the question really before us today, and that is when the applicant purchased the property at issue in this case.

That property was non-conforming under the deeds restrictions in the sense that it had a duplex, which my colleague, a neighbor had already entered in evidence, if you don't mind.

Document camera, please.

That pardon?

Oh, he's talking to the I'm sorry of Israel people.

And um that duplex was grandfathered under Provision 3.4 of the deeds restrictions.

When the applicant chose to tear down the duplex, he lost that status of being grandfathered.

And therefore that particular lot cannot be subdivided.

Thank you so much for hearing us today.

Thank you.

Appreciate you coming in.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

Okay.

Hearing none.

Yes.

Commissioner Garza.

Uh ladies and gentlemen, um, there's uh uh legal has asked for uh a deferral on this, and research has said that according to Texas law, we can uh we can defer again for a total of 20 days.

Now again, this has to be done with legal's request, and they have requested a deferral for more information.

And so I would like to make a motion.

There may be more discussion, but I, when it's time, we'll make a motion to extend for 20 days so that legal can get more information and we can make a more judicious decision.

Thank you.

Commissioner Baldwin?

Just to be clear, we could deny at the same time.

There's nothing that prohibits us from denying and the applicant is not here.

That's still an option, correct?

The property owner is current.

Oh, the owner is.

Okay.

Yeah, they just did not sign up to speak.

Now I see, yes, coming up behind John.

Could you please state your name for the record?

Karim Dadelahi.

Thank you.

Yes, and uh so uh I would like to extend because if they there's not enough legal information uh then uh I would like to request an extension.

Okay.

So while we get all the document and then and then I guess then you come up with the decision.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any questions for the Yes?

Um I understand from the previous speaker, sir, that uh you feel that uh the deed restrictions do not apply.

Could you explain to me why you feel like the deed restrictions do not apply, or are you relying on the grandfather?

Well, we're relying all I mean, all the deed restrictions we check all the restrictions and all there was a restriction, but it was lapsed.

Lapse.

Expired.

Yes, so it had expired is what you said.

Okay.

And so you feel like now there are no deed restrictions.

Are you relying on the grandfather from the duplex?

No.

No, he's just relying on the fact that he believes they expired.

Okay.

Yeah.

Any other questions, Commissioners?

Just Arva some time.

Arva, did you want to speak up?

Are you aware that the lawsuit has been filed?

Arva.

Just for clarification.

Excuse me.

For clarification.

There are deed restrictions that expired, but there are currently file deed restrictions that uh will expire in 2035 and then automatically renew every 10 years.

The statute um is not based on as what people were assuming.

The uh majority of lot owners are each lot.

It's based on individual lot owners.

So someone can own 20 lots, and that's one vote.

Okay.

That neighborhood is old.

And if you're familiar with it, Almeida Road and OST, they are originally residential units, but they're not that way now.

But I don't know who owns those lots to see if the number of signatures that they've gotten is sufficient to overcome it.

Originally there were 129 lots in the subdivision.

They believe it's 99.

No, it's 129 because that's what the plat says.

So I have to look at all this ownership information.

HCAD has changed his format and it is challenging to say the least.

It is.

So um having to go through that.

And I got the information just a few days ago.

Okay.

All right, Commissioner Baldwin.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Yes.

I have a question.

So do the deed restrictions restrict subdivision of lots?

It does reference a grandfather clause.

Okay.

But for that to trigger, they have to have the sufficient number of signatures to make them valid for that to trigger.

And then we have to look at the definition of what they um are calling single family.

And it may not be as consistent as um I would like.

But it is just looking at everything all together in context, and then coming up with uh hopefully the correct conclusion.

Okay.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Any other questions?

Okay.

I know you want to make a motion.

I do.

Yes.

I would like to note as well that the uh property owner has given me a written uh request for 30-day extension.

Okay.

The 20-day extension reference would not get us to the next commission because it is in 21 days.

Okay.

So just uh an awareness.

So we can so are you are you stating 30-day extension?

Or I'm saying that that is what the requesting.

So my um sorry, my question is legally.

Can we ask for 21 days, or is it restricted to 20, or do we go back to 30?

So uh in and the 30 days of the extension, the only uh uh commission that we would have would be the one in 21 days, so that just as this was the only one commission within 30 days, and this is only two weeks ago.

So yes, it would be fine for the I want to make sure that we're adhering to Texas law.

And Ms.

Bandy wants to be able to do that.

Ms.

Bandy has a comment, I think.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Savidabandi, division manager.

Uh just wanted to say state court allows the maximum of 30-day periods of extinctions.

So you can ask for 20, you can ask for 21 or 27, but the maximum is 30 periods of multiple extinctions can happen.

Great.

Thank you for that clarification.

Okay.

All right.

So, madam chair, I'd like to make a motion that we offer another extension, a deferral as it is, uh as legal needs time to get more information, and um make a motion to extend this for another 30 days.

Okay, so we have a motion by Garza to extend for 30 days, a second by Garcia.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Nay.

Okay, opposed, Baldwin.

Anyone else?

Okay, please note one nay.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to item 94.

Withdrawn.

Thank you.

Item 95, Riverwood on East TC Jester.

Item 95.

Is Riverwood on East TC Jester Boulevard, partial replat number one?

The side.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Item 95 is Riverwood on East TC Jester Boulevard, partially plat number one.

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

The reason for replot 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 is in support of this request.

The lot is a reply of a lot of lot two out of a four lot subdivision that was created in 2001 with the Riverwood on East TC Jester Boulevard subdivision.

The lot has frontage on Parkhaven Court, a 28-foot PAE permanent access easement private street, and a 30-foot access easement.

The 30-foot access easement was created in 1949 and is a direct extension of West 14th Street of Klein's of Clark Clark Hines, I'm sorry, Clark Pines, an unrecorded subdivision.

The lot was sold by meets and bounds in 2021, causing the lot to have two separate owners and become two separate parcels.

The proposed lot two will take sole access from the 30-foot access easement.

Presently four lots take access from the easement.

It has been in existence for several years and is maintained by the property owners who take access from the easement.

The plat was deferred at the last planning commission.

Houston Public Works have no objection to this request.

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

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

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

Staff has received advanced comments concerning the size of the of lot two.

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

Thank you, Ms.

Poflam.

The public hearing is content continued for item number 95.

I have no one signed to speak on this item.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Jones.

Second.

FAM, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Now we'll move along to D subdivision platz with variance requests.

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

My name is Araceli Rodriguez.

Item 96, Cooper Reserve.

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

The applicant is requesting a variant on section 183 to allow a residential lot to be replotted into an unrestricted reserve.

Staff is in support of the request.

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

First chapter 42, the lot restricted to residential use can only be amended to certain uses.

Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variant to allow the replot of this residential lot into an unrestricted reserve to develop a commercial site.

So the site is located at a prominent intersection and directly abuse the grand partway, making the property more suitable for commercial use than for continued residential development.

So staff were also coordinated with Montgomery County and Montgomery County has expressed no objection to the variant request.

And that recommendation is to grant the requested variance and approve the platform to the CPC 101 form condition.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak for item 96.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Hearing none.

I am seeking a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Garcia.

FAM second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Oh, wait a minute.

I have a speaker.

Tony Lewis.

Were you here just for I have I have nothing to speak to the it's been approved?

Okay, so motion by Garcia and second by FAM.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item number 97.

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

My name is Jeff Butler.

Item 97 is Kirkendall Village Section 2.

The site is located within the ETJ within Harris County along Kirkendall, north and west of the Grant Parkway.

The applicant proposes a single family development with private streets.

The app is requesting variances to allow a 30-foot easement to serve as a second point of access for a 251 lot community and to allow lift station to be accessible by a 12-foot access easement.

Staff recommends deferral per Harris County's request.

And we have received no advanced written comment.

Thank you, Mr.

Butler.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay, hearing none, we're seeking a motion for deferral.

Motion Garcia.

Second.

Victor, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to item 98.

Item 98.

I mean, yeah, Lawndale Reserve.

The site is located in the city limit along Landale Street and east of telephone road, north of I-45.

The applicant is requesting a variant to allow a 10-feet builder line instead of 25 along Laudale Street.

Staff is in support of the request.

The applicant proposes a three-story 18-unit multifamily development at the intersection of Lawndale Street and Henniger Street with parking located at the rear of the site.

So Lawndale Street is the major third fair with planned right away width of 68 feet.

Chapter 42 allow a 15-foot borderline under when the May third fair is less than 80 feet.

So the applicant is requesting a variant to reduce the borderline 10 feet to allow a functional development.

And with the proposed borderline of 10 feet, the applicant will provide a minimum 5 feet safety buffer and a thick food sidewalk, creating a pedestrian room of about 11 feet up to the fence.

But the building will remain approximately 70 feet from the curb, maintaining adequate distance from the travel range.

The advocate also provided a letter of support from the council member Huake Martinez, and that recommendation is to grant the request the variant and approve the plan subject to the CPC 101 form condition and that they not receive any public comment in advance.

Thank you, Ms.

Rodriguez.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

So I am looking for a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Sykes.

Wow.

Motion it was Baldwin and then Sykes.

All in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 99, sorry.

Thank you.

Wink at me or something.

I'm like, did you forget what you were going to say?

But it was me.

Thanks, Mr.

Butler.

Item 99 layout landing.

Um staff note would like to note that in your materials it says recommendation to defer, but that has been changed to recommendation to grant and approve.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limit along West Tidwell Road, east of Wheatley and west of Roslin.

The applicant proposes a single family shared driveway development with a new public street.

The applicant is requesting three variances.

One to allow a 15-foot building line along Tidwell for three proposed homes, two to allow dedication of a 40-foot public right-of-way for Phillips Street instead of 50.

And three, to allow for a 15-foot right-of-way dedication for Neiman Road as opposed to the required 20 feet.

Staff is in support of these requests.

The site is located within the city, one block south of the Acres Home Mobility Study Area.

Like the neighborhood like the neighborhood north of Tidwell, the subject site is within a rapidly developing area with long intersection spacing intervals.

This presents challenges with allowing for development while providing an adequate traffic circulation system.

The applicant is asserting that the requested variances are a practical solution for these challenges.

The proposed 35 lot development abuts a 20-foot unimproved segment of Neiman Road and north of a recently extended segment of Phillips.

Extending Phillips through the site will allow for a completed street grid segment in an area with deficient intersection spacing.

In addition, the 20-foot segment of Neiman has long been unimproved and has varying amounts of incremental widening over the years.

Considering the varying widths and the recent residential development in the area, widening the street to 50 feet is consistent with the intent of the ordinance.

Furthermore, the three lots backing up to Tidwell will feature walk-up access from the pedestrian realm and vehicular access from the shared driveway.

This will allow for ground floor activity while reducing vehicular conflicts.

Staff finds the request to be consistent with sound public policy and recommends approval.

We've received no advanced written comment.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

I have Ms.

Villarreal here for questions.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Okay.

Hearing none.

Do I have any other speakers for item 99?

All right.

So you have a motion in front of you to approve this plat.

Do I have a motion?

Motion for the question.

I heard somebody over here.

Commissioner Garcia.

Uh second pores purple.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Mr.

Butler.

Moving on.

There is nothing under E.

Plats with special exceptions.

So we'll move to F.

Reconsideration of requirement.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairman.

Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Tammy Williams.

I'm sorry, I forgot to say that Commissioner Sykes is abstaining.

Thank you, Ms.

Williamson, for your patience.

Item 100 is Azalea District Section 8.

The site is located within Houston's extra territorial jurisdiction in Montgomery County, west of U.S.

59 and north of FM 1314.

The applicant is proposing a subdivision of 21 lots and is seeking a reconsideration of requirement and requesting a special exception to allow more than 150 lots with one point of access.

Staff is in support of the request.

In mid-November of this year, the special exception request was denied by the planning commission, primarily due to Montgomery County Engineering not in support of the request.

Azeya districts sections 1 through 5 were recorded between 2015 and 2017 and lie north of the major collector of Azzalea Boulevard.

Sections 6 and 7 were approved as preliminary applications earlier this year, proposing a total of 135 lots.

The inclusion of Section 8 with its 21 lots proposes to have 156 lots with sole access through Flowering Crab Apple Drive to Azalea Boulevard.

The ordinance permits developments to have a single point of access as long as the lot count does not exceed 150.

Otherwise, an alternative public street path must be provided.

The applicant is proposing a temporary access easement, 20 feet in width, through one lot in Section 6 to connect to Valley Ranch Parkway.

That will provide emergency access until either Section 9 or Section 10 is recorded, at which time a second public street connection will be available for this development, and the easement is no longer needed.

The applicant coordinated with Montgomery County Engineering and the fire marshal, who now have no objection to the request.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to grant the requested special exception to allow 156 lots with one point of public street access and a temporary access easement for the second point of access and approve the plat subject to conditions listed.

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

Thank you, Ms.

Williamson.

I have no one signed to speak on item 100.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay, hearing none.

I am seeking a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

FAM second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 101.

Item 101 is Blue Creek Trails Section 5.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Fort Bend County, northeast and along State Highway 99 and east of Peak Road.

The applicant is proposing a subdivision of 105 lots and 5 reserves and is seeking a reconsideration of requirement and requesting a special exception to allow excessive intersection spacing along proposed collector Meadow Ranch Parkway.

Staff is in support of the request.

The proposed intersection spacing along the southern side of Meadow Ranch Parkway between proposed Clementine Wind Drive in Section 2 and Inman Crest Drive in Section 5 is approximately 1,795 feet.

A previous variance was granted to exceed intersection spacing along the Grand Parkway, with the justification that it is a limited access roadway without a front edge road.

Therefore, requiring an additional public street would not provide any further connectivity than what is already proposed with the two southern sections.

Additionally, the two local streets are intentionally placed to be approximately equidistant from attendance lane that provides connectivity northward to the school site and to Beechnut Street.

Internal connectivity is maintained through the proposed street connection between Section 2 and Section 5 to aid in circulation.

Fort Bend County Engineering has no objection to the request.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to grant the requested special exception and approve the plat subject to conditions listed.

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

Thank you, Ms.

Williamson.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay, Commissioners, you have a recommendation by staff.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Jones.

Second Garcia.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 102.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

Members of the Houston Planning Commission.

My name is Devin Crudel.

Item 102 is flight line south of the site is located within Houston City limits, south along Rankin Road between Lee Road and Highway 59.

The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not extending two public stub streets.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a vacant track plan for industrial use along Rankin Road.

The site plan indicates the site will be used for warehouse storage requiring large ATM wheelers for transport.

The site is affected by two pipelines to the to the west and Ryan Hard bayou to the south.

There are two public streets stubbing into the southeast section of this proposed plan.

These streets were created with the intent of being extended when the adjacent development is compatible.

Requiring these streets to be extended would open the opportunity for industrial traffic to flow through the adjacent residential subdivisions.

To avoid this, staff recommends granting the requested variance to not extend these adjacent stub streets.

If the site is ever redeveloped into a use that's residential in nature, the request will be reevaluated.

Also, the developer excuse me.

The developer met with the council's office earlier this week and voiced no objection to this request.

Staff recommends granted the requested reconsideration requirement and variance and approved the plat subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Crittle.

I don't have anyone signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

All right, Commissioners, you have a mo a recommendation to grant the requested variance and approve the plat.

Do I have a motion?

Motion fam.

Second Garcia, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Okay.

Thank you.

Item 103.

Item 103 is the Nova East General Plan.

The subject site is a hundred and two-acre property located in the Harris County extra territorial jurisdiction, south along major collector, Foley Road, and west of Golf Club Drive.

The general plan is intending a mix of single family and detention development and is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not providing any substreets along its eastern boundary, nor extending steam gauge way.

Staff is in support of the request.

In 2015, the Union Park General Plan to the east was granted a variance for intersection spacing to not provide any right-of-way extensions to the west, save and accept steam gaugeway.

There are recorded plats on each side of the subject site with an approved plat to the immediate east called Union Park West.

That plat dedicated a portion of Steam Gaugeway, but the plat itself was never recorded.

Due to the existing alignment further east from the Union Park General Plan and the intersection spacing requirements, Steam Gaugeway must be extended per the ordinance.

The applicant has been in coordination with the Harris County Engineer, the Harris County Precinct, and the Harris County Flood Control to abandon the existing portions of steam gaugeway, doing so with the intent to orchestrate a drainage and network, uh drainage and detention network for the betterment of the surrounding area.

Harris County Engineering Department is in support of the variance.

Ma'am chair, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Sidio.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay, Commissioners, you have a recommendation from staff.

Do we have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second.

Second serum.

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 Adiso GiadeSyoju.

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

Yes, that would be good.

Thank you.

Um sections G extensions of approval consists of items 104 to 112.

Section H name changes consists of item 113.

Section I certification of compliance consists of item 114 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, do I have a motion?

Motion motion pours purdle.

Second second, Victor.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll move along to K.

Development Platz with variance requests.

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

My name is Ramon Jaime Leon.

Item 115.

Located west of Interstate 45, south of Gardner Street and along the west side of Cordell Street.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 5.5 building line in lieu of the city of uh city ordinance required of 20-foot building line for a residential remodel in addition.

Staff recommendation is to defer to revise the sign and repost.

Okay, thank you.

So the sign wasn't posted or it was posted, but it was uh site visit uh recently the sign was on the ground and then had the incorrect okay.

All right, thank you.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation of deferral.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Baldwin.

Motion Baldwin.

Second Garcia, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 116.

Item 116, that's uh 1132 East 6 and a half street.

The site is located north of White Oak Drive at the northeast corner of Studio Wood Street and East 6th and a half street.

The applicant is proposing a new single family residence and is requesting a 20-foot building line in uh along Studio Wood, a major thoroughfare in lieu of the ordinance required 25 foot building line.

The there are no platted building lines.

The requested 20-foot building line is slightly increased, increased setback compared to the previous building footprint and would leave approximately 33 feet from the closest part of the proposed house to the street curve.

It is comparable or larger setback than commercial buildings to the south and is in line with the residential neighborhood uh to the north, much of which uh predates current ordinance building line requirements because of the 20-foot building line along Studiowood is consistent with the area and is a setback far enough from the street to avoid any potential public safety and visibility concerns.

Staff recommendation is to approve the variance request.

Thank you.

Commissioners, if there's no questions, do I have a motion for staff recommendations?

Motion ball one second.

Sigler, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 117.

Item 117, that's 1402 Glory Drive.

The site is located west of Ridd Road along the north side of Westview Drive at the northeast corner of Glory Drive and Westview Drive.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 10-foot building line in lieu of the CD of ordinance required 25-foot building line along West View Drive for a new single family residence.

Staff recommendation is to defer the request to allow more uh time for study and review.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay, do I have a motion for deferral?

Motion.

Motion Victor.

Second Garza, all in favor.

Oh, yes.

I have a speaker.

So sorry.

Samantha De Leon.

Please come forward.

So hold that motion and second.

Sorry.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Samantha Delion and I'm a lifelong resident of Spring Branch.

I grew up off of Wert in Westview and just I've prone and involved in this neighborhood for over 20 years.

The neighboring subdivision of Monarch Oaks has changed as well.

Perhaps the most notable change is the once numerous bungalows that make up Monarch Oaks and are now mixed with new two-story homes.

This change is admittedly harmonious.

Although the size of the homes in the neighborhood vary, the front and side setback requirements have kept Monarch Oaks proportional.

I say all of this as a side setback uh variance that 1402 Glory Street is requesting threatens that balance.

Of all the corner lots that line Westview Drive and are also located in Monarch Oaks, every single home, whether newly constructed or not, meets the 25-foot side setback requirement.

Even 1401 Glory, which is directly across the street, was just recently constructed and meets the 25-foot side setback requirement graciously.

To my knowledge, no new construction on an interior lot has asked for a side uh side setback variance in Monarch Oaks.

I'm also concerned that decreasing the side setback would push the home significantly closer to the sidewalk than any other corner property in Monarch Oaks, narrowing an area that many of us rely on for daily walking.

The sidewalk is already hard to walk because of vegetation, and I worry that it will be impassable if the site setback requirement is granted.

I brought a photo.

Document camera.

You may want to continue.

Uh I I asked the commission to please consider denying this variance request for 1402 Glory Street to maintain harmony in Monarch Oaks and to ensure that the sidewalk is not infringed any further.

As you can see from this photo, which is very dark, there are already a lot of trees and vegetation, which is already cluttering the sidewalk, which makes people day daily walkers like myself almost have to walk on the curb and in the street.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Commissioners, any questions?

Thank you so much for coming in today.

And sorry, I almost skipped you.

Thanks for standing up.

Okay.

Remind me who had the motion.

It was Victor and Garza.

Okay.

Victor and Garza.

Recommendation to force recommendation for deferral.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 118.

Item 118 is 5343 Inchor Street.

Uh this was deferred at the last meeting and must be acted upon today.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limit along TC Jester, south of the CD Freeway and north of Washington Avenue.

The applicant proposes a single family home on a 36-foot wide corner tract.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a 15-foot building line along TC Jester as opposed to the required 25 feet for major thoroughfares.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is located at the southeast intersection of Inchor Street and TC Jester.

The site consists of a lot and portions of a remnant lot within the cottage growth subdivision.

Strict interpretation of Chapter 42 would result in over two-thirds of the property being undevelopable.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a 15-foot building line in order to develop a single family home on the property.

The site will have vehicular access along Inchor Street, leaving the TC Jester pedestrian realm without vehicular conflicts.

The applicant will abide by the visibility triangle requirement along for safe movement of traffic at this intersection.

In addition, staff finds the building line requirement to be a significant hardship considering the proposed proportion of land that would be undevelopable if applied.

Staff finds the request to be justified and recommends approval, and we have received no advanced written comment.

Thank you, Mr.

Butler.

I do have a speaker, Jose Mendoza.

Yes, request.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions, Commissioners?

Okay.

So you have a recommendation for approval.

Do I have a motion?

Motion bald.

FAM motion, second baldman.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 119.

No.

Item 120.

Item 119 was withdrawn.

Item 120, uh 240 North York Street.

Located south of Navigation Boulevard and west of Melby Street at the southeast corner of uh intersection of North York Street and El Gicki and Gelki Street.

The applicant is requesting a two-foot building line along Il Ginki Street in lieu of the ordinance required 10-foot setback local street for a new exterior staircase on an existing single family residence.

The proposed work is to construct steps to the second floor unit.

The property has been recently remodeled and steps have been changed to go down the opposite direction from its uh from its um previous condition because of all ground level encroachments are existing, and the open stairs addition is only encroaching three foot over the allowable encroachment with open stairs and current sidewalk is around six feet from the lending of the open stairs, and it will not disrupt the existing sidewalk.

Steph recommendation is to approve the development pledging request for a reduced building.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak for this item.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay, Commissioners, you have a recommendation for approval to have a motion.

Motion Garcia.

Second Garza.

Second Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

All right.

Moving along to Ramon Numeral 2.

Establish a public hearing date of January 22nd, 2026.

Okay, that sounds funny.

Um Centerio Homes at Farmer, SciFair Fire Station Number 15, Homewood Estates, More Street Living, New Haven Villas, Plaza Estates at Noble, Shadow Creek Estates, Lago Woods, Section 1, Partial Replat number 1, Swiftwater Estate, and Rock Walk Roxton Estate.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Jones.

Motion Jones.

Second Garcia, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Roman number three, consideration of an off-street parking variance for 5317 Inchor.

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

The applic applicant is proposing to convert a warehouse to a gymnasium and is requesting to provide more than 25 percent of the required parking at the off-site location more than 500 feet away.

The provided uh to uh provide the partial pedestrian path to the off-site parking, which the applicant has stated will be mitigated by providing shuttle services and to provide total of 79 on-site parking spaces and off-site spaces in lieu of the ordinance required 88 spaces.

Staff recommendation is to defer at applicant's request.

Thank you.

Okay, so we have a recommendation to defer.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Sigler.

Second Garcia, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Remember numeral five public comment.

Do I have anyone that wants to make a public comment?

Okay.

Moving on to remember numeral six.

Did I skip it?

Oh, I did.

Yes.

Public hearing and consideration of a special minimum lot size.

Thank you.

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

My name is Tanya Sawyer with the planning and development department.

The planning and development department has received an application for the establishment of a 6,820 square foot special minimum lot size block for the 4900 5,000 block of Mayflower Street, the north and south sides between Coffee Street and Chain Street.

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

Staff is requesting that the planning commission defer consideration of this application for two weeks to allow for the completion of the 30-day notification period to property owners.

Information we're informing them of a minimum life size square footage change from 6,947 to 6,820 square feet.

Property owners receive notification letters with the updated life size calculations on December 5th.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing is continued for remember numeral four.

I have no one signed to speak.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation of deferral.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garcia?

Second Victor, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Are we clear that there were no objections at all?

No one no one objected, right?

No one protested.

No one protested at all.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Public hearing is continued.

Public hearing is continued, and we are we've done public comment and we are adjourned at 3 50 p.m.

And I just want to say I hope you all have a Merry Christmas.

And it feels strange to say I'll see you in 2026, but happy holidays to everyone in the audience, staff.

I I hope you have a few days to rest and get prepared for next year.

And thank you for all that you do.

We appreciate you guys.