Hello, I'm Lisa Clark, the chair of the planning Houston Planning Commission, and I'm calling this meeting to order at 2 33 p.m.

on Thursday, February 5th, 2026.

This is an in-person meeting taking place in 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 speaker's form before the item is called and turn it in to the staff near the front door.

Consent and repeat speakers are allowed for one minute.

New speakers are timed for two minutes.

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

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

There's not an option for a rebuttal.

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

To establish a quorum that we have 11 members, I'll call the roll.

Chair Clark is present.

Vice Chair Garza?

Present.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Present.

Commissioner Ballard.

Present.

Commissioner Carroll.

Present.

Commissioner Hines?

Present.

Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Morris is not here.

Commissioner Naranjo?

Present.

Commissioner Pierce.

Not here.

Commissioner Force Pertle, not here.

Commissioner Sarim.

Present.

Commissioner Shepard.

Present.

Commissioner Siegler.

Present.

Commissioner Sykes.

Present.

Commissioner Victor.

Present.

Commissioner Montepaca.

Present.

And Secretary Von Tran.

Present.

So we have 15, so our quorum has been established.

Now I'll move along to let you guys know that there have been a couple of withdrawals.

So we will not hear anything on these items and we will not uh take any action.

Item 47, Isabella Villas.

Item 59, South Post Oak Commercial Reserve, and 76, River Grove LP.

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

Director Tran.

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

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

Welcome.

I have two announcements, but before I get into the announcement, I just wanted to uh let you know that we have a new legal counsel that is sitting here with us today.

I want to introduce you guys to Heather.

And Heather, we're very appreciative for you to sit in with us while we're looking for our permanent permanent uh counsel on the team.

So thank you for being here today.

All right, my two announcements.

First, the planning and development department is conducting a plat tracker user survey to gather feedback, report issues, and identify improvements.

The survey can be accessed on the planning department home page.

The uh and it is uh gonna be there through February 28th.

Uh an e-blast uh with this information has also been sent out to all plat tracker subscribers, and your input is essential to enhancing the plat tracker experience.

So please uh uh do the survey for us.

And then uh second announcement to ensure the smooth process for plat recordation and avoid delays with Harris County.

Uh we are suggesting the applicants should update their company name in Plat Tracker to match exactly as it as it appears on the LLC filings.

That is it for my update.

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

You can also 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.

Now, Commissioners, we're gonna consider the Planning Commission meeting minutes of our January 22nd, 2026 meeting.

I need a motion of approval.

Motion Ballard.

Motion Ballard.

Second Victor, all in favor, opposed, motion carries.

Now we'll move on to remnant numeral one, plating activity.

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

My name is Maria Towar.

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

Sections A and B are items 1 through 61.

Section A consent items are numbers 1 through 31 and Section B, replot items are numbers 32 through 61.

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

I said this last time.

There are no changes to staff recommendations.

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

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to speak on uh platning activity in Roman numeral one?

Okay.

Commissioners, do I have abstentions?

Yes, for Commissioner Shepherd, uh items 28 and 41.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sykes, items two and three.

Two and three.

Okay.

So save and accept items two, three, twenty-eight, and forty-one.

I need a motion for the remaining items.

Motion.

Motion Sigler, second Garza, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Now I need um did I include number 10?

Uh no.

No one's calling.

Okay.

So I need to add 10.

So Sigler, do you agree to add 10 to your motion?

And you agree.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

So now we'll move along and approve item 10, 28, 20, no, excuse me, 2310, 28, and 41.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Victor.

Second.

Second Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Roman numeral.

C excuse me.

Item C replats requiring public hearings and notification.

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

My name is Kenan Calhoun.

Item 62 is Bedford Business Square.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits, east along Bedford Street, south of West Belfort Avenue.

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

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

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

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

Therefore, 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 62 is open.

I have no one to speak sign to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Sykes.

Motion Sykes.

Second Baldwin.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 63.

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

My name is Arafelie Rodriguez.

Item 63, Brittany, Quitlinville, Session 6, partial replant number 1.

The site is located in Houston ETJ, west of Grand Parkway and south of Jack Road.

The purpose of the WEPLA is to modify a portion of a plotted activity eatement on one lot.

No variances are being requested with this item.

The applicant has met all the notification requirements, and that did not receive any public comment in advance per legal.

Thank you.

Public hearing for item 63 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 recommendations.

Motion Jones.

Motion Mandapaca.

Second Jones, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 64.

Item 64.

Del Monte Section 1, part two replot number one.

The site is located in the city limit west along SAIC Road and south of San Felipe Street.

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

No variants are being requested requested with this item.

The applicant has met all the notification requirements and staff did not receive any public comment in advance.

Per legal, this proposed replot will not violate applicable restriction.

That recommendation is to approve the plat subject to the CPC 101 form condition.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 64 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 Sigler.

Motion Sigler.

Second serem.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 65.

Item 65.

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 plat is to create two single family residential lots.

No variances are be requested with this item, and the applicant has met the notification requirement.

Staff did not receive any public comment in event.

Per legal, this proposed replat will not violate applicable restriction.

And that recommendation is to approve the plat substitute the CPC 101 form condition.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 65 is continued.

I 66, not 65.

65.

Yeah.

Um, so I continued the public hearing.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

All right.

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

Motion Heinz.

Motion Heinz.

Second Jones, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 66.

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

My name is Dorianne Poflim.

Item 66 is Stern's Villas.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits in Harris County, east along Stern Street, south of Old Spanish Trail, and north of Lucas Street.

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

Legal review 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 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 66 is open.

I have one speaker signed.

Amanda Henney.

Come on, come forward, yes.

Please state your name for the record.

Good afternoon.

My name is Amanda Henry, and I am a resident in the neighboring lot.

And I am here to inquire because I don't believe that we have a civic association in the area.

What will be the use outside of selling the town homes?

Will it be for a second chance or group homes or anything of that nature?

Thank you.

I'll ask that staff gets with you after we're done with this presentation and see if she can answer some questions.

I have no one else 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 Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Carroll, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Before we go to 67, I want to make sure that you saw Commissioner Porce Pertle join us.

Thank you.

Item 67.

Item 67 is subdivision.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits, south along West Alabama Street, north of Saul Ross Street, east of Buffalo Speedway.

The reason for replat is to create one unrestricted reserve.

Review by legal indicates that this plat would 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 67 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 for Spurtle.

Second Baldwin, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to D subdivision plots with variance requests.

Item 68.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

Members of Houston Planning Commission.

My name is Jeff Butler.

Item 68 is Aldean ISD East Transportation Complex.

The site is located within the ETJ within Harris County along Louder Road west of Alding Westfield.

The applicant proposes a reserve restricted to school and related uses.

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

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is located at the northeast intersection of Louder and Christman Road.

The site consists of an existing school bus hub that the applicant proposes to reconfigure.

The site is part of a recorded subdivision.

That is required to be replatted to meet permitting requirements.

The applicant is required to address a variance for intersection spacing because the block is in excess of the current intersection spacing requirement, which would require a north-south street through this location.

The applicant has asserted that a new street through their existing facility would be impractical.

This block is mostly developed and is bisected by a flood area to the north.

These factors would limit street extension opportunities beyond the site.

In addition, the existing street grid system can adequately provide circulation and access to all tracks within the block, and the proposed alteration will not result in significant increase in traffic.

Staff finds the request to be a practical alternative to strict interpretation of Chapter 42 and recommends approval, and we have received no advanced written comment.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on 68.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

All right.

Commissioners?

Yep.

Open and close the public hearing.

It's not a public hearing.

It's okay.

I like it when you try to catch me and it's not me.

Okay.

So we have a recommendation to grant the requested variants and approve the plat.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Jones?

Second Shepherd.

Second Shepherd, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 69.

Item 69 is Highland Acres Homes, partial replat number two.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limit along Tower Street, north of West Montgomery Road and west of Wheatley Street.

The applicant proposes six duplexes on six lots.

The applicant is requesting variances to allow for a 10-foot building line on lots with direct access as opposed to 20 feet and to allow for 20 feet of right-away dedication as opposed to the required 30 feet.

Staff is in support of these requests.

The site is located within the Acres Home Complete Community along a 30-foot wide segment of Tower Street.

Tower consists of a 60-foot segment on the southern half of the block and a 30-foot segment to the north.

The applicant is required to dedicate a 30-foot section of their property in order for the entire block to be 60 feet wide.

The applicant has asserted that providing 20 feet would allow for practical development by not displacing a large portion of the relatively narrow tract.

The applicant has proposed six duplexes on the site that would be set back 10 feet from the proposed dedication area.

This will allow for a 25-foot back of curb distance to the property line with an additional 10-foot setback to the face of the building.

The 20-foot four excuse me, the 24-foot wide driveways would allow for about half of each lot to remain as public green space.

The applicant has also agreed to a condition to move the sidewalk further into the landscape buffer to provide additional distance between the pedestrians and vehicles.

Staff finds the request to be a practical solution to strict interpretation of the ordinance as it accounts for the unique site limitations of the track with the tracks width and the narrow right-of-way.

Staff recommends granting the variance and approving the plat for the CPC 11 form conditions.

And we have received no advanced written comment.

Thank you.

I don't have anyone signed to speak for item 69.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

All right, Commissioners, you have a recommendation in front of you to grant the requested variants and approve the plat.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Ballard.

Motion Ballard.

Second Saram.

Second Siram.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Can I ask one thing?

Yes, you can.

Is there some reason we didn't note the 19-foot garage build line on the plat here?

I mean, I see it.

Is it on there?

Is it well?

The request is to have the garage and the face of the building at 10 feet.

And the justification is the fact that the tract itself is relatively narrow and they're providing 20 feet of dedication.

So the total distance to the pavement is the factor for consideration.

But on our little drawing here, it has this garage build line at 19 feet.

But is it it's not related?

It's really 10.

That may be yes.

It's uh it's a little bit back further.

10 is to the face of the building.

The garage is set back a little bit further from there.

We had a dated drawing that where they mislabeled it as 19 feet.

I apologize that may have ended up in the middle.

So there is no 19 feet.

There's just a 10-foot build line.

That's cool.

Altogether.

And so okay.

Now I wouldn't pay an attention.

What's the distance from the property from the curb to the building then?

So I'm just concerned about cars blocking things.

Right, right.

Because on a narrow configuration, we certainly not support this.

But the the fact that the lots are themselves are close to 60 feet wide.

You'll have 24 feet driveway, so about half of the lot is going to remain as green space.

And then the setback distance, there's 25 feet to the back of the curb with dedication, plus the 10 feet for the setback line.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay.

Moving on.

We took the vote.

Yes.

So moving on to item 70.

Item 70 is Kirkendall Village Section 2.

This was recently granted a 30-day extension.

The site was located excuse me.

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 for a lift station and a 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 critical infrastructure on this developing block.

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, the county, the applicant, were not able to come to a resolution, and staff's concerns about future street connections remains unaddressed.

The applicant has expressed the desire to make their case and is here to speak.

Please note that in the staff report there is a reference to a possible second 30-day extension, but we have not received that in writing, and the applicant wishes to not pursue a second 30-day extension.

Staff recommends denying the plat and disapproving the variance.

And we have received no advanced written comment.

Thank you.

I do have someone signed up to speak.

The applicant, uh Tracy Youngbuddh.

Document camera, please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Commission.

Appreciate y'all's time.

As y'all might imagine, there's been quite a bit of back and forth and conversation between our client ourselves in Harris County, uh, Office of the City uh County Engineer, excuse me, uh, along with Harris County Precinct 3 on this matter.

I would like to lay out the facts and then certainly uh answer any questions anyone may have.

Um but we respectfully request granting of the variants that's before you today to allow a temporary condition until such time Lindsay Road can be constructed in the future to that will provide two permanent points of access.

Additionally, it's our understanding that the two main points of concern by Harris County and in particular Harris County Precinct 3 would be the construction and future improvement of Lindsay Road.

I think in a perfect world we would all like to see that today.

Additionally, the entry road current location, which is not within the plat before you today, it's actually within the Section 1 plat.

Um that road's location has been approved formally six times by this commission, including a variance for intersection spacing along Kirkendal Road that was granted 220 2025, almost one year ago.

Uh secondly, I would like to point out that the future designated minor collector of Lindsay Road lies entirely on a third-party property next door to our client, and therefore is outside of our client's control.

However, today, and I I I realize and respect the 11th hour of it, but we merited on behalf of Meritage Homes, we provided uh Harris County and Harris County Precinct 3 a commitment letter.

Uh in full disclosure, I think the county has come back over lunchtime today with a few concerns of the language of that letter that I feel confident we could work out between now and uh we've got additional runway to work those uh those items out.

They seem to minor in nature.

Umledge uh the recent discussions with Harris County.

Um again regarding signalization at Kirk Kirkendall Road and Daldell Arbor Lane, that's the main entrance.

And I I know that y'all aren't here to talk about signalization, but based on the TIA and particularly the projected left turning movements, a traffic signal is warranted.

We appreciate the Commission's time.

Um I did not submit an additional 30-day extension, and our client uh was in agreement.

I would I would rather just state the case today and put it to y'all's vote in consideration.

So appreciate it.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

I do have a question.

Yes.

You mentioned the concerns of Harris County, but staff said they had some concerns as well that have not been addressed.

Have you discussed those concerns with staff?

I have not had a chance to discuss those concerns.

In fact, when I was sitting here listening to the introduction, I I am learning as as you are of any additional concerns, and I too would like to hear what those might be.

Mr.

Butler, would you like to address that, please?

So this is a ETJ plat.

So the county handles the more specific things like the traffic signals, the road construction.

Our concerns is that are are that the county's concerns are not addressed yet.

If the county's concerns are addressed, in theory, you know, the the the assertion makes sense that if this road, if both these roads have a future to be connected, these variances would eventually go away.

But our concern is that the county feels that, and therefore we feel that there is some risk in approving this now before there is certainty over the road being finalized.

Commissioner Montepaco, would you like to add anything on behalf of the county, or do you have someone here that you would like to do that?

Yes.

I would invite uh Matt to speak some details on the project.

Good afternoon, if you wouldn't mind stating your name.

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

My name is Matt Tangan.

So there is an active approved plat on the north side which dedicated the southern portion of Lens Road as it stands today, that is right away per the per the approved plat, and therefore we do not see the hardship of using that as a second point of access on public road as it's as it stands, and given that it is right away right now.

Okay, now I am confused.

If Lindsay Road isn't built, I don't understand what their other option might be.

Well, the other option, I mean, well, I can't speak as to when Lind's Road is built.

Well, you know, the Planning Commission doesn't deal with when things will be built on the things as well.

Yes, you mentioned something about Lindsay Road being an approved right-away or dedicated right-away.

What does how does that correlate with this plat?

I guess I'm just it provides the second point of access that they are trying to use the access easement for.

So they could just use their little stub street and pretend Lindsay is there?

I mean, how would you address that?

Who's going to build the road?

It's not on their property.

Right.

I understand that.

But you know, again, that this planning commission doesn't deal with who is building the road and when it's not and when it gets built.

I understand that, but this planning commission looks at plates that are approvable or not approvable.

And so the way to get this approved is to have two points of access.

Right, which it which it does have.

Because Lens Road is platted on an approved plat.

Okay.

So they can just treat that as if it's their second point of access and it would be approved?

I mean, the way the way the county sees it, uh, yes, it is it is approved right away on a plat right now.

Yeah, I am confused.

All right.

So the question is so, based on what you have heard today, you think that staff's denial is no longer necessary, that it should actually be approved.

No, no.

We are in agreement with staff to deny the request to use the second point of access as that 30-foot access easement.

Okay, so nothing has changed as far as you are concerned.

As far as the information that's been given us.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well, what my question is is we keep talking about Lindsay Road.

If they take away that temporary access that they have done on that blue line, and their second point of access is to Lindsay Road, does that get their plat approved?

Yes.

So they could make that change and it would be approved.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Jones?

Madam Chair, thank you very much.

My question then is with the applicant.

Are you aware of this option?

And is that amenable to your client?

So we I apologize.

I'm a little bit confused too, so hopefully I can help.

Or we can all work together.

Um we we have a permanent stub street in Section 2's plat that is before you today for consideration.

Stubbing and connecting, I say stubbing, but connecting to what would be future Linz Road.

Can I ask a question?

Commissioner Sigler.

The roads aren't labeled on my drawing.

Could you tell us which which road is Lindsey Road is the same?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

And so that piece.

Right.

And the heavy black line you see there is our client's property boundary, Lindsey Road falling adjacent, but outside of that black line.

And then the Stubb Street.

There.

Presenter view, please.

Yes.

Mr.

Smith, good to see you.

I see you all, Commissioners.

Richard Smith with Harris County's Office of the Engine Office of the County Engineer.

I am the director of the traffic operations and engineering.

One of the things I kind of want to clarify on this was that the plot to the Northwest has been approved by this Commission as a preliminary plot.

It has not been approved as a final.

Therefore, the whole piece of Lindsay Road, what both the County Engineer and the precinct were looking for was a commitment or substantial way to build that roadway and get that roadway in because it is on the major thoroughfare plan.

Although, like I said, it's in a preliminary plot for the adjacent property, which this property has no control over, and until that became a final plot, it would not have formally been right-of-way.

Once that plot was submitted and made a final plot, it would become right-of-way.

Document camera, please.

I apologize for jumping in here, but this exhibit you are seeing before you now is a an enlargement or a blow-up of that area where the Stub Street is.

And what you see in purple is what our client has committed to coordinating further with Harris County, which is Lindsey Road, future Lindsey Road, which is outside of our property.

Right.

Okay.

Madam Chair.

Yes, Commissioner Chair.

We have a preliminary plat, maybe for Lindsey Road, and but we really need or you need a recorded plat of Lindsay Road Rider, correct?

So and I will clarify, I made a mistake.

The plot to the Northwest has been final approved here here as a final, but it has not been recorded.

So yes, it still is out there as a approved final plat through the planning commission, but has not gone and been recorded.

So that's where we're kind of in a hang up right now is until it was recorded.

And what I was just informed is that plat expires, I believe, at the end of this month or early next month.

But it is a final plat.

It just has not been recorded.

Thank you.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Could we not defer this for 30 days, give them chance to record their final plat and solve this much easier?

Yeah, the client would have to put that in writing.

Yes.

Just real quick, that plot that we're talking about that hasn't been recorded is not this plat.

And it is belongs to somebody entirely.

It's a totally different piece of property, different development, different ownership, everything.

But in the 30 days, we'd know because it expires within thirty after within 30 days.

I don't know if it would expire.

I know it expires what I understood is sometime in March, but I don't know exactly when that expiration happens.

March 7th.

Okay.

March 7th.

Yes, Commissioner Garza.

That doesn't mean that it will necessarily get recorded, or does it?

Right.

It it doesn't and per the applicant that project is not.

Right.

And so that's that's the risk that we're taking today is yes, it seems all likely that all the numbers are in place.

But if it doesn't, it doesn't, and then we're, quote, left hanging again, as is the client.

Thank you.

I guess my question, Commissioner Montepaca and Mr.

Smith and all of the Harris County.

What could this applicant do to make this work?

They have no control of anything outside of their property boundary.

Could they move that temporary road a little bit, Mr.

Smith?

Like maybe over to the east and something to separate those two entries and allow that temporary connection until Linz Road is finalized?

That is a possibility.

Like I said, we have been working with racing three in this.

I think one of the biggest possibilities is Mr.

Youngblood mentioned earlier, they submitted a letter early this morning that came to us.

We reviewed it.

We had a few questions on it.

I think if a stipulation of the Commission was that prior to this coming back as a final that all of those issues and concerns that the county has be addressed in, I believe it could be done in a lot of the wording, but I think some of it was that we were concerned in if they developed this plot, there's nothing to suggest that the Lindsay Road would ever be built.

And so again, we would have a temporary access easement to the kind of southeast on their property, the main access easement, which was recorded under a different plot, and then Lens Road, which is on the major throwfare plan, but no guarantees that it would ever be committed to being constructed.

And that was, I think the biggest concern that we had.

So it's kind of like they are landlocked.

Yes, exactly.

To some degree, yes, but again, it is on the major throwfare plan, so we know it unless that changed through an amendment, it would be coming in.

It is just a matter of how that developer on the northwest side would develop it.

Which this client has no control of the process.

We had a couple more days, I think we could, or the rest of the week or earlier next week, we could have probably figured out how to adjust address the concerns that both the precinct and the county engineers office had to get that resolved.

So you think if they requested a 30-day extension, that would work for you and the county.

Can we call Mr.

Young?

That was what I'm going to do.

Mr.

Youngblood, it would you and your client be amenable to another 30-day extension to work the letter issues out?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

We need to get that in writing before we make a motion.

We we will have that too.

These folks right here to my right in a matter of seconds.

Okay.

Thank you.

I think Commissioner Jones has some questions or comments, so let him talk while you write your request up.

Madam Chair, that question has now been resolved.

I mumbled on enough that it got resolved.

We're all in the same way.

There you go.

So there's a motion.

There's a motion.

And ball won't second, but we'll hold on until we get it in writing.

We have it in writing.

You have it in writing.

We have it in writing.

All right.

So a motion by Jones, second by Baldwin.

All in favor for the 30-day extension.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you to Harris County and to the applicant and to Mr.

Youngblood for all the work.

And Jeff, thank you for all your work on this.

Okay.

Moving on to item 71.

Item 71 is Montrose Mixed Use.

The site is located within Houston City limits at the northeast intersection of Montrose Boulevard and West Clay Street.

The applicant proposes a 20-story mixed-use development.

The app is requesting a variance to allow for a nine-foot building line along instead of the required 25-foot building line along Montrose Boulevard.

Staff is not in support of this request.

The site consists of a corner property at the northeastern intersection of Montrose and West Clay.

This segment of Montrose is subject to a reconstruction project intended to improve safety and mobility.

The applicant seeks a reduced building line to develop a 20-story high-rise.

The proposed development features ground floor retail restaurant, six levels of parking, and 46 residential units.

Is it okay?

Yes.

The current application represents an identical resubmittal of a previous variance that was denied last March.

After which staff met with the applicant and suggested that they reduce the height of the development and remove the ground floor retail element.

The applicant has maintained their intent to resubmit the previously denied request, which is before you today.

Staff recommends denial of the variance request for the following reasons.

The applicant failed to articulate a hardship to justify the variance request.

The variance appears to be driven solely by financial consideration.

The proposed high-rise is disproportionate to the size of the property and inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern.

The proposed development would disrupt the existing pedestrian environment and create potential safety concerns due to proposed curb cuts along Clay Street.

Staff recommendation is to deny the requested variance and approve the plat subject to a 25-foot building line along Montrose Boulevard.

Staff would like to add that we will not complete a future application if the identical request is submitted again without changes.

We have received three advanced written comments, one in support indicating the proposal will be compatible with this location, and those opposed indicating the project scale presenting safety concerns.

We have also received comment from the TURS correcting discrepancies in the written request, but with no indication of support or opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Before I call speakers, Commissioners, do you have questions?

Okay.

Our first speaker is Sue Lovell.

Thank you.

Do uh former uh council members get limited time to speak?

We'll just be really hard, Sonny.

Thank you so much.

This has come before you twice before, and you have rightfully denied.

And look, we're not opposing Montrose to any kind of redevelopment, because if you come to Montrose right now, it's going on all over the place.

But the kind of development that we welcome is a development that fits into the neighborhood where it adds to the neighborhood.

But also we deal with developers and people that don't come into your neighborhood and tell you lies.

And that's exactly why before this was denied.

There was a lot of lies, misinformation, and misrepresentation.

And you denied it, as you are doing now.

So when we come, when you come to Montrose and you want to deal with us, you need to come and be truthful and sit down and work with the neighborhood, not continue to re-gurgitate the same thing, hoping you will wear us down, and that we will eventually turn our head and it will slip through.

Because that's just not going to happen, and you'll see a whole posse that is here today that will tell you the same thing.

That's all for also for us a kind of a little bellwether of somebody comes to you dealing this way, then they're not the people you want to deal with.

And again, we have so much going on in Montrose on the boulevard with developers that are coming in that we're dealing with, and the TURS did send you a letter telling you all the things, the lies that were misrepresented and the things that they were told and that they had met with them, they never had.

So thank you again, and thank you for saying this can't come back, because we kept wondering if we had to every every week be looking to see if they were trying to sneak back in and be cooperative with the neighborhood.

We're not opposed to good development, but this is not good development.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I think what Mr.

Butler said is it can't come back in its same form.

Well, exactly.

It can come back, but not in its same form.

Because three times it's come back to the process.

Correct.

I just want to make sure that everybody understood that.

Thank you all again for your service and what you do appreciate you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Rocky, and I appreciate this, NETAN.

He uh, phonetically made it easy for me.

So thank you.

Greetings, everyone.

I am Rocky Neaton.

I'm a 34-year resident of Montrose.

I urge the Commission to deny this variance request.

Bear with me as I use some colloquialisms.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

And this is the same project, albeit with a new name, whose variance has been previously denied.

It is too big for the land available, and it is out of scale with the neighborhood.

It will destroy the property values and the quality of life of neighboring residences.

It will add traffic to an already congested area of Montrose Boulevard.

Next colloquialism, that dog won't hunt, meaning it is not going to work, part one.

The service bay entrance is on West Clay, which is designated as a safe route to school.

The TURS 27 is installing a safety signal for parents and students to cross Montrose to get into Wharton Elementary via West Clay.

The project owners claim they will find vendors and service vehicles that come during school zone hours.

I don't believe this.

Seriously, if a restaurant on the ground floor has their ice machine fail and they order 40 bags of ice on a hot shot so they can continue food and beverage prep, you really think the truck will idle 45 minutes outside on West Clay during an active school zone?

Or if there is a serious mechanical failure, will a legion of plumbers or HVAC techs stand around eating donuts outside during zone hours when they are badly needed inside.

Also, there is no way to build this tower without pushing cranes, dump trucks, and concrete mixers on West Clay.

Plus, construction activities will create dust and particulate matter along with smoke and tailpipe emissions that will waft through the neighborhood and onward to the Wharton Playground, which is only a half block away.

That dog won't hunt part two.

The hollow claim that this tower adds walkability to the area.

People of the income level that buy or rent luxury condos don't walk typically.

They drive to the Houstonian or to River Oaks Country Club to work out and play golf.

They drive to pick up their dog from doggy daycare.

Thank you for your time.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dennis Patel.

Good afternoon.

My name is Dennis Patel and I approve this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alex Masti.

Good afternoon, Alex Mosley here.

I'm here to express my support for the Montrose mixed use development.

I believe it's a positive step forward for the community of Montrose and the City of Houston.

Thank you so much for your time and your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Brett Hightower.

Document camera, please.

All right.

Commissioners, thank you all so much for your time.

I'm here in support of the Montrose Mixed Use as the applicant.

This application for a variance is very similar to one that was presented in 2018, one that is shown on the video here.

This variance is actually approved at the exact same nine-foot setback as the current application.

A lot of complaints have been made on the size of the law in terms of the development that is being made.

Well, in 2018, this has already already gone through the variance application through Planning Commission was approved.

However, it was not recorded due to an illness of the property owner.

Therefore, it had to be re-kicked back to the system and reapplied.

Secondly, along with me, what I have is because we have some discrepancies on which exactly agenda item we were on because we were on application and the application would be rescinded.

We have over 40 members of the community who have written their support for this development.

And one that I will highlight uh specifically is Mr.

Mayda Rayas, who is the near town Montrose super neighborhood vice president, North Montrose Civic Association Vice President, who also has a child who goes to Wharton Elementary who expressed his support for this project.

Now, in terms of adding uh construction equipment onto the already busy Montrose Boulevard, Montras Boulevard has already been developed, as Molly Center has was just developed right there.

There it is continued developments in the future.

The the side of uh the right-of-way is already at one lane, which will continue to be one lane of traffic, but pending the approval of this uh this variance.

This uh this variance is also increasing the um is as adding on to the availability of housing for this this uh area.

Uh the community has come together tremendously, and not only in just in letters of support, but phone calls that we get throughout the year.

So the variance process requires you to have a sign up for at least 10 days prior to the Commission meeting.

We've had a sign up there for over a year now that directly gave my phone number that allowed anyone to have input that wanted to.

And we met with anybody who was willing to meet with us and we presented forward the plans for this project.

We've gotten some we got overwhelming support, and it was the reason why we resubmitted the same application as previously.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sarah Frazier.

Presentation of you, please.

Good afternoon.

I'm Sarah Frazier.

I'm the president of Hyde Park Civic Association, which is to the immediate south of the plan to development.

Where so with the planned development being between us and the Wharton Elementary School in Carnegie and um another school beyond that.

So it's my second time here opposing this proposal.

Um as we know the Commission denied this before.

Um, concluding uh in doing so that uh Montrose Boulevard is actually characterized as best as mid-rise rather than high rise.

Um we agree with that assessment in 2025.

We agree with it today as well.

Um it's been suggested that this plan, because it is high density, will somehow forward affordable housing or walkability or a better climate.

We disagree, these are luxury units.

We expect that people will drive in and out of the building, they will not interact with the street any more than a tower on Allen Parkway does.

Um we think that you know, gentrification and difficulty walking to school are the more likely outcomes as well as of course the financial one for the developers.

Um I I do want to mention that the signage that was mentioned a moment ago has mostly been behind um construction this entire time, or it's fallen down.

Visibility has been quite difficult for this sign.

Um we thank the Commission for their work on this proposal, and uh we hope that we can stay the course and deny this proposal.

Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Marian Wright.

Hi, nice to see all of y'all again.

So I'm here because um I've worked with some people in Montrose volunteering working when we were trying to save the trees on Montrose.

So I got really close to some of the people there and started talking about some of their other concerns, right?

So we have all stayed on this little group chat.

And we talk about concerns that go back and forth.

Well, first of all, the name Medi Reyes.

When everyone chuckled, there's a reason.

Okay, I'm just gonna say Medi Reyes, Montrose neighborhood.

Just look that up for yourselves.

Secondly, this doesn't fit into the neighborhood.

It doesn't.

It just simply doesn't.

If you look at how high it is and they're asking for setbacks, why do they need setbacks?

They're asking for setbacks so that they can build this thing bigger than what the land can actually even take.

That plus they're building up so high.

I mean, I'm not a planner, I'm not a developer, I'm not an architect.

But simply, if you can't fit what you want to fit on the land, and then you're going up, what is it, 20 stories?

Something's not right.

So thank y'all for listening and please deny it.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Michelle Bouchard.

Hello, board, I'm Michelle Bouchard.

I live on Marconi Street with my daughter.

I own a townhouse there.

So this is right in my backyard.

I'm between West Gray and West Dallas.

I don't know what what Mr.

Hightower is talking about, but we don't want this on Morcone Street.

And I I have lived there now for nine years, and we're extremely upset about this project.

Uh I used to be on the board of North Montrose Civic Association.

I'm still a member of the North Montrose Civic Association.

And uh I would beg you to side with the residents here.

I'm the sister of a big-time developer.

I'm the daughter of a land speculator.

I'm not anti-development in any way, but I am for responsible development.

And as the project is now, it's gonna be very deleterious to our neighborhood.

So I hope you will consider the residents.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Laura Kael.

Kale.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Hi.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Laura Kai.

I'm a Montrose resident.

I've been living here for over 16 years.

I don't live very far from the site in question.

And I support the Planning Commission.

Um the Planning Commission's decision to deny.

Um I don't support the proposal as someone who actually lives in the neighborhood.

Um I think it's been said that the nature is more mid-sized, not high level.

And I think you were talking about 46 units and six, six levels of parking.

Um, if that's not going to add traffic.

And I think it was also mentioned that maybe financial gains were the focus more than housing.

Um I think it's just too big for the area.

I understand there is a housing issue, but I think maybe a more planned approach with the city would be more beneficial in solving this issue.

I don't know if the developer has done that already, but I think that just a more um practical, pragmatic approach would be better uh rather than money.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The last speaker I have signed is John Cadenhead.

Hi, thank you.

I'm John Cadenhead, and I'm an architect.

I'm in support of this project.

I just wanted to bring up, you know, just five bullet points that that I've heard today.

Uh one, the the statement that this is an economic hardship.

Um we don't feel that this is true.

It's simply a geometry.

Um simply because Montrose is designated a major thoroughfare.

It is it it gets a 25-foot setback.

Um we, you know, in the city of Houston realize that not all major thoroughfares are equal and some of them are different, and the character of this neighborhood, you know, the the the 10-foot setback, you know, certainly would uh fit the urban fabric here.

Um and then the it's not necessarily a small project, small small property, it's simply a narrow property.

So it diminishes the uh the actual buildable footprint significantly enough to where you really could not do any kind of commercial development on a project.

So the highest best use for the property simply cannot be obtained without diminishing uh that setback.

Uh the loading berth on on West Clay is there strategically simply to to keep delivery vehicles off of the street.

So we wanted to put that on the property.

Uh we've been able to do that, so that is within the building footprint, and it is for designated times only.

It is the safest way to solve the project and keeps vehicles from moving back and forth.

So all of the vehicular traffic is uh indeed uh along Montrose.

Uh traffic concerns.

We're it's 44 homes and it's a small restaurant.

Currently on the property right now, it's a small restaurant.

Uh so we anticipate no changes there.

We do anticipate changes with the 44 homes.

These are 3,000 square foot homes.

The people are pretty much there half the time.

We we don't feel like this is a significant uh traffic impact.

Uh so that I certainly uh speaks to the density of the project.

And then the differences to the application, yes, we understand that there haven't been any differences made to the plan.

Um I feel that the developers, the owners have got it right, and the difference has been just clarity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

Okay, Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff?

I do.

Yes.

Commissioner Garza.

Mr.

Butler.

So um when this came in, of course, staff has to review it from top to bottom again as though it was completely new, correct?

That's right.

Were you told by the applicant that there were no changes at all?

That's exactly what had been presented before.

Yes.

All right.

But still it has to be reviewed and take department time, tax dollars to go over.

Is this the third time we see this?

But the third time.

Yes.

Yeah.

And then uh also Mr.

Hytawer mentioned that it something had been approved, a variance had been approved?

I don't recall that.

Can you explain?

Right.

So in 2018, the uh uh this request uh actually with another variance along West Clay was approved by the planning commission.

And that variance was for what?

I'm sorry.

We we approved a mid-rise.

It was six stories smaller.

That's what I am remembering.

Yeah.

I mean it was smaller, it wasn't as tall.

Okay.

It did have retail on the first floor.

Right.

We debated it.

Thank you substantially, but they did increase the size substantially.

I am more concerned that this has come back multiple times without any changes whatsoever, even though staff has worked diligently with this applicant to say this is what we need, this is what would be required, this is what would work.

Finally, um I know it came up in the last in the last time we viewed this, there were questions to the applicants as to whether or not they had met with the TURS or the neighborhood, and to our knowledge, they have not done either, correct?

So I'll let them correct me if I misspeak, but my understanding is that they've met with some engineers with the TURS as far as compatibility with the construction, but not the TURS board.

Board who would make the decision.

For approval, right.

Okay.

All right.

Well, that answers my questions.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions?

Okay.

I have a question.

Yes.

Commissioner Sorem.

Since I wasn't there previously that is approved.

So if it was submitted like what was had my own.

Oh if it had been submitted like what was previously approved, if revisions were done to what was approved in 2018, then we would review it again and see if it um would recommend approval or how does how just because it was approved once it expires, it's like a new application.

It was also a smaller project.

Right.

At that time.

It wasn't this.

This did not get approved previously.

Yes.

So that's what I'm asking you.

They want to revise it to a smaller project again.

They could, but that's not what they are presenting today.

Yes, correct.

Yes.

Commissioner Carroll.

Is the footprint the same as it was in 2018?

So the amount of disturbance would be this the same.

It's just that they raising it higher from six floors, which I agree, tripling it, over tripling it from six to twenty.

Uh but the amount of disturbance in the ground is the same as it was approved in 2018.

It would certainly take longer and the disturbance would last longer because they have to build 14 more stories.

Ms.

Carroll, it's six feet or six stories less, not six stories total.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay.

So it's 20 versus 14.

Okay.

So I'm sorry, but you you can't call out from the audience.

Thank you.

Can't call out from the audience, thank you.

So it's still the same footprint of disturbance.

Correct.

That has not changed.

And the access to and from Clay Street has not changed.

Not uh not significantly, you know.

Okay.

Thank you.

And so one of the current concerns also is the traffic, that's an issue because you're yeah, you're bringing more traffic on the street around the schools.

Because they have more residents.

Yes, that's correct.

But so the traffic is six more floors?

Is that how many units?

Yes.

Right.

I don't know as far as how many more units that would be.

Um we've given specific instructions as far as what we would support, and that is to bring the height down, but also remove the mixed-use element on the ground floor, because we feel that that combined with the residences combined with the commercial activity at such a narrow area, and having that as your the only two ways of getting in is what's presenting the problems.

So if that's what we have suggested after the previous disapproval.

Director Tran.

Yes, thank you.

I just wanted to also clarify and just remind people that when a project gets approved in the past and it doesn't get recorded and time passed.

When a new project comes to us and our team is reviewing it, we are reviewing it to today's context.

So a lot of the variance has to do with context.

So remember in 2018, the area didn't have certain developments.

So when we were reviewing this, we were looking at adjacent properties that have since been built that stayed within the 25-foot setback.

So that is another important thing.

So don't just think that, oh, a project was approved once before.

It comes back to us and we should approve it.

We still have to re-review everything as to what is happening today in context.

Thank you.

Thank you for that clarification.

Any other questions?

Last one.

Was the retail approved in the 2018?

Correct.

Any other questions?

Okay.

So you have a recommendation by staff to deny the requested variants.

Do I have a motion?

Motion.

Motion, Garza.

Second forest purple.

Second Pors Pertle.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Aye.

Okay, please note one opposition.

Was there another?

Yeah.

Opposition.

Motion passes.

Moving on to item 72.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

Members of the Houston Planning Commission.

My name is Devin Crudel.

Item 72 is NTW USA headquarters.

The site is located within Houston City limits, south along Umbell Westfield Road and west of McKay Street.

The applicant is requested a variance to allow a reserve to take access from a 20-foot ride-of-way and a second variance to allow reserve to take access from a non-continuous street.

Staff recommends deferring the plant to verify the centerline radius requirement can be met along Major Fair Fair Umble Parkway.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioners, if you don't have any questions, do I have a motion for deferral?

Motion.

Motion Garza.

Second, sir.

Second, sir Am.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 73.

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

My name is Tammy Williamson.

Item 73 is Paragon Place.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Harris County, west and along Gosling Road, north of the Grand Parkway, and south of Willow Creek and West Rayford Road.

The applicant is proposing one unrestricted reserve and is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing along Gosling Road by not extending Elm Grode Elm Grove Road nor terminated in a cul-de-sac.

Staff request to defer the application for two weeks to allow time for the applicant to provide revised information, specifically to revise the plat boundary to include land from two recorded subdivisions that are incorporated into their site plan and permit drawings.

We are also in the process of setting up a meeting to discuss options.

And staff has not received any public comments in advance.

Thank you.

Yes, I don't have anyone signed to speak on this item.

Commissioners, if you have no questions, do I have a motion for deferral?

Motion Jones.

Second Mondapaka.

Second Mondapaca, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 74.

Item 74 is Pakash Abode.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in western Harris County, south of Morton Road, west of Barker Cypress Road, and north of South May, South north of South Mayty Creek.

The applicant is proposing one lot.

At first the variance being requested was to allow the lot to have frontage and access from a private road easement.

However, through coordination with Harris County Engineering, Deeds Roads is deemed public.

Therefore, the variance being requested is revised to exceed intersection spacing along Deeds Road by not requiring an east-west public street.

Staff is in support of the request.

The existing intersection spacing along Deeds Road between Morton Road and Groschke Road is approximately 2,650 feet.

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

Most of the block to the east is already recorded plats, leaving one tract along Jordan's Road, which is also an access easement that is on the county's road log as the only remaining location for potential east-west connection.

However, this site is less than a thousand feet from Grosky Road.

If an East-West public street were provided through this site, it would only have the potential connect to Jordan's Road, then to Groshke Road without any further connections.

This property is only proposing one lot, and nearly all of the tracks on Deeds Road and Jordans Road are single family residential tracks.

Requiring public street dedication is impractical and would not drastically improve traffic circulation.

Harris County Engineering 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.

The applicant, Courtney Cheney is here for questions.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Okay.

So you have a recommendation to grant the requested variants.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Montepark.

Motion Mandepaca.

Second Shepard, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 75.

Item 75 is Quinn Meadows.

This application was deferred at the previous planning commission meeting.

The site is located within Houston City limits near the Acres Home area, north of Paul Quinn Street and east of Balbo Street.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow single family lots to have sole access from a private alley.

Staff is in support of this request.

The applicant plans to develop a residential subdivision consisting of 53 lots.

The streets in this subdivision are planned to be type 2 PAE private streets with the exception of one private alley.

There are non-homes planned to take access from this alley.

The alley is 20 feet in width and about 150 feet in depth.

Staff has worked closely with representatives of the Houston Fire Department, and based on based on the location of the proposed fire hydrant.

Emergency services can address fire-related incidents without emergency vehicles entering the private alley.

This request would not impact any pedestrian accessibility because this private subdivision would not contain any sidewalks.

Also, no lots outside of this subdivision will be impacted by this request.

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

Madam Chair, this concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

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

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Victor, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 77.

75 is four.

Excuse me.

76 is withdrawn.

Okay.

You are killing my vibe, man.

No worries.

Item 77 is Tidwell Villas.

This site is also located near the Acres Home area at the northwest intersection of West Tidwell Road and Tuskegee Street.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 15-foot building line along West Hood Rail Road instead of the required 25-foot setback along major fairfares.

Staff is in support of this request.

The applicant intends to develop a corner property into 15 lots with rear access along a shared driveway.

42-153B is a performance standard that allows a 15-foot reduced building line for major therapies 80 feet or less without the need of a variance request.

The unique circumstances affecting this development is that West Tidwell Road is currently 120 feet in width, but is shown as an 80-foot major fair fair on the hierarchy table.

Staff believes the intent of this ordinance is being met, given the urban nature of Tidwell Road, having two travel lanes in each direction separated by boulevard.

All of the performance standards are being met, including rear access from a shared driveway, entry features, and pedestrian access to Tidwell Road and parking situated away from the pedestrian realm.

Staff has not received any objection to this requests, and our recommendation is to grant the requested variance and approve the plant subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

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

Sigler, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Okay.

Moving along to E subdivision plates with special exceptions.

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

My name is John Phillips Leeu.

Item 78 and 79 are coming will be presented as one item if Commissioner will accept.

Yes.

Item 78 and 79 are Grand Mason General Plan and Grand Race Grand Mason Detention Reserve B.

The subject site is an over 1,100 acre property in the Harris County extraterritorial jurisdiction, south along West Road and east of State Highway 99 Grand Parkway.

The applicant is requesting a special exception to exceed the 2600-foot intersection spacing along the major thoroughfare of Mason Road to exceed to 2714.

Staff is in support of this request.

Intersection spacing has was marked up to be addressed on the submission of the Grand Mason Detention Reserve B plat.

That plat proposes a 38-acre detention reserve to serve as a lake for the overall general plan, as a large portion of that general plan is within the 100-year floodplain.

The proposed intersection spacing of 2714 is less than a 5 percent deviation from the standard and will not prove injurious to public health and safety.

Harris County Engineering Department has no objection to the request.

Staff recommendation is to grant the requested special exception and approve the plant subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

Madam Chair, this concludes Staff's presentation.

Thank you, Commissioners.

If you have no questions on items 76 and 77, 78.

78 and 79.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Sykes.

Second Jones, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to F reconsideration of requirement.

They help you.

Item 80 is Petty Villa.

The subject site is a 4,700 square foot property located in the city limits at the northeast intersection of Petty Street and TC Jester Boulevard.

The applicant is proposing a single lot and is requesting a variance to allow a reduced building line of 10 feet and love the 25-foot building line required along the major thoroughfare of TC Jester.

The applicant is proposing a single family home to take sole access from Petty Street.

Strict adherence to the ordinance would make the development would street street strict adherence to the ordinance would require a 25-foot building line and would make development on the site infeasible.

Similar building line variances have been granted along the right-of-way, and some existing structures are built closer to the right-of-way than the requested variants, but those structures have predated the expansion of TC jester.

However, this site is located at an exit turnoff lane from the major thoroughfare, which traffic believes could greatly increase safety concerns at this location, and a less reduced building line would be more viable.

Staff recommendation is to defer is to defer the plan for two weeks to allow traffic to study this location and surmise a more viable building setback for the site.

Thank you, Commissioners.

If there are no questions, I seek a motion for staff recommendation of deferral.

Motion Shepherd.

I am sorry who said that.

Motion Shepard.

Second Carroll, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 81.

Item 81 is Reeves Industrial Site.

The subject site is a 2.8-acre property located in Harris County extraterritorial jurisdiction, east along Reavestone Road, south of Aldean Bender, and East Aluth Road.

The applicant is proposing a single unrestricted reserve and is requesting a variance to not provide an East West Street to the site.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site has a is 1148 feet from the major thoroughfare of Alding Bender.

The site must provide an East West Street to meet the 1400-foot intersection spacing requirements.

The existing conditions of the surrounding properties hinder the extension of an East West Street.

The neighbor immediately to the east has a large detention pond along its western boundary.

The site is within a well-established grid of MTFP streets, including the proposed minor collector of West Road to the south.

Should an East West Street become necessary for this area, the larger tracts to the south of the site provide more viable alignments.

Harris County Engineering Department has no objection to the variance, save that the land use for the site be restricted to industrial, to which the applicant has agreed.

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

Madam Chair, this concludes Staff's presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioners, if there are no questions, I will seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Montaparca.

Motion Mondopaca.

Second Garza.

Second Garza, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 82.

Thank you.

Item 82 is Sheldon Industrial Business Park.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in eastern Harris County, south and along U.S.

Highway 90, abutting Miller Road No.

2 and Sheldon Road.

The applicant is proposing two unrestricted reserves and requesting a reconsideration of requirement with the variants to exceed intersection spacing along U.S.

Highway 90 by not providing a north-south street.

Staff is in support of the request.

The property is a replot of portions of large acreage tracks out of the Houston Farm Subdivision recorded in 1915 prior to U.S.

90.

The current intersection spacing along the highway is approximately 5,250 feet.

Although there is no frontage road at this location, strict interpretation of the ordinance does not exempt compliance with the maximum intersection spacing of 2,600 feet because it is also it is not also grade separated.

Nearly the entire block is utilized as construction materials laydown yards, requiring a north-south street through the subject site would either provide a public street for sole use by the subject site, connecting to Kimberley Lane, or would create a short stub street into the industrial property to the southeast, but not provide a connection north for highway for access to the highway.

Harris County Engineering has no objection to the request.

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

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

Thank you.

Commissioners, if there are no questions, do I have a motion for item 82?

Motion Park.

Motion Mondopaca.

Second, sir.

Second Jones, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 83.

Item 83 is Wallaceville Business Park, replot number one and extension.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limits, north and along Wallaceville Road between Mesa Drive and Oates Road.

The applicant is proposing one 18-acre unrestricted reserve and is requesting a reconsideration of requirement with the variants to exceed intersection spacing by not providing an east-west street.

Staff is in support of the request.

The property is a complete replot of Wallaceville Business Park and an extension of the boundary to the north and northeast.

The site is greater than 1,500 feet deep.

Strict interpretation of the ordinance would require an east-west public street at least every 1,400 feet.

The area between Hunting Bayou and Wallace Fould Road was large acreed tracks that were subdivided without plating over many decades.

Trail Mobile Drive, the private road easement to the west that also provides access to the small cemetery site, has been in this configuration, most likely since the 1960s.

Zabala's Court to the east dedicated 590 feet to the public for road purposes in 1934, but the remainder of the payment north towards the bayou is private.

The subject site only has frontage on the private portion of Zabalos Court to its east, a 30-foot-wide ingress-egress easement along its western boundary, and along Wallaceville Road.

An East West Street through this site would only have the potential to connect to two private access easements.

With hunting by you about a thousand feet to the north, traffic circulation is restricted.

Additionally, the site is an existing container shipping and storage facility, intending to expand to the north in the area being added from the recorded plaid.

An East West Street in line with Aguila Street from the El Dorado subdivision and the portion of Zabayos that is public would require a street to be dedicated through the site's existing buildings, making a street connection impractical.

Houston Public Works 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.

If there are no questions, Commissioners, I will seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion.

Second ballard.

Second Ballard, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 84.

Item 84 is Valo Business Park.

The site is located within Houston City limits, split between Harris County and Fort Benn County.

The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed intersection of spacing along the eastern boundary by not extending or terminating Peach Willow Road with the cul de sac.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is acreage property consisting of 17 acres planned for industrial use.

The plat is affected by multiple pipeline easements bisecting the property.

Along the southeast boundary is a 60-foot-wide Harris County flood control easement crossing over a platage stub street from the southwest crossing subdivision created in 1982.

The applicant has expressed challenges of constructing a bridge over the drainage easement while simultaneously crossing multiple pipelines.

Staff's main justification to not make the extension is to allow then this industrial site to maintain direct access from Beltway 8 and remove the ability to traverse through the residential subdivision.

Staff has coordinated with the applicant to replace the unrestricted land use of the reserve to a more restrictive industrial use.

The applicant has voiced no objection to this request as staff has not received any excuse me.

Staff has not received any advanced comments on this item.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

I do have two speakers signed to speak.

Our first speaker is Ms.

Chavez, representing the council members' office.

It's good to see you again.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon and good afternoon, members of uh of the commission.

I'm Predita Chavis, the Chief of Staff from Mayor Pro Tim, Martha Castex Tatum.

She's a council member of District K.

And just wanted to uh make a comment in reference to the reconsider reconsideration of the requirement.

Um it's important that the integrity of the neighborhood is maintained, and that I under if I'm reading this correctly, understand that the statement of facts would prohibit would stop traffic from going into the neighborhood.

Um and also there's a concern, you know, um, with traffic near, you know, traffic near the neighborhood, and also want to ensure that drainage will not be negative, negatively impacting the neighborhood as well.

Thank you.

We always appreciate you coming in.

Yeah, you come more than anyone, and it's always good for your constituents, and we appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Garth Ellis.

Hello.

Hello.

Um Garth Ellis, I'm a right-of-way agent for Kinder Morgan, as you saw up in there.

We are discussing with them access road.

We don't know if we're going to give it to them or not.

We are opposed to it because at this point we don't know if they're going to be able to get in there because they have to cross our fee property to get in there.

So we are opposed in.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

So Mr.

Critdle, I'm going to ask you a question.

You're recommending approval.

Are you recommending approval pending their agreement with Kinder Morgan?

Yes.

So the site has frontage.

Um the site does meet the minimum frontage requirements for reserves at least 60 feet along the beltway.

Um whether there's a private agreement that the developer has with a second or third party, that's um that's something that we would outside of.

Yeah, outside of what we would review, but um I understand the the situation.

Right.

Okay.

So, Mr.

Ellis, you understand that, right?

So if it gets approved today, they still have to get your permission.

I've worked with your group before, too, so yeah.

We understand how all that works, so thank you.

Okay.

So, Commissioners, do you have any questions?

If not, I'll seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Heinz.

Second Hines, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving along to, I cannot get my paper separated.

Thank you.

G, extension of approval.

And we do have a good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Akila Bidie.

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

Yes, but I do need to um let Commissioners we've I think we've got one commissioner that needs to abstain from a couple of items.

Commissioner Shepard.

Yes, I have three, 85, 86, and 104.

Okay.

So we've made that note.

So I need a motion for staff recommendation to approve G H and I.

And J.

And J.

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Carroll.

Second Carroll.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

We have nothing under K development plats with variance requests.

So we will move along to remember numeral two.

Establish a public hearing date of March 5th, 2026 for the following Broad Oaks Reserve, Charles Mont Home, Frick Road Reserves, Fuel Depot, Southmoor, HLB Homes on Alvin, HLB Homes on Carruthers, HLB Homes on Lara Copy, Replat number one, HLB Homes on Springdale, HLB Homes on Springdale Estates, HLB Homes on Touchstone, HLB Homes on Wayburn, Kelvin Park, Kingsbury Villas, Mariner Heights, McAl McAlpine Terraces, Manil Bookstore and Restroom, Milwaukee Village, Park at Oak Forest Replat number one, Spring Branch Estates number two, partial replat number 19, Whispering Pines Estates, partial replat number 14, and White Oak Terrace Estates replat number one.

Do I have a motion?

Motion.

Motion Sykes, second Sigler.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

So Roman numeral three, public comment.

I believe Director Tran wants to make a comment.

Yes, thank you for giving me some more time, Chair Lisa.

Earlier in my director's report, I failed to give proper acknowledgement to our new attorney, Heather Cook, who is sitting with us.

I apologize.

But Heather, thank you for coming back to the City of Houston to help us.

You are an additional third-party attorney that we've retained.

It is very important for us to get our work done and not have so many deferrals.

We're really grateful.

So Commission members, please, proper introduction, Heather Cook.

Thank you.

We welcome you.

Thank you, Director Tran.

So, Roman numeral four, we are adjourning at 3 59 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.