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

It is 232 p.m.

on Thursday, January 22nd, 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 HTV.

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

Consent and repeat speakers are allowed one minute.

New speakers are timed for two minutes.

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 time as well as rebuttal.

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

There is not an option for a 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 will call the roll.

Our quorum, we need 11 Commissioners.

Vice Chair Garza.

Present.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Present.

Commissioner Ballard.

Present.

Commissioner Carroll.

Present.

Commissioner Heisch.

Present.

Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Matez.

Commissioner Naranjo.

Present.

Commissioner Pham.

Present.

Commissioner Pierce.

Commissioner Porce Pertle, not here.

Commissioner Surim.

Present.

Commissioner Shepard.

Present.

Commissioner Sykes.

Commissioner Victor.

Present.

See anybody from the county?

And our Secretary Von Tran.

Tran present.

We have a quorum.

We have 15, so we do have a quorum.

Thank you, everyone.

Okay.

There are no withdrawals this week, so I will call for the director's report.

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

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

Welcome.

I have two announcements today.

First, to streamline public messaging and improve efficiency beginning February 1, 2026.

All public notices issued by the planning development department will be sent in a postcard format.

Additionally, a complete list of planning public notices will also be available on our website.

Last, the planning department will be conducting a survey to collect feedback on the new plat tracker website.

This survey is intended to collect user suggestion, report to issues, and identify opportunities for improvement across the public and applicant portal as well as the back end system dynamics 365.

So please be on the lookout for this survey.

We really appreciate your feedback.

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.

As you know, our website is Houston Planning.com.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Tran.

Our next item is consideration of the Planning Commission meeting minutes that were dated uh January 8th, 2026.

They were in your packet.

I need a motion for approval.

Motion Victor.

Second Ballard.

Second Ballard.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Damien Hines was in.

And please note that Commissioner Heinz is here.

Okay.

So now we'll move along to remember numero one, semi-annual report of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee on Water Wastewater Impact Fees.

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

My name is Didra Van Langan from Houston Public Works, and I'm here today to present the January 2026 semi-annual water and wastewater report to the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee.

In accordance with Chapter 395, Texas Local Government Code, City Council adopted ordinances to establish to administer the city's impact fees program.

Approval of motion 90-0614 by City Council appointed the Planning Commission as the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee.

This report documents changes that occurred between the periods of May 1st, 2025 through October 31st, 2025 of the 2020-2030 impact fees program.

In summary of this semi-annual report, I offer the following findings.

A total of 27,144,778 was generated from revenue and interest for water and wastewater impact fees accrued in the impact fees account between May 1st, 2025 and October 31st, 2025.

The first half of the sixth year of the 2020-2030 impact fee program.

The current water and wastewater impact fee of $4,286.93 cents per service unit for water and wastewater is $38.60% of the maximum fees allowed by current law.

The water and wastewater impact fees in effect for this reporting period have been effect in effect since July 1st, 2025, with the implementation of the 2020-2030 impact fee program adopted by City Council.

The number of service units that generate the 27,144,780 778.

Was 5,0841 service units for water and $723 service units for wastewater.

A total of 647 single family residents were exempt from paying impact fees and were granted to single family residents below median housing price during this period.

Examination of the data regarding service units consumption from May 1st, 2025 through October 31st, 2025, indicates significant capacity remains in the water and wastewater systems to support the anticipated demand through July 1st, 2026, the end of the next reporting period.

Based on these findings, I recommended that the Planning Commission acting as the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee authorized the appropriation to debt retirement for the total amount of revenue and interest generated from water and wastewater impact fees during the reporting period in the sum of 27,144,778 and 97 cents.

Thank you for your time.

And I now make myself available for any questions you may have.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Any questions or comments?

Okay.

I need a motion for approval.

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Shepherd, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving along to remember numeral two, semi-annual report of Capital Improvements Advisory Committee on Drainage Impact Fees.

I'm here to present the January 2026 semi annual drainage impact fee report to the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee.

In accordance with Chapter 395 Texas Local Government Code, City Council adopted ordinances to establish to administer the city's impact fees program.

Approval of motion 90-0614.

City Council appointed the Planning Commission as the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee.

This report documents changes that occurred between the periods of May 1st, 2025 through October 31st, 2025 of the drainage impact fees program.

In summary of this semi-annual report, I offer the following findings.

A total of $822,851.24 cents in drainage impact fees were purchased between May 1st, 2025 and October 31st, 2025.

A total of $8,223,446 was purchased since program inception.

Thank you for your time and I now make myself available for any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Do I have a motion?

Motion high.

Motion High and Second.

FAM second.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, moving along to Ruman Numeral 3, Platting Activity with Subdivision and Development Plats.

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 70.

Section A consent items are numbers one through 29 and Section B replot items are numbers 30 through 70.

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

Sorry.

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 report items not requiring notification.

Thank you.

I do have one speaker signed up for item 29, so I'll pull that aside in just a minute and call that speaker.

Commissioners, do I have any abstentions?

Yeah, modest uh item number four.

Thank you.

Separate items 24 and 26.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, uh items four, five, fourteen, and fifteen.

Okay.

So I need a motion, save and accept items four, five, fourteen, fifteen, twenty-four, and twenty-six.

Motion Jones.

Motion Jones.

Second Heinz.

Second Heinz, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Okay.

So now I need a uh motion for items four, five, fourteen, twenty-four, and twenty-six.

Victor.

Didn't I did I not say 15?

Add 15.

Okay.

Motion, Victor.

Fam second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Now call the speaker for item 29.

Helen.

Ripple.

Madam Chair, we're prepared to do a brief presentation.

I should have asked for that first.

Thank you.

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

My name is Devin Crittle.

Item 29 is Willow Parish.

This site is located within Houston City limits in the Acres Home area along Neiman Road.

The plat consists of 44 lots and eight reserves and is a private street development.

During the preliminary application, planning commission granted a variance to allow a 15-foot right-of-way dedication instead of the 20-foot required dedication.

This is a class 3 final application on this agenda today.

Thank you, Mr.

Crittle.

Now I'll call Ms.

Ripple.

I'm sorry about that.

Make you get up and down a couple of times.

Okay.

So I state your name for the record.

My name is Helen Ripple.

I oppose this plat and request that this agenda item be tabled to revise the subdivision plat.

It does not meet local government code 212.010 standards of approval.

Number one, it conforms to the general plan.

Additionally, Lease versus HOF.

The court set forth the following purposes for plating number two to implement plans for orderly growth and development within the city's boundaries and the ETJ.

This plat does not meet the following general plan goals and actions placed.

Goal number one, number eight, number fourteen, housing number thirty-one, core strategies for responsibly.

Action number eight, protect and conserve our resources.

Action number one, action number seven, sell available to uniquely Houston Action Number Six.

Nurture Safe and Healthy Neighborhoods, Action Number Six and Number Seven.

It also does not implement the complete streets goal, ultimate goal where appropriate, walkable and bike-friendly neighborhoods with amenities such as trees and landscaping.

This plat indicates removal of all trees with minimal landscaping and trees, also dead end streets.

So it does not support the general plan goals and actions of having safe and grow responsibly with the subdivision layout.

So my request is to table it so that they revise it.

I'm not saying I don't want it there.

I just want I just want responsible subdivision growth layouts.

I don't stand for any questions.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

Um Mr.

Critdle, do you want to address some of those comments?

I mean, I know this is a shall approve.

Staff and legal have both looked at it.

So this I know the the term general plan was referenced a few times uh in her statement.

So this actually is not a general plan.

Uh this went through a preliminary review of the previous um meeting, and we approved the variance.

Um this site doesn't is not required to address any intersection spacing uh requirements, so they're not required to provide any additional street connections to any like neighboring properties or anything like that.

Um is there anything else I can probably answer?

Helps, and we appreciate that.

Okay.

Um so Ms.

Ripple, this is a shall approve plat.

Staff and legal have determined that it is a shall approve, and what that means is that this body does not have the right, it's state law that if they meet Chapter 42 that we have to approve it.

Um I can't I can't have you come and do a rebuttal, ma'am.

Okay, no rebuttal, I'm sorry.

But Mr.

Crittle can get with you uh as soon as he's done and talk to you a little bit more about it.

Okay.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Criddle.

Okay, Commissioners, um, you have item 29 in front of you, Willow Parish.

Do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion.

Motion modest.

Second gardez.

Second Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay.

We will now move along to Platin activity.

No, we did that, sorry.

See?

Three platts with public hearings.

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

My name is Ken Calhoun.

Item 71 is centenario homes at Farmer.

This item is located within Houston City limits, south along Farmer Street between Whip Recht and Solo Street.

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

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 file 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 this item is open.

Sorry, trying to get to the right spot so I can say the number.

So I'm opening the public hearing.

I do not have anyone signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

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

Motion.

Motion fam.

Second, Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 72.

Also Montepaco.

Yes.

And Commissioner Montepaca has joined us.

Thank you.

Item 72 is SIFAR Fire Station No.

15.

This item is located within Harris County ETJ at the intersection of Settlers Village Drive and FM 529.

The purpose of the replat is to create one understituted 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 72 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 Montapaka.

Motion Montepaca.

Second Jones, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 73.

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

My name is Araceli Rodriguez.

Item 73, Homewood Estates.

The site is located in the city limit west of Method Drive and south of Cheatwell Drive.

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

No variances are being requested with this item.

And the applicant has met all the notification requirements.

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

In event, Madam Chair, it's a pleasure of the commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 73 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 signed.

Motion Sykes.

Second Siram.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 74.

Item 74, Moore Street living.

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

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

No variances are being requested with this item.

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

However, staff recommendation is to defer per the applicant request to allow time to meet notification requirements.

Madam Chair, it's a pleasure to commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 74 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion ballard.

Motion Baldwin, second ballot.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 75.

Item 75 is New Haven Villas.

The site is located in the city limit with a method drive and side of Teetwell Vote.

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

No variances are being requested with this item.

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

Staff recommendation is to approve the plot subject to the CPC 101 form condition.

Staff did not receive any public comments in event.

Madam Chair, it's depleted the commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 75 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 Maddas.

Second fam, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 76.

Item 76 is Plaza Estate at Noble.

The site is located in the city limit west of Jensen Drive and south of Quitman Street.

The purpose of the Wii Plat is to create six single-family lot and one parking reserve.

No variances are being requested with this item.

And the applicant has met all the notification requirements.

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

And that recommendation is to approve the plot subject to the CPC 101 form condition.

Madam Chair, if the pleasure of the commission, you may open the public hearing for this item.

And staff did not receive any public comment in events.

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 Jones.

Second Victor, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 77.

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

My name is Dorian Poeflam.

Item 77 is Shadow Creek Estates, Lego Woods, Section 1, partial replant number one.

The site is in Newston's extraterrestrial in Harris County, Texas.

At the intersection of Morgan's Point and Shadow Ponds.

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

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

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

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

Staff did receive one comment concerning this application.

But however, this is a shell approved uh plat and it doesn't require a variance.

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

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

Thank you, Ms.

Pofflem.

The uh public hearing for item 77 is open.

Commissioners, I have the applicant here for questions if you have any.

Okay.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

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

Motion ballard.

Motion ballard.

Second mott.

Second mottles.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 78.

Item 78 is Swiftwater Estate.

The site is used in corporate limits along Swiftwater Street, west of Monroe Road.

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

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

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

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

Staff has received several received advanced comments for this item concerning drainage issues and deed restrictions.

There were concerned that the applicant is had on one single family lot, but he listed that he was going to do two dwelling units.

And we conferred with legal and per legal review.

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

Madam Chair, but please 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 one speaker.

Melanie, you're why don't you come on up and say your name, please?

Hello.

Melanie Erdialis, hi.

Uh nice to meet you everyone.

I am a resident on this property.

Um directly next to the property that's intended to be subdivided.

I've lived in the neighborhood for 45 plus years.

Um the neighborhood has an issue with flooding.

Obviously, developers are coming in, building um large houses on small lots uh which do not provide adequate drainage for the neighborhood.

Uh the entire neighborhood is um uses ditches as drainage system.

So obviously I'm concerned uh as the current residents, excluding myself, the houses have flooded multiple times prior to anything being developed on this lot.

Now my main concern is that I heard that the deed restrictions have since expired.

Um according to the documents that I found on the deed restrictions, they are renewed every 10 plus years.

Um there is a civic club that is active in the neighborhood.

We have met on this uh discussion, and I believe there is a misunderstanding as far as the deed restrictions not being valid.

Uh we have multiple developers coming in there and doing things that are not in compliance with the existing deed restrictions.

So, according to the deed restrictions that have been filed, um only one single family residence and one detached garage can be built on a lot.

There is a lot size restriction that the property could not be less than 50 feet wide according to the original plant.

That plat that is divided right there must remain that size.

And according to the documents that were listed, they did say they wanted to put two residences, which is against the deed restrictions as filed.

Um architectural review, the civic club that is active in this community does require plans be reviewed and approved.

That has not happened.

Um according to the plat uh information that was submitted.

Um they mentioned possibility of a mobile home subdivision being built on this lot.

Again, no temporary structure such as a manufacturing home shed tent can be used at any time.

Go ahead and wrap up quickly.

Okay.

So uh council, I do recommend that you re-review this um plat request, defer to a later date, confirm whether or not those deed restrictions are actively uh active.

We just enlisted a new president in charge of this community, and I requested you defer this uh plat for further reconsideration.

Thank you.

Ms.

Howard, can you help us with the deed restrictions?

The original restrictions expired on January 1st, 1997.

There was an unsuccessful attempt to um create restrictions in advance of that expiration.

And the statute requires some procedural mandates that were not met.

So they may be filed, but they may not be valid or enforceable.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions.

Okay.

I have no one else signed to speak on item 78.

Do uh is there anyone else that wishes to.

Okay.

I'm gonna close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Jones.

Second garza.

Second Garza.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Um, Commissioner Garza.

Um, I just wanted to say to our speaker, um uh where are you?

I don't see you.

She's uh there you are.

She's behind Dorian.

All right.

Um I just wanted you to know that uh this is not necessarily the end for you.

You can pursue this in court in some other way, but we have to work with the best information that we have from our legal department.

If you think that they are in fact enforceable, then you you and your neighborhood might have to go to court to enforce them because going forward, we're gonna go with the information that we have, the hard information that we have.

And at this point, that means voting against you.

Now, let me throw this out too.

And uh if if we can do, if these are not in force uh today, let's just say, um, tomorrow you can apply for minimum lot size.

Um, and that will be at least a fail-safe in between your getting them renewed, which would not allow lots to be subdivided, and the staff would work with you to determine how that would fit in your neighborhood.

So uh please talk to staff before you leave and see if you can get some information on that.

And that might be your first line of defense, and then deed restrictions could come back into force later.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Petlam.

You'll get with her afterwards, right?

Thank you.

Okay.

We took a vote, so we're moving on to 79.

Item 79 is Tidwell Square.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits, south along West Tidwell Road, east of Raywood Boulevard.

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

The plot was deferred at the last planet commission per the applicant's request to address the deed restrictions.

The applicant has provided a revised drawing that now meets the deed restrictions and review by legal indicates that this plot 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 please the Commission, you may continue the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 79.

I have it as okay, it was deferred.

So I'm going to continue the public hearing.

I have no one signed to speak for item 79.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion, Ballard.

Motion Ballard.

Second garza.

Second Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving along to item 80.

Item 80 is Windsor Place Edition Partial Replot number four.

The site is located at the southwest intersection of Haddon and Park Streets.

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

And the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a six-foot building line along Hatton Avenue instead of a 10-foot building line and 20-foot garage building line for a proposed single family remodel to add a storage room and connect the existing garage apartment into one building.

Staff is in support of the revised variance requests to allow a dual building line of six feet for the life of the structure.

The site is a replat of lot 11 and part and a portion of lot 10, block 7 of the north half of blocks 6 and 7 Windsor Place, recorded in 1922.

The owner plans to convert the existing duplex into a single family residential residence, enclosing the exterior stairwell and breezeway along Haddon Street, connecting the primary residence to the detached garage apartment with one continuous roof, and add a mud and storage room.

The existing duplex were built, was built, I'm sorry, was built in 1937 and the garage apartment built in 1948.

The proposed addition will sit six feet from the property line.

The addition will be for a storage room and will have no impact on pedestrian and vehicle conflicts.

The replat is following the deed restrictions and conducive to the development patterns in the neighborhood.

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

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

Use in public works have no objections to this request.

Staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variance for a dual building line for the remodel for the life of the structure and approve the plat per the CBC 101 form conditions.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

And we did receive a concern about uh this um request when um the six-foot building line was for a garage bay, but they are not doing the garage bay.

They are just going to have a um storage uh room.

So that's so that so they it changed.

Okay.

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

Thank you.

I'll continue the public hearing for item 80.

I do have a couple of speakers.

Our first speaker is Susan Kistilev.

And if I got that wrong, please correct me.

Hi, my name is Susan Kissler.

I am a neighbor.

Um I came two weeks ago to this meeting, and we did have a meeting with the homeowner and the company representing the homeowner.

The what they presented is entirely different from what you are saying you are going to improve today.

So I I feel like it's an unfair to make a decision today.

I was told two days ago by Ms.

Powflam that the you were not going to recommend approval of this.

So I think there are safety issues.

There's a lot of um less than truthful representation of what is being proposed.

Some neighbors looked at the drawings that were sent um to us and thought, well, that looks better than what it looks like right now because it's a mess.

And you know, I don't understand how this can work when you're not honest about what you are trying to get approved.

Thank you.

Um we've got representation of the ownership here.

Um hopefully they can help clarify.

Our next speaker is Nathan Dietrich.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners.

Uh Nathan Dietrich, I'm here on behalf of uh David Sheen.

He wants to express um his apologies why he can't be here.

He's a professor at St.

Thomas and he's actually teaching a class at this particular time.

Uh as as Ms.

Kessler said that we did meet at the property, and um there was approximately 10, 10 or so neighbors there, which I thought was a great turnout.

Um there were a lot of questions that were being done.

We, as the representative of the of the owner, we gave out what we presented to cities in your in your packet.

We didn't give out anything different.

So what you see in the packet is what we gave to all the folks out there.

We expressed that we were at that particular time going to be having um a fourth garage bay.

Um but uh after discussions with staff and discussions with my my um client, um we felt that that wasn't necessary.

And uh we we changed our we changed our submittal um over the last couple days um trying to make sure that it worked.

Um I'm sorry that she feels that way.

Um we did as we said we were gonna do before.

We were met with uh we met with the homeowners, and I don't know if there was any, I don't think there was any other folks that were there, but uh there was just to be honest, is that there were some feelings of uh some people were for it for it and other people were still um thinking or scratching their head a little bit.

But all in all, if we didn't hear anything further, most of those times the people have no issue with that.

So I I'd be happy to answer any other questions.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Do you have any questions?

Yes, Commissioner Mottes.

Hi.

Um so the the first comment on the CPC 101 form is from Center Point saying that they actually need a 10-foot building along along Hayden for the overhead facility.

So like personally I'm not inclined to approve the variance for that reason alone.

But if you do get it, just be aware that you're gonna have to coordinate with Center Point and be financially responsible for any code clearance violations that you create, right?

So I just want to get that on the record because that can add some dollars to your project, and and you're gonna just have to work with them to make sure that you clear up that code clearance issue.

Um but because Thunderpoint very clearly wrote that it needs to be a 10-foot building line.

Like I personally I would not be inclined to support the variance.

Commissioners, any other questions or comments?

Um to my understanding, the changes have been made with you and staff to come into compliance.

That is correct, sir.

We that's basically the change from last time that we saw this.

Right.

Well, compliance meaning that our variance is still going to be for requesting a six-foot building line.

And so with that um the staff feels comfortable in in approving it in that in that manner without the garage door.

So one of the major changes was you were going to widen the drive and make a fourth bay, and that is not happening any longer.

That is correct, sir.

That is correct.

So that in my mind is the major change here that brought it all into compliance and is approvable to that.

Yes, sir.

All right, thank you.

And the six-foot building line is what is existing.

It's not like you guys are going in and building something.

No, there's a six-foot deed restricted building line, which the home is currently built at and the garage is built at also.

Okay.

There is a center point um vertical uh uh structure there, and that is on the what we refer to as a safety buffer uh along the streets edge.

So it's on the other side of the sidewalk.

So I don't have that exact measurement, but it would it might be but again, I mean they they commented on it, so we will have to.

I may have misunderstood the plans.

I mean their comment is still valid, and I may have misunderstood the plan.

So if you're not encroaching any more into it, then it is.

Yes, ma'am.

We are not encroaching any more than what's currently there.

Great.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Any other comments or questions?

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

So I'm going to close the public hearing for item 80.

Oh, there's one other speaker sign, but just for questions, Ms.

Casey, did you want to make any comments?

I just want to thank the Commission uh Crystal Casey.

Sorry.

I just want to thank the Commission and staff for working with us.

It's been kind of a long process, and I'm just grateful for everybody to work with us and the homeowner.

And he just wants to bring back to life a 1930s Montrose building and turn it into a home for his family.

He's a teacher at U of H and St.

Thomas and our professor and wants to be close.

And I just think he's trying to do something really good by the neighborhood.

He hasn't done a ton of improvements because he didn't want to put money into it if he couldn't do what he's going to do now.

So we have been very honest about what we're doing.

I'm not sure where that came from, but we have been very honest, and uh he just wants to revive a really cool old mantra structure.

So and thank you again, all of you for for how uh how helpful you have been throughout this process.

I'm very grateful.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay, thank you.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

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

Motion Baldwin.

Second ballard.

Second ballard, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving on to item 81.

Item 81 is Roxton Estates.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits, not along Roxon, east of Kirby Drive and Calvin Street.

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

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

There are no variants requested with this item.

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

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

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 81 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 Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Mata's all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving along to D subdivision plates with variance requests.

Chair.

I need recue from 82.

Okay.

Please note recusal from Commissioner Mata.

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

My name is Tammy Williamson.

Item 82 is City Place GP.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in northern Harris County, north and along the Grand Parkway, west of Holtzworth Road, and south of Spring Creek.

The applicant is proposing a general plan of approximately 660 acres for predominantly single family residential development and is requesting a variance to exceed maximum intersection spacing along the western boundary.

Staff is in support of the request.

The variance being requested is to exceed intersection spacing along the western GP boundary between Lonesome Pine Road and the northern boundary.

Juniper Lane intersects only a portion of the northwesternmost corner of the site and will be required to be extended for the portion that is this property has within its control.

With the extension of Juniper Lane by this site and the property to the north, the intersection spacing is approximately 1,800 feet.

The properties abutting the western boundary are from an unrecorded subdivision, Mossy Oaks Section 2, which is entirely developed as residential tracks.

Requiring a street between Lonesome Pine Road and Juniper Lane is not some public policy as it is unlikely to be extended.

Harris County Engineering has no objection to the request.

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

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

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

All right.

I have no one signed to speak on item 81.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

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

Do I have a motion?

Motion Month.

Motion Mondopaca.

Second, Victor.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 83.

Item 83 is E Street at Carby.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Harris County, west of the Hardy Toll Road, south of Gulfbank Road, and north of Little York Road.

The applicant is proposing one 24-acre unrestricted reserve and requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not requiring both a north-south and east-west public street.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is a replat from two subdivisions.

DRFR Martin's subdivision recorded in 1914 and Ruse Acres recorded in 1936.

The existing intersection spacing along Mitchell Road between Airline Drive and Fieldworth Drive is approximately 4800 feet, and along Carby Road between Airline Drive and Fox Route Drive is approximately 4500 feet.

Strict interpretation of the ordinance would require public street connections at least every 1,400 feet.

The applicant is requesting not to provide a north-south public street through the site.

South of Carby Road is the City of Houston's Melrose Park and Golf Course, so no street would extend further south.

North of Mitchell Road, no streets cross the Exlan Pipeline fee strip.

Additional opportunities west of the site could be considered depending on the intensity of proposed land uses in the future.

Likewise, there are existing contraints at Mitchell Road.

A Harris County flood control district channel crosses Mitchell Road with bridge work and a head wall.

There might make an alignment of the McCloskey Street right of way to the north not feasible.

The intersection spacing between Mitchell Road and Carby Road is approximately 1,800 feet, which is a 28% deviation of the standard.

There are two stub streets, Sunny Drive and Tina Lane, east and west of the site that could provide for future connectivity between the Hardy Toll Road and Airline Drive.

However, multiple narrow tracks, many of which are already developed as single family residential or commercial light industrial uses on large acre tracks would be required to dedicate right of way to make this connection.

The development to the east that created the Sunny Drive Stub Street has ample connections north-south and to east.

The remainder of this block is relatively less intensive and low density.

Providing an east-west public street in this area will not substantially improve traffic circulation.

Harris County Engineering has no objection to the request, therefore, staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variance and approve the plat subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

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

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 83.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay, Commissioners, you have a recommendation from staff.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza, Second Jones.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 84.

Item 84 is Facio Villas.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limits, west of IH 45, north of I 610, at the southwest intersection of East 36th Street and Bayou Drive.

The applicant is proposing three single family residential lots off of a shared driveway and was requesting a reduced building line of zero feet for lots one and two.

Now, however, the applicant has modified the proposed plat and no variance is being requested.

The plat will meet Chapter 42 requirements.

Therefore, staff recommends to approve the plat subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

Staff has received two public comments in advance, one in opposition concerning flooding and one in support.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 84.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation of approval from staff.

Do I have a motion?

Motion FAM.

Motion FAM.

Second serum.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 85.

Yes.

Okay.

Please note.

You got it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Item 85 is Jubilee Section 22.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in northwestern Harris County, south of U.S.

290, west of Katie Hockley Road, and east of Jubilee Haven Boulevard.

The applicant is proposing 64 single-family residential lots and is requesting a variance to allow lots not to have frontage on a public street, but instead to have frontage on a green space with vehicular access from a 20-foot public alley.

Staff is in support of the request.

This section is out of the GP the Jubilee General Plan.

The lots that do not have frontage on a street are proposed to have vehicular access from the rear via public alleys.

The homes will front onto the reserve, and per the applicant, the intent is to create a pedestrian-friendly courtyard that includes a pedestrian trail, seating, and landscaping.

This meets the intent of the ordinance requirements by providing for vehicular access via the alleys and pedestrian access through the green space.

A maintenance agreement for the proposed public alleys will be required prior to recredation, similar to the adjacent recorded section.

Harris County has no objection to the request.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variants and approve the plat 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 for item 85.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay, Commissioners, you have a recommendation of approval.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Hines.

Second Hines, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 86.

There will be no action until February 5th, as they uh we approved a 30-day extension.

So we'll move on to item 87.

Item 87 is North Shore partial replat number one.

The site is located in Houston City limits near Lake Houston at the southeast intersection of Hamblin Road and North Shore Drive.

The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not extending multiple stub streets through the tract.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a replat of a reserve from the North Shore subdivision.

Over time, this reserve has remained undeveloped and is being replatted into two residential lots, both over one acre in size.

There are multiple stub streets along the southern boundary that are required to be extended.

This subdivision has two exit points that connect to Collector Street Hamblin Road and requiring a third connection between these two existing connections would not greatly improve traffic circulation in the overall area.

Also, if there is a greater need for additional street connections in the future, the remaining stubborn street to the east will provide that opportunity.

Staff has not received any objection to this request.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 87.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay, Commissioners, you have a recommendation from staff for approval.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Jones.

Motion Jones?

Second Garza.

Second Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving on to item 88.

Item 88 is Quinn Meadows.

This site is located within Houston City limits in the Acres Home area along Paul Quinn Street between Balbo Street and Sebra Street.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow residential lots to take access from a 20-foot private alley.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

You have a motion.

I mean a recommendation for deferral.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Baldwin?

Second.

Second Shepherd, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 89.

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

My name is John Phillips Oliu.

Item 89 is River Grove General Plan.

The subject site is an over 136-acre property located in the Houston City limits, east along Woodland Hills Drive and south of Kingwood Drive.

The applicant is proposing a general plan with the intention to do a hotel-type resort with marine access and is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not providing a public east-west street through the site.

The site is bordered to the north and south by recorded single-family subdivisions and is rem and its remaining boundary is surrounded by an existing country club golf course.

While there is a cul-de-sac of Pine Bend Street to the east in the King Wood Lakes Village Subdivision, that connection will require connection construction across the golf course and its detention ponds.

City Councilwoman Sally Alcorn has requested that the general plan be deferred for further review and to coordinate with the applicant.

Advanced comments have been received regarding concerns over flooding, wildlife protection of an bald eagle exclusion zone and questionable design proposals.

Staff recommendation is to defer the plat for two weeks at the request of the City Councilwoman, during time during which time staff will coordinate with public works and Texas Wildlife to confirm all concerned considerations at this stage of development.

Madam Chair, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Okay.

I have no one signed to speak for item 89.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

You have a recommendation of deferral.

Do I have a motion?

Motion, Ballard.

Motion Ballard.

Second, Carroll.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving on to item 90.

Item 90 is Wayne Beck Enterprises.

The subject site is a nearly 12-acre property located in the Harris County extraterritorial jurisdiction, south along Spring Cypress Road and west of Hallsworth Road.

The applicant is proposing two reserves, one restricted to commercial and one to restricted to open space, and is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not providing a north-south street through the property.

Staff is in support of the request.

The same variance was granted to the site in August 2025, but a new reserve changing its use of landscape and open space has required that the variance be reconsidered.

The site is a replat of a portion of lot 10 of the Middle Cough subdivision and has multiple existing commercial structures on the site.

The developer intends to create additional commercial buildings, a trailer laid down yard, a lay down a trailer, laid down yard, and attention as plating to meet permitting requirements.

City and county staff find that there are better opportunities to provide street connections on this block to the east and west by extending existing public streets.

This would allow for traffic circulation to be more compatible with residue uh residential communities and would allow for commercial sites to use the major thoroughfares for access.

Similar developments to the east have been granted the same intersection spacing variances and the developed church property to the south limit opportunities to extend any north-south street beyond the boundary of the plat.

Harris County Engineering has no objection to the variance.

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

Madam Chair, this concludes the House presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed for 90.

Is there anyone that wishes to speak?

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

Do I have a motion?

Motion Mindapaka.

Motion Mandapaka.

Second, second Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have nothing under E or F, so we'll move along to G.

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

My name is Adiso Gi Hades Yoju.

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

Yes, please.

Thank you.

Sections G, extensions of approval consists of items 91 to 96.

Section H name changes consists of no items.

Section I certification of compliance consists of no items.

And Section J administrative consists of no items.

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

Okay.

Commissioners, do I have a motion?

Motion Maddis.

Fam is second.

May I all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, please note that I abstain from item 93.

Yes, sir.

You have that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving along to uh K.

We have nothing under.

No, we have nothing.

So we will move along to Ramon Numeral 4.

Establish a public hearing date of February 19, 2026 for Clairmont.

Put these on so I make it right.

Claremont Place Section 1, partial replat number 13.

Concrete Dolphin Family Partial Replat number one.

Darling Villas, replat number one, Montgomery Enclave, and Rose Hill Pines.

Do I have a motion?

Motion High.

Motion Heich?

Second Carroll, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Remember number five is public comment.

Do we have anyone that would like to make a comment?

Okay.

The next one is item 6.

Yes, Commissioner Hines.

So I've been working with the staff for a project.

And director, I just want to say solution seeking.

It's been really great working with you guys.

I think I know the process, but I don't.

And again, the I'm saying solution seeking because the staff they are constantly trying to figure out precedents and ways to make this make sense.

So kudos.

Thank you very much for that feedback.

And I also wanted to just commend the staff.

They are really amazing, very, very hardworking.

And you know, a part of our challenge is really just working with people who aren't necessarily familiar with ordinances, and it does take a lot of patience, and the team has what it takes.

They do a really, really good job in explaining sometimes complex things and a very um uh I guess ways for people to really understand and digest these type of complex, and we try to keep all of the stuff aside and just kind of hit on target of the things that we're trying to convey to people.

And so I don't know, team, please stand up because really you guys deserve all of this.

You guys are the one that worked really hard.

I don't see anybody standing up.

I appreciate those comments from both of you.

It is very, very true.

What we do here with staff, that's the easy part of their job.

The very, very easy part.

What we don't see behind the scenes is every day just charging forward and trying to find solutions for everything.

We do appreciate each and every one of you.

And Ms.

Bandy.

Cut your mic on.

Cut your mic on.

Mike.

Thank you so much, Commission.

Um, it is a pleasure to hear from you and the team does an excellent job.

They definitely have more patience than me.

And um every question they take it uh and try to figure out solutions.

But I appreciate that you notice and the public notices.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay.

So the last item is Roman numeral six.

We will adjourn this meeting at 3 32 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.