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

on Thursday, January 8th, 2026.

This is an in-person meeting taking place at 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 speakers form before the item is called and turn it into staff near the front door.

Consent and repeat speakers are allowed for one minute and new speakers are timed for two minutes.

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

Council members speaking on an item are not timed.

Applicants have their allotted two minutes as well as rebuttals.

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

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

You will not be allowed to speak again, and time cannot be allotted to another speaker.

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

Vice Chair Garza?

Present.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Present.

Commissioner Ballard?

Present.

Commissioner Carroll.

Present.

Commissioner Heisch?

Present.

Commissioner Hines.

Hines present.

Commissioner Jones.

Jones present.

Commissioner Matez.

Modest present.

Commissioner Naranjo.

Did I do that wrong?

No.

Okay.

Oh, she's absent.

Okay.

Um Commissioner Pham.

Pam present.

Commissioner Pierce.

Present.

Commissioner Porce Pertle is not here.

Commissioner Sarim.

Present.

Commissioner Shepard?

Present.

Commissioner Sigler.

Sigler, present.

Commissioner Sykes.

Present.

Commissioner Victor.

Victor present.

I don't see anybody from Harris County.

And Director Tran.

Tran present.

17.

Okay.

We have a quorum of 17.

Okay.

I do want to let everyone know before we get started.

There's a couple of withdrawals, so we won't hear it hear anything on these items, nor will we take any action.

Item 32, Precision Tomball.

59, Mirin Properties, and number 71, Taylor Place on Brownie Campbell.

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

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

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

Welcome.

I have one item to report today.

The 2026 MTFT MTFP has opened.

Scheduling for the mandatory pre-submittal conference with staff will run through February 20th.

Our very own Jeff Butler, way hi, Jeff, is leading the MTFP this year.

His contact information and information about the MTFP process is on our website.

In closing, the planning and development department can be reached at 832-393-6600.

Or you can call Planner of the Day at 832-393-6624.

Our website is Houston Planning.com.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Tran.

Now we need to consider the meeting minutes for our last meeting, which was December 18th, 2025.

They were posted on the agenda.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Second.

Second Jones.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

I'm sure you've noted that.

Yes, Commissioner Porce Pertle is here.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next item.

We will move on to plating activity, subdivision and development plates.

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

My name is Akilah Bidgee.

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

Sections A and B are items 1 through 75.

Section A consent items are numbers 1 through 38, and Section B, replot items are numbers 39 through 75.

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

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

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak.

Members, are there any abstentions?

Yes, for Shepard.

Item 7, 21 and 37.

Thank you.

Uh yes, items 5 through 12, 23, and 24.

Madam Chair, I will abstain from items one and five through thirteen.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there any others?

Okay.

So may I have a motion for approval for all items save and accept?

Oh, wait a minute.

Let me let me name the ones we're accepting first.

Hang on one second.

So uh we're save and accept item one, five through twelve, excuse me, five through thirteen, twenty-one, twenty-three, and twenty-four and thirty-seven.

Uh motion, fam.

Second modus.

Second MADES.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Now I need a motion to approve the save and accept items, which are items one, five through thirteen, twenty-one, twenty-three, twenty-four, and thirty-seven.

Do I have a motion?

Motion.

Motion pours purple, second sigler.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Now we're going to move along to replats requiring public meeting public hearings with notification.

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

My name is Ken Calhoun.

Item 76 is by U Trail Replat number one.

This item is located within Houston City limits, west along Scott Street, north of South McGregor Way.

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

The applicant has met all notification requirements and review by legal indicates that the plat will not violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

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

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 76 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 signs.

Motion Sykes.

And Victor.

Second Victor, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 77.

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

My name is Araceli Rodriguez.

Item 77, Carol State.

The site is located in the city limit, south of Parker Road and east of Wayside Drive.

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

No variances are being requested with this item.

And per legal review, the proposed plot will not violate applicable restriction.

Glenwood Forest Community Civic Club has voiced opposition to the proposed plot, but this is a 12-approved item.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 77 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 Modus.

Motion Maddis.

Second Jones, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 78.

Item 78, Copperwood Water Plan Reserve Replat number 1 and extension.

The site is located in Houston ETJ, south of Bar Market 259 and west of State Howard SIC.

The purpose of the replat is to create one reserve restricted to water plan and related uses.

The advocate requesting a variant to section 42-193 to allow the replat of an open space landscape reserve into the reserve restricted to water plant use.

A water plant facility.

Harris County MAS 257 has later than acquired additional land from Kingfield Section 2 to expand the assistant facility, which is vital to maintain adequate service for the surrounding area.

Per legal review, the proposed replot will not violate applicable restriction.

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

Staff did not receive any public comment in advance.

Madam Chair, it is depleted the Commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 78 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Second Hines.

Motion high second hinds.

All in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 79.

Item 79.

Estate at Wooden Street.

The site is located in the city limit north of Canal Street and east of Charging Macadio Garcia Drive.

The purpose of the WEP plat is to create two single family lots and two reserves and to revise the dentist table by increasing the dwelling number, dwelling unit number from two to four.

No variances are being requested with this item.

And per legal, the proposed plat will not violate applicable restriction.

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

And no public comment has been received.

So Madam Chair, it is a pleasure of the Commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 79 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Modus.

Motion Mata's.

Second fam.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 80.

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

My name is John Phillips Leo.

Item 80 is Fairway Creek.

The subject side is a nearly 12,000 square foot property located in the Houston City limits at the northwest intersection of Fairway Drive and Road Drive, south of 610 and west of Telephone Road.

The applicant is proposing four single-family residential lots and a parking reserve on a shared driveway.

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

This plat is a replat of the South 100 feet of lots 5 and 6 of Block 61 of the amended Gulf Crest subdivision.

Review by Lego in the case of Plat does not violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

The site plan, oh sorry.

Staff recommendation is lost myself in this one.

Legal review say that it does not violate staff recommendations to approve the plat subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 80 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Yes, Commissioner.

Madam Chair, if I may I am a little puzzled with this diagonal building line that goes across.

Just curiosity.

Obviously, it is got to be a current platted or deed restricted line.

So in reference to the applicant, they said that there is a covert underneath the ground, and there is also a line relaying to some of our acknowledgement dedication language, referencing having to be 15 feet offset from certain drainage channels.

So that was their supposed line of kind of giving that a bill to aspect of it.

But since it is covered by our language, unless there is a specific deed document or other kind of record that verifies that the placement of it, then we would have them either remove it or fully label it.

So it was kind of a markup that we have addressed.

This is a preliminary on final items to be addressed.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

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

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second SIRIM.

Second serem.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 81.

Item 81 is Fernwood Estates.

The subject side is nearly 28,000 square foot property located in the Houston City limits, north of Fernwood Drive, south of McGregor, and west of Calhoun.

The applicant is proposing two large single-family residential lots ranging from 12,000 to 15,000 square feet.

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

We have received public comments that there is a violation of the minimum lot size.

This is a replat of lot 16 and portions of lots 15 and 17 of block 64 of Riverside Terrace.

Reviewed by legal in the case that this plat does not violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

This property is subject to an existing minimum lot size application done in 2024, requiring that lots be no less than 10,000 square feet, and is found to not violate those requirements.

Staff recommendation is to approve the plat subject to CPC in one-on-one form conditions.

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 81 is open.

I do have a couple of speakers.

Our first speaker is Ken Cowan.

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

Sure.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

This is my first time ever appearing.

I live in that area.

It's on the corner of Cullen and Fernwell and Fernwood, a very historical area, a very mature and just historic area in that uh part of town.

We just want to make sure that the lot uh follows the deed restrictions and that a duplex duplex or apartment complex is not built and violate any deed restrictions.

Uh currently there is only uh single family homes.

Um we just really, really just want to make sure that the integrity of that uh area uh is withheld.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay, thank you.

Our next speaker is David White.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

David White with Tetral Land Services, the applicant.

We're here to answer any questions you may have at this time.

Thank you.

Is this Julian?

That's correct.

She is with Tetra as well.

Okay.

Are you going to speak, Julian?

Only questions?

Just questions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Yep.

Okay.

Not yet.

Yes.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Are these single family lots?

These are intended for single family lots.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

All right.

Thank you.

Okay.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

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

Motion Baldwin?

Second ballard.

Second ballard.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 82.

Bless you.

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

My name is Devin Crittle.

Item 82 is Gulf Waits Airs Partial Replant number one.

This site is located within Houston City limits near the intersection of Hinder Street and Vernon Street, just west of Frey Road.

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

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

Madam Chair, I would like to point out there are deed restrictions that limit the use of the property to one dwelling unit.

Typically a single family lot allows for two units, but the deed restrictions specifically limited to one dwelling unit.

Staff recommends approving the plat subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

And I believe we do have speakers on this item.

Yes, we do.

Thank you.

I will open the public hearing for item 82.

Our first speaker is Ray Soto.

Hello, my name is Ray Soto.

I am the Vice President of Freeway Manor Civic Club.

First time here, so uh be patient with me.

You will.

We will not grade you, I promise.

So uh we're not sure, but I I know the history of our our community, our single family dwellings.

This property has been vacant for quite a few years.

The gentleman that passed away, uh we were told that he couldn't develop it, develop it because of the uh a reservoir that was underground.

Uh we also have had our our buy use and a retention uh pond created.

Uh we have a flood problem in that area.

We're concerned as far as uh maintaining the integrity of our community with the single family dwelling homes.

Uh and uh we've been told that they were going to build tiny homes, multiple units on three to four lots.

So we're opposed to that.

We're not opposed to the lots being divided and and accommodating single family dwelling homes.

Uh but we are opposed to what may be created with the flood issues at being right.

It's right out of the T of a bayou that we have.

And those, even with the retention pond, those those uh waters are rising above the banks even to this day.

So that's one of our concerns.

Um the history on that property.

The gentleman that bought that property, he put containers on the property.

He's been in numerous violations of uh having things out there.

He owns another house across the street.

So we have numerous numerous violations with that that owner in particular.

So again, we're not opposed to the lots being divided uh in accordance with our deed restrictions.

Uh, but we're a little concerned that he is scoring to build multiple units on there uh from conversations that I have had with them.

And uh and then again the lack of concern and being in violations on the other property.

He's he's done some construction there without permits.

So uh pretty much that's our concern.

So we want to make sure that if this goes through that they're in accordance to our deed restrictions, and uh we've had a history with the permitting department issuing permits for construction.

Okay.

Uh we have a problem with permit department issuing the permits and then uh us having to get the city attorney involved and shut down duplexes, uh have them tear down walls.

So that's our concern with this property.

But uh really that's that's all I have to say, and uh we hope you all take that into consideration.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

And as Mr.

Crittle said, yes, you do have CCNR's uh documents that do not allow anything other than one single family home.

Um and he can probably get you in touch with someone over in the permitting office so you can follow this all the way through.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

All right, thank you.

Our next speaker is Brenda Flewellan.

I'll be quick where you don't have to ring the bell.

We like ringing it.

I need one of those for my meetings.

I'm Brenda Flewell and I'm the president of the Freeway Manor Civic Club.

And like Ray said, we're not opposed to the plates being divided out.

We're concerned about our deed restrictions because we're one of the older neighborhoods in the city of Houston.

We were built in the 50s.

And we I would like to, the Civic Club would like to request that the when those plates are redone that there be put something in the plates that state that further construction has to abide by our deed restrictions.

That's that's been our major problem.

And that's all I have.

Okay.

That will be a question, Director Tran.

I don't know.

Is that something that can be added?

Jeff, can you address this for us?

Plat notes.

So we can add a plat note that says this property is subject to the deed restrictions and you know, volume and page of the of the deed records.

Uh, we try not to be very too too specific on the face of the plat, but we can definitely put a note that says this property is subject to those deed restrictions.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, our next speaker is Melissa Lede.

I probably butchered that, and if I did, please correct me.

Uh I'm gonna speak that uh in Spanish because my English is terrible.

So we have someone that can translate.

Is Hector here?

Oh there we go.

Okay, okay, there we go.

Uh yo vivo al lado del uh lote que stand tratando de construir.

She lived next to the lot that is being replatted.

Uh y veo el problema cerca de me de que del tipo de vivienda que quieren hacer.

And she see a problem with the type of housing that they want to build next to her property.

Because the house across the street, um it prevent and there's a lot of problems, and even the police always come like frequently and they don't know what the issue is.

So that's the reason why she doesn't want the property to be developed to the housing type.

So that type of housing to be built.

Uh and that's it.

Okay, thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Blanca O'Connor.

Hi, my name is Blanca.

I live uh right next to the lady this speak.

Um we have the problem with that um with the guy's gonna build, he wants it for rent.

I don't think we're gonna be able to deal with that because there's people coming in and out.

He rented the house on the corner, and there's a lot of cops going in and out, loud music, and there's a lot of stuff going on.

They built uh behind the house, like uh it's a garage.

They build it, I guess, into an apartment, and there's people going in and out on that uh curve that they want to build.

There's an a lot of movements right now is you know they go in and out and they don't have restrooms, they don't have water, they don't have nothing, but I they live there.

They have those big containers.

So imagine right now we are going through all that, and if they build there for rent, it's gonna get worse.

The community is gonna go down because it's gonna be a lot of traffic, a lot of movement there.

So I don't think that's right.

That's it.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Mr.

Criddle, um, before I go to the next speaker, I mean, we don't really control whether they rent or sell them.

I know that the city has just put something in front of the council, but I don't know if it passed regarding Airbnbs or short-term rentals.

Um that's not something we can control, but maybe you can get with them.

After you are done.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

And our last speaker is Estella Watts.

Happy New Year to each one of you.

Uh good afternoon, members of the planning committee.

My name is Estella Watts, and I live in Gulfway Terrace, a single family uh neighborhood of Edgebrook and 45.

I have lived there for over 40 years, raise my children there very safely without any issues.

We are here today to ask the Commission to enforce the restrictions that protect our community.

Our restrictions are clear, one residence per lot, single family dwellings only.

Residential purposes was never meant to include duplexes apartments or multi-tenant conversions.

Yet that's exactly what we're seeing illegal conversions that violate our seven-year-old framework and bring overcrowding, instability, and crime to our area.

We're already dealing with squatters occupying homes legally, drug houses operating in plain sight, nearby apartment complex drawing high turnover, low accountability tenants, and also people selling food out of the those residential uh apartments or houses that are being rented.

Even our churches, like St.

Francis Cabrini, who is down the street from us, has been vandalized.

This isn't just a neighborhood dispute.

It's a matter of law under Texas Local Government Code Section 212.153.

The city has the power and the duty to enforce a residential deed restriction.

Furthermore, the existing blythe in our area already constitutes a common nuisance under Texas civil uh practice and remedies, code chapter 125.

We're asking you to please use your authority to prevent new violations of Houston Ordinance number 10-451 before it further degrades our public safety.

We're asking, we're not asking for funding for favors.

We're simply asking for the law to be upheld.

Please start the multi-tenance developments and help us preserve the integrity of Gulfway Terrace.

And also one more comment before I uh just uh take my seat.

I also there is a house, two three houses down from us that are built duplexes in the back of their house, and for some reason the city approved it, and they have about seven people living there, and I know that they are renting because I've seen a son in front of the house for rent, and I know they're renting those uh two duplicates, duplexes that are behind that original single house.

Thank you.

I appreciate your attention.

Thank you so much.

Commissioners, any questions?

Yes, Commissioner Garza.

So Mr.

Criddle, just to reiterate for the people who are here.

The deed restrictions do not allow duplexes, correct?

That's correct.

All right.

So no duplexes can be built.

Permittee will not allow will not give permits for duplexes to be built.

That's correct.

Um second, the applicant has already worked with you and gone from four lots to three lots.

Which meets the deed restrictions.

Yes, sir.

Uh you have already agreed to put a note on the plat saying that they must abide by deed restrictions.

So that is the scope of what we can do for you as far as violations, um, a garage apartment.

If those things are not allowed, those would be, I think a 311 call.

Would they not?

Code enforcement, yeah.

Oh, yes, I'm sorry.

So 311.

And I will say this about that that the more you call, the more likely you are to get action.

So don't be shy about calling and reporting violations.

So again, uh the power of this uh uh of this commission does not extend to helping you with those violations, but there are other city departments that can.

Anyway, so that's it for me, and I would like to make a motion for approval, Madam Chair.

Okay.

So we have a motion by uh Commissioner Garza.

Do I have a second?

Second ballot.

Second ballard.

All in favor.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Mr.

Crittle.

Yes.

Ms.

Howard.

The City Legal Department is responsible for enforcing deed restrictions.

And they have a hotline.

And it is 832.

Get ready to write this down, 832.

393.

633.

Okay.

Yes, ma'am.

832.

393.

633.

It's the legal department.

It's their hotline.

So the legal department's hotline.

And the section is called neighborhood services.

And they handle things like Chapter 125 and deed restriction violations.

Thank you, Ms.

Howard.

I appreciate that.

Okay.

All right.

We voted on that.

So we are moving on to item 83.

Item 83 is Lockheed 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 Eton Street, north of Old Spanish Trail and east of Elmeda Road.

The applicant is proposing two single family residential lots.

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

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

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

The PAT was previously deferred and granted a 30-day extension to come before the Commission today for consideration after extensive legal review.

Review by legal indicates that the Plat does violate separately filed deed restrictions that would not allow the subdivid the subdivision of this lot.

As such, staff recommendation is to disapprove the plat due to the violation of deed restrictions.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 83 is continued.

I do have quite a few speakers.

Our first speaker is Alonzo Gonzalez.

Hello, everyone, I'm Alonso Gonzalez, and I am just here protesting emails about this situation and hopefully you all had a chance to read those.

But I want the three properties, the ones that are adjacent to this property, the one next to it, and across the street.

So basically I am all around this particular property.

So in accordance with uh the Texas Local Government Code Section 212.015.

If the proposed replot requires variants and is protested in accordance with this uh subsection, the proposed replot must receive in order to be approved the affirmation of at least three quarters of the members of this present municipality.

So for a legal protest, which is what I am doing, written instruments, which is what I have here signed by my wife and myself.

Uh we sign uh signed by the owners of at least 20 percent of the area of the lots or the middle atlanta joining the area covered by the proposed replots and extending to 200 feet from the area.

But with this within the original subdivision, so must be filled in with the municipal plan commission.

So I have done that, and I am protesting uh again.

We would like for them to come and and uh build a beautiful home.

There's a lot of homes, nice, real nice homes in our area, but we don't want the reploting and I surround this area with my properties.

I am not doing it for myself either.

So I am asking that we just stink for deed restrictions and not go beyond that.

And with this particular developer, we have tried different things, or they have tried different things going around us.

This is another operation.

Before we they were trying to do uh quadruplex in the area, that didn't work.

We came here, wasted a lot of your time, a lot of our time.

Now we are back again.

So anyway, we are protesting this, we object to their variance, uh, and we hope that they become good neighbors.

They express goodwill towards us, and and they join the community because the majority of the community, as you are going to hear from my from uh others, do not want that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Gonzalez.

And just as a reminder, staff is making a recommendation for disapproval today.

Um just wanted to let you and the future speakers know that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Yes, Commissioner Baldwin.

Can't we just clarify to the speakers?

As the staff has recommended denial, we would not have the ability.

This commission would not have the ability to overturn those deed restrictions nor vote against it.

So we're really only listening to see if the developer or some other speaker has some proof that it does not violate the deed restrictions.

Those of you that are speaking in favor of keeping it the way it is, we're bound by law to follow that rule.

We're going to vote that way unless we are provided some additional information that would convince us otherwise.

Just don't want you to waste your time and say the exact same thing 25 times.

We hear you.

We're not going to overrule your deed restrictions without new information about deed restrictions.

Thank you, Commissioner Baldwin.

I would also add that uh reminder that this is not a variance application.

This is a public hearing.

Right.

However, we are recommending disapproval of the fact, which means the property would be relegated to still be a single residential lot.

Right.

Thank you for that.

Okay.

The next speaker I have signed is Gerardo Gaetan.

Hi there, my name is Hirardo Eitan.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Commission.

I heard your statement.

I withdraw my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Ballin.

I didn't note that Commissioner Amanda Paka had come in.

Okay, thank you.

Our next speaker, and I'm probably going to mess this up, Vene Chandra Drakev.

I can't tell if that's an N or a V, I'm sorry.

Good afternoon, everyone.

And I just want to thank you for disapproving replying.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sarah Goldberg.

Hello, Commissioners.

I just want to also, I'm uh along with my neighbors, uh appreciate all the time that uh Ms.

Howard and uh Mr.

Sidaniel has put into this because we have revisited this same situation uh two years ago, and then this round, probably around six five four to six times.

So we appreciate y'all's time and in support of disapproving.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alfonso Pico.

My name is Alfonso Pico, and I I don't need to vote to speak about this project.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Pico.

Appreciate you coming in today.

Our next speaker is Peter Arnest.

Hi, hello again, Peter NF Central City.

Um I just want to say thank you, everyone, for their due diligence and the time to this case and finding with the residents of Central City.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Karina Rosales.

Hello, my name is Karina Rosales.

And I just want to say that um through my communication with Ms.

Howard, I think that uh we were able to provide all the proper uh documentation for her to make a good decision and side with us that I did restrictions do actually apply to this property, and that we will finally, finally come uh to a conclusion to this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The last speaker I have to speak.

Let's see if I'd like to speak last, okay, is Jill, and I'm gonna probably mess this up because I'm sorry I can't read your writing.

Yet, Gigi.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman.

Thank you so much again for considering our uh opposition.

And I am thrilled that Ms.

Howard has reached the decision to validate the deeds restrictions.

I do not need to speak any further.

Would you mind making sure to restate your name?

Because I probably it's Jill J-I-L-L-Z-G, Y-A-Z-I-J-I.

Okay, thank you so much.

Okay, I have no one else signed a speaker.

Anyone else that wishes to.

Okay.

I'm gonna close the public hearing for item 83, and I need a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion, Baldwin.

Second, Carol.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to item 84.

Item 84 is Milwaukee Pla excuse me, Milwaukee Village.

Uh the site is located within Houston City limits, south along Milwaukee Street between Hilmer Street and Fulton Street.

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

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

In addition, Madam Chair, uh this application did not meet the notice requirements, and uh staff's recommendation is to disapprove the subdivision plat.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 84 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Victor?

Second Jones, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving on to item 85.

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

My name is Dorianne Poflim.

Item 85 is Pablo Lot Park.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits at the northeast intersection of Papalot Street and Gazna Road.

The reason for replat is to create one unrestricted reserve.

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 the Commission, you may open the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 85 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.

Motion Garza.

Second Pors Pertle.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving to 86.

Item 86 is Tidwell Square.

The site is at Newstone Corporate Limits, south along West Tidwell Road, east of Raywood Well Boulevard.

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

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

Per legal review, a 40-foot front building line and a 10-foot side building lines are required.

The applicant has requested that this plat be deferred.

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

There are no variants requested with this item.

Staff has not received any advanced comments for this item.

And the applicant has about all notification requirements.

Madam Chair, if it pleases the Commission.

If it pleases 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 a couple of speakers.

Thank you.

We appreciate you coming in.

Our next speaker is Sam Vaughn.

My name is Sam Vaughn.

I am a member of the uh Yopon Grove subdivision, which is which this entails, which is only about 45 houses, basically.

And the deed the deed restrictions that I that I have read imply that there is a number of breaches.

One is architectural.

All the houses in the subdivisions are single-story, single-family homes.

And I understand this is going to be like two stories.

The uh the other restriction is that it that we only have uh single family homes in the subdivision.

There is a part of the deed restriction that says no annoyances or nuisances.

This will be out my back door, basically, so I don't know if that's going to be applicable when they build it.

Um it has to be built within the conformity and conform to the the um and in harmony with the external design with the other houses, which it won't be.

It will be like two stories, I don't know, maybe three stories if they have garages.

Um I'm not sure how they're gonna build four places on a lot that is 14,000 square, 700 square feet, which is exactly the size of my my uh my plot, which is one house.

Uh so that's all I got.

Thank you, Mr.

Vaughn.

Ms.

Howard, can you answer any of the deed restriction comments?

Well, the D restrictions do require one single family residence.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Only and there is a 40-foot front building line, which they were violating.

Right.

And there's also a 10-foot interior building line, which they were violating as well.

Right.

So uh so I win.

Today you do.

Today.

You can chalk it up as a win today.

That's all I got.

Thank you so much.

Commissioners, any other questions?

I do.

Yes.

Commissioner Baldwin.

But I see the width of these lots are 49 feet, so they meet the front setback, right?

So the only thing that on this plot that we're saying, the only violation is the 10-foot side setback?

No, they're asking for a 25-foot front setback.

Yeah.

They want to reduce the front setback by 15 feet.

I see 98 across the front and two the building line.

No, the setback.

Oh, the set line.

Yeah, the building line.

And what do you show it to be?

25.

Okay.

It needs to be 40.

And then 10 foot on the side.

When they bring it back.

Okay.

All right, perfect.

Okay.

Thank you.

I have no one else signed to speak on item 86.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

Okay.

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

Motion Sigler.

Second Shepard.

Second Shepherd, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

To item 87.

Item 87 is Windsor Place addition, partial replant number four.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits at the southwest intersection of Hayden Avenue and Park Street.

The reason for replat is to create one single family residential lot.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a six-foot building line along Hayden Avenue instead of a 10-foot building line and 20-foot garage building line for the proposed garage bay addition.

The site is a replat of lot 11 and portion of lot 10, block 6 and 7 of the north half of blocks.

I mean, I'm sorry, block 7 of the north half of blocks 6 and 7, Windsor Place, recorded in 1922.

The primary structure was built in 1937 and the garage apartment built in 1948.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

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

Staff's recommendation is to defer the plat to allow the applicant time to provide detailed for plans for the existing house to be remodeled at the corner of Hayden and Park Streets and can and coordinate with public words concerning the driveway layout.

Staff has received advanced comments for this item, and the resident is opposed to the variance requests.

And um the variance requests and putting additional garage bay along the street, the cars would possibly uh park in the driveway and block the sidewalk.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 87 is open, and I have a speaker signed, Susan Kistler.

Good afternoon.

My name is Susan Kissler.

I live at 1802 Haddon Street, which is across the street in Caddy Corner to this lot.

I walk in the neighborhood frequently as I have dogs.

And the house is an eyesore.

I did get a notice, but many of my neighbors did not about what the plans are.

And what I received does not appear to be possibly accurate about what they intend to do.

Right now there's three garages that are in a separate building.

There appear to be, I don't know how many people living in the house.

Oh, you can see above the garage, but there are other people living there as well.

Most of the time, not in the photo that you are showing, there's a car blocking the driveway in front of the garages.

So when I'm walking, there not only is there not a sidewalk on park, which I don't know if that's required or not, because it's an older home.

But usually that is blocked off.

So if I'm walking, I can't I have to walk in the street.

So I think it would be very helpful if we could get an accurate representation of what's going on.

There are no plans in the thing I received.

There were no details about the remodeling to make this a single family home.

This home is in utter disrepair.

Um paint peeling, the siding on the garage is peeling off, the downspout is half of it's gone.

The downspout is half of it's gone.

Everything is falling apart.

So it's a little hard to imagine that without a complete remodeling that this could become a single family home.

And I hope you'll keep the neighborhood informed in a better way than was done before.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay, thank you.

I have no one else signed to speak on item 87.

Is there anyone else that wishes to yes come forward?

State your name for the record, please.

Nathan Dietrich, and I am speaking on behalf of the owner of the home.

And I appreciate the neighbor coming and speaking to us.

One thing that Dorianne probably didn't receive from me, I sent an email from another neighbor in the in the in the area that was in what would like to see the changes that were coming.

And so I would be happy to meet with uh uh the neighbor and kind of give her walk her through all the changes that we're actually going to be uh be doing on this property and um I will be happy to get all the other information to Dorian while this is being inferred.

Thank you.

I recommend that's a good idea.

Um Ms.

Kisler.

Did you hear him?

He's gonna get with you and go over everything.

Okay, thank you so much.

Commissioners, any questions?

All right.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to on item 87?

Okay.

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

Motion Jones.

Second MATES, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving along to D, subdivision platzs with variance requests.

Chair?

Yes.

I need a recuse from 89, I mean 88, 89, 90, and 91.

Okay, thank you.

Madam Chair, I'll be doing the same thing, 88 through 91.

Okay.

So Mara's in Heich, recusing from 88 through 91.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yes.

So moving on to 88.

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

My name is Tammy Williamson.

Staff would like to take items 88 through 91 together as they are related.

Very good.

Thank you.

Item 88 is Bridgeland Prairie Land Village Section 64.

Item 89 is Section 65.

Item 90 is Section 66, and item 91 is Section 67.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in western Harris County, west of State Highway 99, south of Bridgeland Creek Parkway, and north of future Tuckerton Road.

The applicant is proposing four single-family residential sections within the general plan, section 64, 65, 66, and 67 for combined 353 lots, with all four sections requesting the same two variances.

One, for the lots to take vehicular access from a private alley to be permitted to have a zero-foot front building line, shown on the screen with a red hatch, and two to allow lots not to have frontage on a street, but instead to have frontage on a green space with vehicular access from a private alley, shown on the screen in Cyan.

Staff is in support of both requests for all four sections.

The housing product type and street development in Bridgeland is an urban neighborhood concept, offering a more pedestrian-friendly environment with improved sidewalk network and enhanced landscaping.

The first variance is to allow a zero-foot front building line along a public street for the lots that take vehicular access from the proposed private alleys, which is shown in red.

The ordinance allows this except for corner lots when vehicular access is taken from public alleys.

The proposed 20-feet wide private alleys will meet the general standards for the construction of public alleys, thereby meeting the intent of the ordinance, except that they're private.

The lots that do not have frontage on a street, which is shown in blue, are proposed to have vehicular access from the rear via private alleys and to face a common green space with each lot having a pedestrian connection to the green space pathways.

This is similar to what is now permitted in the courtyard style development concept, where lots can be disconnected from the street network as long as they front, face, and provide access to and through a common courtyard space.

Granting variances will help to eliminate numerous driveway cuts along the public street and minimize the pedestrian and vehicular traffic interaction.

Harris County Engineering has no objection to the request.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variances in sections 64, 65, 66, and 67, and approve the platforms subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

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

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on items 88 through 91.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

If not, I'll seek a motion for staff recommendation for items 88 through 91.

Motion Sigler.

Motion Sigler.

Second, Ballard.

Second, Victor, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to 92.

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

My name is Jeff Butler.

Item 92 is IAH Commerce Park.

The site is located within the ETJ within Harris County, north and along FM 1960, west of Cypresswood, east of U.S.

59, and south of Spring Creek.

The applicant is proposing two reserves for commercial development.

The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed minimum intersection spacing along Foxchester Lane by not providing an east-west public street.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is located along FM 1960 opposite George Bush Intercontinental Airport.

The applicant is proposing to develop the site with small office or excuse me, retail and office park warehouse uses with detention to the north.

Foxchester Lane is an existing dedicated public right-of-way, but is currently unapproved.

The site is encumbered by an existing pipeline easement, and the site is also west of a hundred and sixty-foot-wide drainage channel.

The applicant is asserting that these limitations make meeting the intersection spacing requirement impractical.

Chapter 42 allows for an intersection spacing exception of 2,000 feet for tracks affected by pipelines.

While the application does not meet this provision, the intended result, the intended product would achieve a similar result.

In addition, the site is surrounded by a public street system allowing residential traffic to circulate independent of commercial.

Staff finds the request meets the intent of the ordinance and recommends approval.

And we have received no advance written comment.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 92.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

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

Do I have a motion?

Motion Mondifica.

Motion Montepaca.

Second.

Second Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 93.

Madam Chair, I want to recuse from item 93.

Okay.

Thank you.

Item 93 is Kirkendal Village Section 2.

This was deferred at the last meeting, so this must be acted upon today.

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

The applicant proposes a single family development with private streets.

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

Staff is not in support of these requests.

The site is located along Kirkendall between two proposed collector streets, Klein Oak Lane and Lindsay Road.

These future streets are listed on the city's major thoroughfare and freeway plan and represent necessary infrastructure on this developing block.

The applicant is dedicating two partial segments of these streets to front two reserves on the north side of their tract.

However, the applicant is required to address a variance for frontage and points of access, as these segments require abutting properties to develop to be fully completed.

Staff has concerns that granting the variances would complicate future street connection and would limit access to the 251 lot development.

Staff has been coordinating with Harris County and the applicant and have identified a potential solution that could address these concerns.

Staff has received a written request from the applicant to extend this application for 30 days for continued coordination with county and staff.

And staff has received no advance written comment and the applicant is here.

Great.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak.

Does the applicant wish to speak or just here for questions?

Okay, thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

So we're what we're what are we acting on?

The 30-day extension?

Well, that's been yeah, that's been submitted in writing.

Yes.

So it was it it's up here for deny, but they've done their written request.

So the choice is do you want to give the 30-day extension?

So do I have a motion for a 30-day extension?

Motion Heinz.

Motion Heinz.

Second.

Second Jones, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

30 days are granted.

Item 94.

Item 94 is Mendoza Hacienda.

The site is located in the ETJ of Harris County, north of Stroker Road, east of Peters Road.

The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not providing a north-south street through the tract.

Staff is in support of this request.

The subject site is a vacant three-acre tract intended to be developed as one single family home.

The track currently takes access from a recorded access easement, which is being dedicated to the public for right-of-way with this subdivision plat.

Strict application of the ordinance requires this site to address a north-south street connection within 1,400 feet of Peters Road.

This planet commission body granted a variance for the adjacent subdivision plat to not provide the street connection.

Justification provided for that request also applies to this development.

The site is located in an area with large tracts of land with low density uses.

If the street connection was to be provided in the immediate area, one of the larger tracts to the east fronting Stroker Road is a more suitable or practical location.

We believe the addition of one single family home does not increase the density in a manner that triggers the need for a street connection.

Harris County Engineering Office has voiced no objection to this request, and staff recommends granting the requested variance and approving the plat subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 94.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay, Commissioners.

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

Motion among the second.

Motion Montepaca.

Second Sykes, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 95.

Item 95 is precision Tomball Commercial.

This site is located in the ETG of Harris County, north along FM 2920 between Cobbs Road and Holly Creek Trail.

The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not providing an east-west street through the tract.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is a vacant 40-acre tract intended for commercial use.

The area is mostly comprised of large estate lots and agricultural uses.

There are multiple recorded plats adjacent to this site that receives similar variances to not provide an east-west street.

These recorded plates limit the available area where a valuable street connection can be provided.

Staff has worked closely with Harris County Engineering Office to identify a more suitable area for an east-west street connection.

This area is located north of the proposed plat, closer to the minor collectors that are located on the Bajor Thayer Fair and Freeway Plan.

Harris County Engineering Office has voiced no objections to this request, and staff recommends granting the requested variants and approving this plat subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

This also includes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a couple of speakers.

The applicant, David White, and Julian Cohen.

Are you all coming back up?

Are you just here for questions?

Okay.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

Thank you.

So you have a recommendation of granting the requested variance and approving the plat.

Do I have a motion?

Motion.

Motion Montepaca.

Second MATES.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

We have nothing under E.

Moving on to F.

Reconsideration of requirement.

Item 96.

Item 96 is Lutheran Gardens General Plan.

The subject site is a 5.2 acre general plan located in the Harris County extraterritorial jurisdiction, west along Lutheran Church Road and north of Lutheran School Road.

The intended use is to create two single-family residential lots, and the applicant is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not providing an east-west street through the property and to not extend nor terminate with the Culasac Lutheran Garden Road along the western boundary.

Staff is in support of not providing an east-west street through the site, but is not in support of not extending Lutheran Garden Road.

The site is 1,500 feet from Lutheran School Road to the south, and strict application of the ordinance will require an East West Street at this location.

The only existing potential connection further west was Krug Street, which is effectively blocked by the recording of the Ford Acre plat in 2014, shown in pink.

The large parcels to the west are owned by one family or one family trust of the Petrich family and kept as homestead and agricultural use, which does not incur heavy traffic use.

However, the extension of Lutheran Garden Road would exceed 1,800 feet at the current proposed stub, with 10 large properties potentially taking access from that right-of-way.

The right of way should be extended through the property or at least call-de-sacted to the northwest portion as a proposed Section 1 or Lot 1 to give that site access viable, to give that property viable access and to allow turning space for larger emergency vehicles should that need arise.

Harris County Engineering Department has no objection to the East-West right-of-way being uh uh denied or not requiring the East West Rightway, but does not support the failure to extend Lutheran Garden Road.

So I recommendation is to grant the request to not provide an East West Street to the site, but to deny the request to not extend Lutheran Garden Road and approve the general plan subject to CPC 101 from conditions.

Madam Chair, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I do have some speakers.

Our first speaker is Andrea Solis.

I believe that's the same.

I take that back.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to on item 96?

Okay.

So, Commissioners, you have a recommendation from staff on the screen.

Do I have a motion?

Motion.

Motion Mandapaka.

Second Ballard.

Second Ballard.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Now we're moving to 97.

There we go.

Item 97 is Willow Parish.

The subject site is an over three-acre property located in the Houston City limits, south along Neiman Road, west uh south of Tidwell Road, and east of Roslin Road.

The advocate intends to create 44 lots and eight reserves as part of a Type II PAE private street subdivision and is requesting a variance to only provide 15 feet of right-of-way widening for Neiman Road in lieu of the 20-foot dedication required.

Staff is in support of the request.

Neiman Road exists as a 20-foot local street and is largely unimproved.

A residential development, such as the plat before us today would require a 15-foot widening dedication for a full 50-foot wide ride-of-way.

However, strict application of the ordinance requires 20-foot widening dedication and a 60-foot ride-of-way due to the unrestricted reserves of Tidwell Court, shown in green, which all take access from Tilwell Road.

Tidwell Landing North and Tibwell Landing South, shown in blue, were recorded with this same variance being granted.

Lay at Landing in orange was also granted the same variants at the previous commission and would have included this property if the subject site did not exceed further along Neiman, requiring that the variance be addressed for the additional portion of Nehemiah being affected.

Let's see.

A large majority of the existing and proposed development along this portion of Neiman is residential and would be sufficiently serviced by a 50-foot public right of way in lieu of the ordinance required 60.

The adjacent east and west streets of Donovan to the south and Tidwell to the north range from 65 to 100 feet wide and provide sufficient connectivity for the east and west traffic within the existing right-of-way grid as the span between Donovan and Tidwell being less than a thousand feet.

This portion of Neiman will take access from Phillips Road, shown in pink, which was recorded with Tilwell Landing South.

Phyllis will also extend north to connect to Tedwell with the recreation of layout landing.

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

Madam Chair, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

So now we'll move on to Andrea Solis.

We have a main speaker for us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

First time.

We are in uh the neighborhood uh the small neighborhood Donovan uh to the left, kind of the little circle there.

Um our biggest concern is uh irrigation, and Helen is gonna touch on a few of those issues.

Um my biggest concern is the already uh crime ridden area.

It will open opening up Neiman is gonna give us another opening for people to hop our backyards.

So we've done really well at keeping uh crime at bay as much as we can, but I feel like opening up even that easement is gonna just oh look there's another street for us to hop back on over.

So uh I'm kind of a opposed to that.

But I want Helen to think that.

Okay, thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Valencia Gantt.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Uh, my name is Valencia Gant.

I am also a resident of Marbella, which is to the left of that property that is being proposed.

Um like my other neighbor had mentioned, um have concerns in regards to the irrigation, uh, as we have had issues with flooding when we do have torrential rainfall.

Um, the easement of that um road leads up to a green space that is actually open to our neighborhood.

And with the lack of green space in the Houston area, um, it would uh you know potentially just have whatever you know could occur right at that um that road coming over into our green space.

It's an open we have lots of animals in our neighborhood, and we're an open community.

I also have concerns in terms of right-of-way for emergency vehicles with the the width of an ambulance, the width of a fire truck going down that road, um, and the width of cars nowadays.

Um, would they be able to, you know, traverse um properly to be able to give safety to the residents of that community?

Um and so that concern in terms of where they are um plotting to have uh a sidewalk as well as um a buffer for pedestrian.

Um, would that encroach upon that 50 feet, thus encroaching upon that ease of way for safety?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Sidio, do you want to answer some of those questions now or do you want to wait until the end?

Wait until the end unless there is a point of concern from the commissioners.

Okay.

Thank you.

So our next speaker is Helen Landa Verde Ripple.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Helen Landaverde Rippo.

I live at 1809 Don Alejandro.

And I am going to present my opposition based on the notice that we received in the staff report that was prepared by the by the planning department.

So I'm not clear what reconsideration means for this particular plat.

My understanding of it is that it seems like it is a preliminary plat.

So I am against the design of the plat, and I will provide my red marking.

I don't know where I can put that to the case.

Document camera, please.

Thank you.

But that is my red line of the subdivision design.

So as my understanding of it seeing it, you're not only considering the variants to the right-of-way, but also to the subdivision design.

And my argument on that, looking at the criteria presented on the staff report, the circumstances supporting the granting of the variants are not the result of the hardship created or imports imposed by the applicant is it is something created by the applicant based on the subdivision design.

And as you can see, if they were to I don't know.

If they were to remove these lots here and create them as reserves, they would have sufficient space to provide the required right-of-way or at least reduce it to meet what's there right now.

Number three, the intent and general purpose of this chapter will be preserved and maintained.

No, it will not be preserved and maintained.

And I have looked at Section 42 120, general layout and arrangement of street systems.

These streets are not continuous.

And I'm talking about these streets.

They do not connect to anywhere.

If you look at the surrounding subdivisions that have been approved and platted or developed, like my subdivision, which is Marbella.

You would see that those streets are connected.

The most recent subdivision that came in.

Tidwell Landing South connects them.

And then we also have Tidwell Landing North that is also connecting them.

So give me a moment.

Staff will argue that that has to do with the engineering, which is true.

But as a planning department, we can implement additional development tools and standards to mitigate drainage, such as limit the coverage of the front lot to 50 percent and limit the coverage of the rear yard to 30 percent to avoid that drainage issue that we have right now.

We are not in a FEMA flood zone.

You're way past your time.

So I am opposed to this subdivision, not only to the right-of-way.

And I do think that it is something imposed by them, and it does not meet the adopted 2015 comprehensive plan.

There are several goals that I have provided, or the 2022 adopted complete streets.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Sidio, a lot of the things that were just talked about as far as setbacks and you know 50 percent coverage, that's all handled with public works.

I'm talking to the staff right now.

I know, but I was gonna mention I'm summing this as exhibiting.

You're twice over what your time was.

So there are relegated requirements for lots that are smaller than the minimum which these are, such as 60 percent coverage for the lot.

So if it uh whatever the square footage of the lot is, the there cannot cover more than 60 percent of it.

Um this are things are voted in by City Council as part of the requirements, uh, and those part of those performance standards.

Um there is reference for sidewalk.

The sidewalks aren't required along a type 2 PE, which the subdivision is composed of, but it does take access along naming, which will be required to provide sidewalk along that length.

Um other aspects were continuous streets.

These are private streets which are relegated to use within the subdivision that creates them.

So that would the continuous aspect would be more so for public right-of-ways, which would be a requirement at that point.

Um other aspects as far as uh there's quite a few things mentioned if you want to recover in the I will be more.

How about the width of the roadways for uh emergency services?

So uh the 50-foot right of way would meet our local standard requirements.

Um like I said before this one, this technically needs to be 60 because there are unrestricted reserves that are plated and recorded to the north, but those do take access from table of the major thoroughfare.

Um we have already approved multiple variances, just like this one for the adjacent properties.

Um we don't really kind of again, those would have to be built to uh Office of City Engineer standards, which more than makes it up for the access for any type of emergency vehicle.

Even the type two PAEs have requirement community standards that would allow the access of a fire engine or ambulance.

There is even uh fire hydrant requirements within this subdivision so that they will have sufficient water access as well.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate you going over that.

Um next speaker is Alejandro Casiras.

Hi, hello, good afternoon.

Um I'll go fast.

Uh my name is Alejandra.

I am the neighbor also that lives in Marbella.

I think the beast they'll be concerned it's flooding.

Um we have cameras there in our neighborhood, and I printed out some photos throughout the years, four different years.

I have been living in that neighborhood for 13 years.

I think that was one of the first the first people who leave on that neighborhood.

Uh excuse me?

Oh, okay.

Um flooding is a big thing for us because we have to battle that every single every single um year.

Also the street, you know, you are going from a 20 feet to a 15 feet, and that fee that street is not going continuous all the way to the east side.

It is going to curve up, meaning that it is going to butthead to the to the pretty much our fence line of a house.

So that creates danger if there is an accident, right?

You cannot have two cars going at the same time.

You are going to have to pull out to be able to go around.

What if there are pedestrians are walking?

It just creates amount of danger.

There's a lot of alleys that are around our neighborhood, and we have seen it.

We you guys heard there's a little violence there.

There's a little people who throw stuff, there's trash everywhere.

So they're maintaining the street.

We don't see it happening.

It doesn't happen in our neighborhood.

We understand that, but it's just the risk of going from 50 feet, you know, from where he was in 20 feet, and you are butting hit two hour fence line of an actual house where people and kids play over there, and then you're gonna have to go curve around to go around instead of going a continuous street.

So it's a big worry for us.

So thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

I see Mr.

Brown.

I didn't see you earlier.

Maybe you can get with the um neighbors after this and talk to them about flooding and where this goes from here in streets and all of that and safety.

And then my last speaker, um I know you say you are available for questions.

Mary Villarreal, is there something you would like to say?

Or Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission.

Um I just wanted to ensure the neighbors that we are in communications and have we met with public works prior to or in the process of designing this.

Uh they will be improving the streets.

Uh they will be providing the drainage uh underground on uh under the the new proposed public streets, and then they will be providing the detention that is needed for the each development.

Uh we are coordinating also with uh uh the fire marshal in regards to pavement widths, uh turnarounds.

Uh we've also coordinated with them where the new proposed Phillips Street meets the Neiman Road to we're going to be improving the entire intersection to make sure there is enough uh turnaround there.

We have already had comments from fire um the fire marshal, so we will make sure to to meet all the requirements by the city.

Okay.

It may be a good idea too for you to talk to the neighbors.

I did give them my card.

I heard them outside.

Okay, good.

So I would be happy to talk to them.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you so much.

I have no one else signed to speakers or anyone else that wishes to.

Okay.

Can you put the recommendation back up on the screen, please?

Okay.

So Commissioners, you have a recommendation from staff to grant the request of variance and approve the plat for item 97.

Do I have a motion?

Motion modus.

Second.

Motion modus, second Garza.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving along to G extensions of approval.

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

My name is Adissa Giadesyoju.

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

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sections G extensions of approval consists of items 98 to 108.

Sections H name changes consists of item 109.

Section I certification of compliance consists of no items and Section J administrative, consists of no items.

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

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Addes OG.

Did I get it right?

Almost.

I have been trying I've been trying to study how to say that.

I am so sorry.

Tell me how to say it again.

It's okay.

Say it again for me.

I do see OG.

Okay.

Okay.

I pronounced it wrong.

Thank you.

Okay.

Everybody got that now.

Okay.

Thank you.

Do I have a motion for second?

Madam Chair, I just want to note I am going to be abstaining from one item 100.

Item 100.

Okay.

Anyone else?

All right.

Commissioner Heist is abstaining from item 100.

So do I have a motion for items G H, I, and J.

Motion pour Second Hines.

Second Hines, all in favor.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

And we will 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 110, 5535 Birdwood Road.

The site is located north of Brearswood Boulevard at the southeast corner of Mullins Drive and Birdwood Road.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 10-foot garage building line in lieu of the ordinance required 20-foot garage building line for any single family construction.

The property was platted.

The property was platted with Barclay Circle Subdivision in 1961 with a 10-foot building line along Mullins Drive.

Barkley Circle is an established residential neighborhood with corner lots that maintain a 10-foot setback on the site.

The proposed variance is keeping with the character of the neighborhood, as there are many structures that are located at the 10-foot line on the site.

In addition, the distance between the backup curb to the property line is roughly 16 feet, which will place the garage door at 26 feet from the edge of the paved street.

In addition, there will be clearance of 19 feet between the sidewalk and the garage door.

Staff recommendation is to approve the requested variants to allow a 10-foot building line along Mullins Drive in lieu of the uh in lieu of the ordinance required 20-foot garage building line.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

I do have two speakers for item 110.

My first speaker is Don Kelso.

Thank you.

I am Don Kelso.

I am a little confused with what was just said.

I understand that the building line has been moved 10 feet closer to Mullins.

And there are no houses that are within that 10-foot move, running from uh Mullins run, this part of Mullins runs roughly half a mile from Beechnut to Bracewood, six foot right away.

Moving this structure, if you're ta saying that where the house sits right now is on the the where the garage is going to be?

Yes.

So if you can look at the drawing or the individual.

So this is the proposal.

Where is the line of the house right now?

Right now.

The existing house.

The existing house.

Document camera.

Right now the uh the existence structure, as you can see.

Sorry.

Is right here, which is can you magnify that?

Tell me.

So you're saying you are going to move the new house will be ten feet closer to Mullins?

No.

The new house will will keep the same alignment that the existing one had.

It's just that they are requesting that they have a garage door coming in from the local.

Well, you are not on the screen now.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

They're uh requesting a uh 10-foot garage building line to access from the local.

So the new house will be aligned with the 10-foot that the existing one.

So if I'm understanding what you're saying, that the existing structure that's there now will be torn down.

Yes.

And the building line of the new house, where it's the garage or house.

Yes.

No.

Okay.

That's all accurate, then I'm just fine with doing that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Kelso.

The applicant is here.

Yes, sorry.

It's confusing because the build line they are marking is the city build line, but based on the size of the street, not the existing build line.

The deed restrictions were 10 feet.

The buildings are all built at 10 feet.

The current code is 20 feet.

Yes.

And so what you're the 20-foot would be the city code, not the deed restriction.

The structures are at 10 feet.

It's going back at 10 feet.

Just so you are.

Right.

Well, I'm not concerned with any all I wanted to make sure of was that the new house was not closer to the process.

It's staying where it was.

Right.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

We do have the applicant here if you all have any questions.

If not, I'm sorry I don't have the applicant's name, but if you would like to speak, let me know.

Oh, hey.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

I have no one else signed to speak on item 110.

Um, presentation of you.

So staff is recommending approval.

Do I have a motion for item 110?

Motion very good.

I heard somebody else too.

Motion.

Pierce.

Okay.

Motion guards a second Pierce.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 11.

Item 11, that's 511 Cordell Street.

The site is located east of 45, south of Gartner Street and along the west side of Cordell Street.

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

The property was platted with Brooke Smith subdivision in 1905 with a zero foot building line along Cordell Street.

Brook Smith is a residential neighborhood with lots that maintain the main structure within the 10-foot building line.

Part of the proposed work is to expand the existing uh existing home five foot towards the front property line with an open uh open porch.

The property has been submitted for remodel with the intent to maintain the character of the neighborhood by remodeling the uh existing one-story home.

Because of the current site consists of an existing one-story home, and because the addition is only five feet and will be consistent with the part of the neighborhood.

Staff recommends uh to approve the uh development polite variants uh request for a reduced building line.

This concludes my presentation.

Okay, thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on 111.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

If not, do I have a motion?

Second high.

Second hinds, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 112.

Item 112, 1402 Glory Drive.

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

Uh located west of Writ 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 12-foot building line in lieu of the C of Houston ordinance required 25 along Westview Drive for a new single family construction.

Staff in support of the request.

The site is located at the northeast uh intersection of Westview Drive and Glory Drive.

The property was platted with Glenmore Forest Subdivision in 1950 with a 10-foot building line along Westview Drive.

The proposed variance is pro is proposing vehicular entry via the local street, will increase pedestrian safety and site is also enhancing the right-of-way by providing a six-foot sidewalk with the four-foot safety buffer uh by uh adding additional uh 1.5 sidewalk easement.

Strict interest is strict interpretation of chapter 42 will result in a smaller building area of 4,001 square feet from the original uh 8,600, which is almost half.

The applicant will uh abide by the visibility triangle uh uh requirements, uh allowing for safe uh movement of traffic at this intersection and will retract the fence 32 feet from the local street, and the corner house will be set back 23.5 uh to further increase visibility to reduce uh the confusion.

Can you go back to the cycle?

The meet the what I mean the 23.5 is from the major therapy, so uh at the corner of the house, looking at it from the front, that corner is going to be 23, so that that will increase visibility when cars are turning.

And um surely 19 points.

And staff recommendation is to approve the request uh to allow a 12-foot building line along Westheimer uh drive in lieu of the ordinance required 25.

This concludes my presentation.

Okay, thank you.

I do have a couple of speakers.

Our first speaker is Ms.

Villarreal, if we have any questions.

Anyone have any questions?

Okay.

Our next speaker is Jessica De Dominico.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jessica D.

Dominico, and my husband and I, uh Tony, uh, we own the property at 1402 Glory Drive.

Just want to say thank you for helping us with kind of putting things together to get to this point.

We appreciate it.

We are here to answer any questions.

We know that there was time and effort put into this by all, and we just want to say that we really appreciate it.

Very good.

Thank you.

And so Anthony De DiMonico.

Good afternoon, Anthony Di Domenico.

Yes, Jessica and I did uh buy that property, and we do appreciate the thoughtful collaboration that continued for many weeks, if not much, and we know it takes time to do that collaboration, and we're thankful.

And the one thing I do want to point out, which I've heard all day today, it was about meeting neighbors.

That was an unforeseen blessing that we have made so many new friends along that street who were so welcoming and thankful and just like appreciative that we're changing from what the picture was you just saw of what was there before and yes, that one.

And the visibility and things that we are at work together as a team has just been amazing.

So we're super excited about that and really thankful for your time and consideration.

We want to thank you again.

Thank you.

We appreciate that.

Okay.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation for approval.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Sigler.

Motion Sigler.

Second Carol.

Second, Carroll, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 113.

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

My name is Ed Buckley.

Item 113 is 4609 Rusk Street.

Site is located south of Harrisburg Boulevard, at the northeast corner of the intersection of Rusk Street and South Lockwood Drive.

The applicant is proposing a residential remodel in addition and is requesting an 18-foot building line in lieu of the ordinance required 25-foot building line along Lockwood, a major thoroughfare.

The existing building encroaches the 25-foot building line along Lockwood, with the closest portion of the main structure located approximately 15 feet from the property line.

The scope of work involves a cosmetic remodel with some exterior structural work that will be considered new at an 18-foot setback, as well as front and back porch extensions that will comply with applicable building lines.

Due to the curve of Lockwood Drive adjacent to the site and the right-of-way acquired to build Lockwood to its current width, the requested setback leaves roughly 55 feet between the street curb and the closest part of the main structure, minimizing any risks to visibility or public safety.

The proposed setback is also compatible with other existing structures in the area, many of which predate city ordinance building lines.

Staff recommendation is to approve the variance request.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak.

You have a recommendation of approval for item 113.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Jones.

Motion Jones.

Second Victor, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving on to Remon Numeral 2, establish a public hearing date of February 5th, 2026 for the following.

That's very creative.

Okay.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Second, Poris Pertle.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Remember numeral three, consider a consideration of an off-street parking variance for 5317 Anchor Street.

Roman numeral three is 5317 Anchor Street.

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

The applicant is proposing a warehouse to gym conversion 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 off-site parking, and to provide a total of 79 on-site and off-site parking spaces in lieu of the ordinance required 88 spaces.

The proposed use of the site is a gymnasium, primarily offering youth after-school programs for the largest classes.

Participants are dropped off by bus and picked up by their parents.

There are 15 employees on the largest shift, not all of whom drive, according to the applicant.

Off-site parking is available in a parking garage on Knowless Street, located approximately 570 feet away, measured property line to property line, which exceeds the maximum 500-foot distance for providing more than 25 percent of the required parking off-site.

The garage is approximately 1200 feet away using the most complete pedestrian path to the entrance.

The ordinance requires sidewalks or pedestrian paths to off-site parking, but open ditches, power poles, and trees leave limited space in the right-of-way, making the completion of a sidewalk path impractical.

The applicant has stated that the garage parking is used primarily during events and competitions, and shuttles are provided to carry people to and from the garage so that they don't have to walk.

Staff received comments from neighbors with concerns about traffic impacts during pickup times.

The applicant has agreed to implement additional measures to manage traffic flow, such as requiring employees to park next door under a reciprocal parking agreement, increasing the time window for pickup, asking parents who arrive early to wait in the parking garage, and coordinating pickup using a communication app.

Given the use of the site for after school programs for students too young to drive, the ability of off-site event parking, the applicant's arrangements for a shuttle service from the garage, and additional agreements to reduce traffic impacts during pickup windows.

Staff recommendation is to approve the variance request.

Thank you.

If there's no questions, Commissioners, I am seeking a motion for staff recommendation of approval.

Motion Carroll.

Second serum.

Second serum.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving on to Remon Numero 4, public hearing and consideration of a special 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 recommending that this application be approved and forwarded to City Council.

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 to 5,000 block of Mayflower Street, the north and south sides between Coffee Street and Change Street.

The application was deferred twice to allow for the 30-day notice period to complete after revising the calculations from 6,947 square feet to 6,820 square feet.

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

The applicant provided evidence of support from owners of 10 of the 25 lots representing 46 percent of the total area.

Notification was mailed to all property owners in the application area, and no protests from property owners were received by staff.

According to our analysis, the application area consists of 22 single-family residential lots representing 88 percent of the lots in the application area, three vacant lots representing 12 percent of the application area, and a minimum lot size of 6,820 square feet exists on 16 lots in the application area.

The East Sunnyside Court Section 3 subdivision was platted in 1955, and several of the homes are initially built in the 60s and 70s.

Staff is recommending that this application be approved and forwarded to City Council.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing is continued.

Commissioners, if you don't have any questions, I'll seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Baldwin.

Motion Baldwin?

Second.

Second.

Matez.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Can I get clear?

Absolutely.

So with no opposition, why did it come to us?

Because it was less than 50 percent or less than 50 line.

So they missed it by a fraction.

Very yeah.

Typically that wouldn't even come to us without position.

But it's 50 percent now.

Yeah.

Could we add to the bucket that if there's absolutely no opposition that we lower that threshold in the future by in the ordinance changes?

Idea.

I mean, just seeing it.

Yeah, no, absolutely.

There's no opposition.

Right.

Right.

Right.

Why make them under my brain?

Yeah.

No, good point.

Thank you.

Okay.

So do I have a motion?

Did I make a motion?

Okay.

Did we do a vote?

We did.

Okay.

So see, y'all confuse me when you interrupt me.

Okay.

Very good.

All right.

So remember numeral five is public comment.

Do I have anyone that would like to make a public comment?

Okay.

Hearing none, I will adjourn the meeting at 410 PM.

Thank you, everyone.