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

You may also monitor the meeting via uh viewing via HTV.

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

Consent and repeat speakers are allowed for one minute.

New speakers are timed for two.

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

Council members speaking on an item are not timed.

Applicants have their allotted two minutes as well as time to rebut uh for rebuttals.

Non-applicants and general speakers are allowed two minutes time, and there is not an option for rebuttal, even if you did not use your full two minutes.

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

To establish a quorum of 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 Heisch.

Present.

Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Naranjo is not here.

Is that correct?

Oh yeah.

Okay.

Sorry, I missed you.

Sorry.

Commissioner Pham?

Present.

Commissioner Pierce?

Present.

Commissioner Porce Pertle?

Present.

Commissioner Shepard is not here.

Commissioner Sigler?

Present.

Commissioner Sykes?

Present.

And Commissioner Victor.

Present.

And our uh Secretary Von Tran?

Present.

15.

Okay, we have a quorum of 15.

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

Director Tran.

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

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

Welcome.

I do not have anything to report this round.

The Planning and Development Department can be reached at 832-393-660.

Or you can call Development Services, Planner of the Day at 832-393-6624.com.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Tran.

Now we'll I ask for consideration of our meeting minutes, our prior meeting, which was February 5th, 2026.

They were posted with the agenda.

Do I have a motion for approval?

Motion Sykes.

Motion Sykes.

Second Ballard.

Second Ballard.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

All right.

Moving on to Roman numeral one, plating activity, which are subdivision and development plates.

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 one through 72.

Section A consent items are numbers 1 through 39 and Section B replot items are numbers 40 through 75.

If it pleases the Commission, staff would like to move consent items number four, Bridgeland, Prairie Land Village Section 72 and number 5, Bridgeland, Prairie Land Village Section 73, with item number 81, Bridgeland Prairie Land Village GP in the variant section.

There are no other items that need to be taken out of order.

And if there are no 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 replot items not requiring notification.

Save and accept items four and five.

Thank you.

Commissioners, we have some abstentions.

Commissioner Heich.

Yes, Madam Chair, I do need to abstract some from some other items.

A few of those that she just mentioned, I didn't write down, so I'll probably be abstaining twice.

Items 2 through 6, 11, 12, 27, 48 through 50, and 66.

What about 47?

That was on my pen.

Yes, ma'am.

47.

Thank you.

No, I'm glad to catch somebody.

I always get caught, so thank you.

Okay.

Anyone else?

I think uh Commissioner Pierce, yes.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

So I'm going to need a motion, save and accept items two through six.

Eleven, twelve, twenty-seven, forty-seven, forty-eight, forty-nine, fifty, and sixty-six.

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second porse purdle.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Now we need a motion for items two through six, eleven twelve, twenty-seven, forty seven through fifty, sixty-six.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Jones.

Motion Jones.

I'm sorry.

Second, fam.

Second, fam.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Are you are you?

We should not include four and five on the secondary vote as that should be reported.

Oh, that's right.

I'm sorry.

You're right.

I saw it written here and didn't need paying attention.

So yes, strike four and five.

We'll we'll listen to that uh further on in the agenda.

So let me repeat.

Two through six.

No.

Nope.

Save and accept five.

So it's two, three.

I'll get there eventually.

Six, eleven, twelve, twenty-seven, forty-seven through fifty, and sixty-six.

Motions were Jones and FAM.

Was it Jones and FAM?

Yes.

Okay.

You accept the revised motion.

Okay.

Thank you.

So motion Jones.

Second, fam.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Now we're on to see public hearings.

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

My name is Dorian Poe Flam.

Item number 76 is Claremont Place, Section 1, partial replot number 13.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits at the southwest intersection of Linda Vista Road and Tremont Street, east of North Wayside Drive.

The reason for replat is to create four single family residential lots and reduce the building line.

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 a public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 76 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion pours purdle.

Garza.

Second Garza, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 77.

Item 77 is concrete dolphin family partial replat number one.

The site is in Houston Corporate Houston, I'm sorry, Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Harris County, Texas.

South along Boykins Road, east of Roberts Street.

The reason for replat is to create one unrestricted reserve.

And the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a single family residential lot to be replatted into an unrestricted reserve.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a replattable lot that was created with a five lot subdivision in 2009 with the creation of the concrete dolphin family subdivision.

Only two lots of the five have been developed as residential.

West of the property, two of the lots have been developed.

I'm sorry.

West of the property, two of the lots have not been developed.

The track, the track of the east of the lot is being used for commercial purposes, and the track east of that lot is currently being used as a church site.

Boykins is a major therapy, and the properties along this street have primarily been developed as commercial properties.

The property is being used as a limousine company, however, the owner plans to develop the property into an event hall.

To allow the site to be developed as an unrestricted reserve will be conducive to the development patterns in the neighborhood.

Review by legal indicates that this plat will not violate restrictions files separately.

Harris County Engineers Office has no objections to the request.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

Staff has not received any advanced comments for this item.

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

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 77 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion high.

Motion Heich?

Okay, thank Carol.

Second Carroll.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 78.

Good afternoon.

Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission, my limit Araceli Rodriguez.

Item 78, Darling Villas, we plat number one.

The site is located in the city limit north of I 10.

And east of TC Gesture Boulevard.

The purpose of the Wii Plat is to modify the width of the shared driveway from 16 feet to 12 feet for three lots.

No variances are being requested with this item.

And the applicant has met all the notification requirements.

That recommendation is to approve the plat, substitute the CPC 101 informed condition.

Madam Chair is depleted the commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 78 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Jones?

FAM second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 79.

Item 79.

Montgomery enclave.

The site is located in Houston E2J in Montgomery County, east of US 59 and north of North Park Drive.

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

No variances are being requested with this item.

And per legal, the proposed WIPLA will violate the applicable restriction.

That recommendation is to defer the plat per the applicant request.

Madam Chair, it's a please to the Commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 79 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Hearing none, I'll defer the excuse me.

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

Motion Baldwin, second Sykes, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 80.

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

My name is Kin Calhoun.

Item 80 is Rose Hill Pines.

The subject site is located within Houston Harris County ETJ, south of FM 2920, west of Rose Hill Church Road.

The purpose of the replat is to create one single family lot.

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 80 is open.

I do have the applicant here for questions.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

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

Motion Sigler.

Motion Sigler.

Second Victor, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to D subdivision plates with variance requests.

Madam Chair, I'm going to recuse from 81 and I believe four and five.

Four and five.

Yes, yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Commissioner Heisch.

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

My name is Jeff Butler.

Items 4, 5, and 81 are Bridgeland Prairie Land Villages, Sections 72, 73 in the general plan.

The site is located within the ETJ within Harris County along Tuckerton, west of Prairie Land Crossing and east of Pollinator Drive.

The applicant proposes a general plan in two sections.

The applicant is requesting variances for intersection spacing at two locations.

The first, no north-south street between Prairie Land Crossing and Migration Way north of Tuckerton.

And the second, no north-south street between Pollinator Drive and Migration Way south of Tuckerton.

Staff is in support of these requests.

The site is located within the Bridgeland Prairie Land Community.

This development features a network of collector streets and multi-use paths intended to facilitate connectivity between residences, school, and recreation.

The site also features pipelines and drainage areas and transmission corridors that hinder providing street connections at the required interval.

The applicant is requesting permit permission to exceed these requirements in two locations.

The first location will be within a grid of collector streets and a major thoroughfare with single family sections feeding into the collectors in a multifamily track fronting Tuckerton.

This will allow for sufficient access and circulation without creating an additional north-south street connection within the block.

The second location will consist of single family tracks accessed by a collector and an additional intersection along Tuckerton could complicate a proposed bridge crossing over a drainage channel.

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

And we have received no advance written comment.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on either items 4, 5, or 81.

Is there anyone that wishes to speak on them?

Okay.

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

Do I have a motion?

Motion Victor, second Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Please note Commissioner Hines is here.

Item 82.

Item 82 is Iglesia Apostales y Profetas Libras.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limit, south of U.S.

Route 90, north of Orem and East of Fondron.

The applicant proposes a reserve for a church and related uses.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the reserve to take access from an access easement and a private street rather than a public right-of-year.

Staff recommends deferral to allow time for staff and the applicant to research the origins of the existing private street and to determine if it is a suitable means of access.

And we have received no advance written comment.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 82.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation of deferral.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Jones?

FAM second.

FAM second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 83.

Oh no, excuse me.

That's a 30-day extension that we did last week, so nothing on 83, 84.

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

My name is Devin Cruddle.

Item 84 is NTW USA headquarters.

This application was deferred at the previous Planning Commission meeting.

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

The applicant is requesting two variances.

The first variance is to allow a reserve to take access from a 25-foot right-of-way, and the second variance is to allow a reserve to take access from a non-continuous street.

Staff is in support of this request.

The applicant is combining multiple tracks from the Jacob Dannenbaum subdivision to create two unrestricted reserves.

The subdivision was created with Bordersville Road, which is a 20-foot public right-of-way.

Justification for variance number one is Harris County acquired 40 feet of land along the west side of the road to make a 60-foot right-of-way.

To maintain a consistent center line, all of the remaining dedication must come from the west side of Bordersville School Road, and this proposed development is along the east side.

The second variance request deals with the property being bisected by a proposed major therapy umble parkway.

Justification for supporting variance number two involves the timing of the plat submital.

The developer is dedicating the required 100-foot major therapy within the plat boundary as shown on the major therapy and freeway plan.

Because the other properties north of this site has not been platted, the major excuse me.

Because the other properties north of this site have not platted, the major therapy technically does not make a continuous connection to Umbo Westfield Road.

To help mitigate this problem, the applicant is creating a temporary easement to provide sufficient access until the remainder of the major therapy is platted north of this site.

Staff has not received any objection to this request, and staff recommends granting the requested variance in approving the plat subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on 84.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

All right.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation in front of you.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Sigler, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

85.

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

My name is Tammy Williamson.

Item 85 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 two sets of variances.

One, to exceed intersection spacing along Gosling Road by not extending Elm Grove Road nor terminate in a cul-de-sac.

And two, to allow for the partial replatting of residential restricted lots into use not prescribed by the ordinance.

Staff requests to defer the application for two weeks to allow time for the applicant to provide revised information.

As this is the second deferral, staff would like to make a brief presentation.

Please.

The applicant is proposing a multifamily development on an unrestricted reserve.

One set of variances is to modify the platted residential restrictions to something other than the land uses specifically listed and then the ordinance.

Staff is in support of the request because all of the platted lots within the residential residential restricted subdivision are being replatted into this proposed subdivision.

The other two variances are being requested to allow excessive intersection spacing along Gosling Road by not extending an east-west through street, the property, and not to terminate own grove with the cul-de-sac.

The current intersection spacing along Gosling Road is approximately 6,700 feet.

Harris County Engineering Department is in support of the requested variants, not to extend Elm Grove Road to Gossling Road.

Staff's recommendation, however, is to defer the application to allow time for the applicant to provide a revised title report that encompasses all of the land within the plat's revised boundary as required by the ordinance.

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

Thank you.

We don't have any speakers signed for this item.

Is there anyone that wishes to speak?

All right.

Commissioners, you have uh recommendation for deferral.

Do I have a motion?

Motion ballard.

Motion ballard?

Second Victor, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Nothing under E, so we will move along to F.

Reconsideration of requirement.

Item 86 is MK Enterprises Plaza.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in northwestern Harris County, south of Hempstead Highway, between Kickapoo Road and Kermere Road.

The applicant is proposing one unrestricted reserve and is requesting a reconsideration of requirement and variants to exceed intersection spacing along local street, old Washington Road, by not providing a north-south street through the subject site.

Staff is in support of the request.

The applicant intends to utilize the property for commercial warehouse structures with access from old Washington Road.

The site abuts Old Washington Road, which is not part of the major thoroughfare, Hempstead Highway's Ride-of-way, separated by a railroad.

The current intersection spacing along Old Washington Road, a local street, is approximately 2,690 feet from Kickapoo Road to Premier Drive.

Strict application of the ordinance would require an intersection at least every 1,400 feet, which would mean one north-south public street to bisect this block.

However, this block is currently developed with low density uses and has adequate frontage and access to a public street.

The street network created by Old Washington Road, Premier Drive, Betka Road, and Kickapoo Road is an established street grid that is sufficient to handle rural low density type of development present on this block.

Likewise, only Kikapoo and Kermere cross the railroad going north, so any additional north-south street would still require traffic to utilize the existing major thoroughfare street network.

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.

I don't have any speakers signed for item 86.

Is there anyone that wishes to speak?

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

Do I have a motion?

Motion Ballard.

I heard two.

Motion Motion Ballard, Second Jones.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 87.

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

My name is John Phillips Oliu.

Item 87 is Petty Villa.

The subject site is a 4,700 square foot property located in the Houston 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 12 feet in lieu of the 25-foot building line required along the major thoroughfare of TC Jester.

Staff is in support of this request.

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

Strict adherence to the ordinance for the 25-foot building line could make the site development of the site infeasible.

They proposed reduced building line would allow a single family home to be built with a viable distance from the flow of traffic.

The dimension from back of curb to the proposed structure would vary from 23 to 26 feet with vehicular access denied from the major thoroughfare.

The portions of the structure at the 12-foot building line are shown to be a porch at the site pl uh by the site plan and intended to be uninhabited.

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 predate the expansion of TC Jester.

The application was deferred last cycle to allow staff and traffic to consider the site's vicinity to the exit lane along TC Chester.

The application initially requested a 10-foot building line in line with the other previously granted variances along the thoroughfare.

However, the exit lane is likely to incur sudden lane changes in traffic and staff suggest a 12-foot building line to which the applicant has amended the request.

Staff recommendation is to grant the variance and approve the plat subject to CPC 101 form conditions, including the creation of a six-foot sidewalk along TC Jester.

Madam Chair, this concludes Staff's presentation.

Is that it?

I just have one more observation.

The graphic still shows a 10-foot building line.

That would be the previous graphic.

Are you talking about the site plan?

Yeah, those are the side plan, yes.

Then there must have been some kind of mistake, but they have submitted a site plan to show the 12-foot building line and is incorporated into our report.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

You have a recommendation to grant the requested variance and approve the plat.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second porse purple.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving along to G, extension of approval number 88.

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

My name is Akila Bidgey.

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

Yes, please.

Sections G, extensions of approval consists of items 88 to 101.

Sections H, name changes consists of no items.

Section I, certification of compliance, consists of no items.

Section J, administrative consists of no items.

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

Thank you.

Commissioners still have a motion.

Motion, Victor.

Second Hines.

Second Hines.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, please note that I abstention from items 98, 99, and 100.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving along to K development plates, item 102.

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

My name is Ed Buckley.

Item 102 is 1927 Fairview Street.

The site is north of West Timer Road and west of Dunlavy Street at the southwest corner of Woodhead and Fairview Streets.

The applicant is proposing a covered patio addition to an existing restaurant and is requesting a zero foot setback for the patio roof line in lieu of the ordinance required ten-foot building line.

To accommodate the patio space, the applicant proposes to remove head-end parking along Fairview Street and replace it with a new five-foot wide sidewalk, landscape buffer, patio area, and green space.

Existing permitted parking inside the property is sufficient to accommodate the restaurant and additional patio square footage.

The post of the patio will be set at the 10-foot building line, but the roof will extend to the property line, which is a larger encroachment than otherwise allowed by ordinance.

Staff received comments in support and opposition to the variance request.

The applicant agreed to shift the patio toward Woodhead Street to the edge of the building farthest from single family residential properties without encroaching into the 15 by 15 foot visibility triangle.

The requested setback is consistent with other buildings in the area constructed prior to city ordinance building lines.

Because the proposed removal of head end parking and addition of sidewalks and landscaping areas are improvements to public safety in the pedestrian realm beyond what would otherwise be required by the proposed scope of work.

Staff recommendation is to approve the variance request.

Thank you.

I do have a speaker signed.

Shay Littlejohn.

State your name for the record, please.

Good afternoon to the Commission.

I'm Shay Littlejohn.

I am the owner and resident along with my husband Spencer Goolsby of 1928 Fairview, which is immediately across the street from this restaurant.

Ducky's Pizza and Tavern operates Sunday through Thursday from 11 a.m.

to midnight and on Friday and Saturdays until 1 a.m.

They feature a sports bar environment with amplified music, which generates noise and outdoor activities extending beyond their property line currently.

The noise is plainly audible inside our home late at night, even when the windows and doors are closed.

And in addition, vehicles are already idling nearby with music playing, and there is frequent ride shear activity, et cetera, as you would might expect.

We have reported disturbances on two occasions and left messages for management, receiving no response.

We remain concerned that future issues will go unaddressed.

This creates an instant, real-life potentially nightly impact for which we have no recourse.

The intensity of Ducky's late night operations in this with this expansion is incompatible with the quiet enjoyment of our homes in the immediate surrounding area.

The proposed additional seating and patio expansion will increase noise, traffic, and um other congestion in the area.

Right in front of our residents, potentially obstructing with all the parking visitors to our own home.

We purchased our home in reliance on the residential and mixed use character of the neighborhood and did not anticipate a seven-day per week late-night operation, such as a tavern going in.

That's the only restaurant on the block.

But we certainly need our rest and need to have the quiet enjoyment of our home so that we can it enjoy our home and enjoy our community.

So for these reasons, we respectfully request that the Commission deny this application.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

I do have them.

Yes.

Commissioner Garza.

Yes.

Excuse me.

Did you want to come up and speak?

Okay.

Did you want to have the question?

Yeah, let's go ahead and have the next speaker come up.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And if you could state your name for the record, please.

Okay.

So good afternoon.

My name is Juan Carlos Olavares, and I live in 2405 Morse Street.

I serve as an adult leader for Scout Troop 55.

I am missing my son's first varsity attendance matches to be here today because while their matches for one afternoon, this variance once recorded on the play is essentially perpetual.

I am also speaking for several neighbors, including Dr.

Stephen Spann, former founding dean of the University of Houston Medical School, who has submitted a formal letter of opposition based on documented health hazards this project creates.

The 10-foot setback is a mandatory city requirement, not a suggestion.

The applicant fails at Chapter 42 threshold for three reasons.

First, the developer identifies no physical defects of the land, such as a ravine or odd shape.

This is a structural choice, not a land hardship.

If wanting a bigger patio becomes a legal hardship, the ordinance effectively ceases to exist.

Second, the applicants claim that they need zero feet for pedestrian safety is a false choice.

They can remove the hazardous parking and build a compliant 10 foot structure with shade and landscaping.

They are choosing a zero-foot solely to maximize square footage at our expense.

Third, under the city code, better use meaning high revenue cannot be the sole justification for a variance.

Most critically, this project creates a documented health hazard.

As shown in the exhibit that submitted via email, sound travels vertically.

Placing an open-air sports bar at zero feet acts like a megaphone, funneling high volume noise directly into our upper windows, creating an umstract creating unstructed by any fence.

Dr.

Spann has testified that this encroachment would cause sleep disturbances, which are a documented risk factors for heart disease and diabetes.

A pedestrian friendly look for a bar does not justify heart health hazard for residents.

We are patrons of this business, but we cannot live with a sports bar in our bedroom.

We urge you to deny this request.

At a minimum, any relief must require a full masonry enclosure and a strict 10 p.m.

curfew.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that wishes to speak?

Okay.

Commissioner Garza, you had a question?

Yes.

This is for staff.

So, Mr.

Buckley, I want to make sure that I understand.

So this is a request for a building of a patio cover, correct?

Yes.

That's all.

The business is going to continue as it's.

We vote this down.

The business is going to continue as is, they simply will not build the patio cover.

Right.

They could also still build a patio, just not the cover.

Yes.

And I you went to my next point.

They can still build a patio, still do a five-foot sidewalk, still do everything else they want, and not build the cover.

Correct.

So really what we are voting on today is the cover.

We're not going to put them out of business or change them, uh, require them to stop everything at 10 p.m.

It's not.

I just want to make sure that everyone understands what we are voting on here.

So again, none of the things that you brought up, the noise, so once that does not fall under the purview of this commission.

What we are voting on today is whether or not they can put up that pergola uh over the building line, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

That's all I needed to know.

Thank you.

Commissioner Baldwin?

And I I want to be respectful to the audience.

I I live in this exact same scenario in Montrose, and I have loud music behind me and I report them to 311 on a very regular basis, and I'd love to see the noise ordinance improved.

But we do get something else.

We get the removal of that front-end parking, and they would not be required to do that same sidewalk or buffer without this variance.

So we're getting something.

Hopefully they'll be better neighbors and not play loud music at night or they'll go out of business and someone else will replace them.

But by having an active pedestrian realm, we do have a chance to slow down the traffic in that neighborhood, and we are getting what I think are safer features for people using that sidewalk, which people do on a very regular basis.

So I think we are getting something.

Commissioner Sigler.

Sorry if I missed this, but the parking that is going away, is that was that required?

Did they need that?

No, it's it's actually it was not allowed to be counted towards the ordinance parking requirement in the first place because it was partially in the right of way.

Okay, thank you.

Did you have something to do with the question?

Commissioner Carroll.

Adding the patio would seem to me to make uh adding the pergola, the patio can be added with or without.

Would seem to me to make the area more attractive to uh customers and clientele and therefore move the people out from the physical restaurant to the outside.

That's probably the intent.

So the noise would move from the inside of the restaurant to the outside.

It could be presumed.

How long has the business been in existence?

This particular restaurant, I believe, is relatively new, but I'd have to defer to the applicant.

Okay.

But it's been a restaurant site, I guess, for some time.

Retail for sure.

Okay.

Thank you.

I would just like to just ask the neighbors if they understand what Commissioner Garza said about the application is strictly for the awning.

And I think fellow commissioner was mentioning does the awning drive the foot traffic from inside the structure to the patio.

But this is strictly for the awning, which is something we grant quite regularly.

And we're getting something.

And I did ask if the neighbors knew.

So do they get a chance to come back to the project?

Okay, good.

Is he asking the question?

Yeah, if they understood.

Yes or no question.

Yes, we understand that that is the request.

But our issue is more of what Commissioner Carroll has described.

The purpose of the awning would be to bring that the tavern visitors out to the patio so that they could stand under it, which would then produce an exponentially amount more amount of noise than we are currently receiving up until 1 a.m.

Which is excessive.

Understand.

I am sorry, but you can't keep coming back, sir.

Sorry.

That was supposed to be a quick yes or no, but yeah, thank you.

Okay, Commissioners.

Any other questions or comments?

Legal, did you excuse me?

Yes.

Did you want to weigh in?

I'm sorry.

You are absolutely correct.

The purview of this this commission is to rule on the cover.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Anyone else that would like to speak on the item that hasn't spoken?

Okay.

So, Commissioners, you have a recommendation in front of you to approve the pergola.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

FAM second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Who's in a Heinz and Carroll?

And Porspertle.

Oh.

Oh, and I'm sorry.

Naranjo.

I forgot that.

Okay.

So four out of 15 to 11.

12, it passes.

Okay, yes, that's correct.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving along to remnant numeral.

Oh, excuse me, I got to do the public hearings.

Hold on one sec.

Yeah, public hearings are next.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

So remember numeral two, establish a public hearing.

A hearing date of March 19th, 2026 for the following.

Craig Woods, partial replat number 41.

Estates at Brinkley.

Greenwood Edition, partial replat number one.

Isabella Vista, Morton Creek Ranch, Section 16, replat number one and extension.

Palaeus at Belafonte, Belafontaine, and Ventana Lakes East Drill Site Park.

Do I have a motion?

Motion highish?

Second.

Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Remember numeral three.

Consideration of an off-street parking variants at 3520 and 3616 Center Street.

Roman numeral three is 3520 and 3616 Center Street.

The site is north of Washington Avenue and east of Heights Boulevard at the northeast and northwest corners of Harvard Street and Center Street.

The applicant is proposing a new multifamily development connected by a sky bridge with on-site garage parking as well as street improvements, including on-street parking, public on-street parking, and pedestrian paths.

By ordinance, the project requires 350 parking spaces after a 10 percent bicycle parking reduction.

The applicant is requesting to provide 311 parking spaces, a variance of roughly 11 percent from the ordinance requirement.

Staff has received a number of comments opposing and supporting this request.

Staff recommendation is to defer the application for further study and review, and to allow the item to be considered alongside a related subdivision platform variance that will be on the agenda for the next meeting.

Thank you.

I do have speakers, and I just want to let you all know that if this gets deferred today, it will come back on the next commission plan uh agenda.

But you will be allowed to speak if you'd like to.

So I'll start calling your names.

Our first speaker is Michael Pittman.

Thank you for your time.

My name is Michael Pittman.

I am from a restaurant called Star Pizza.

We are across the street from the multifamily project that is being proposed.

All we are really looking to figure out as neighbors, we know it's going to get built.

They had originally planned for retail on the first floor in speaking with the builder.

I think that has been removed from the project.

At least that's what they have told us.

We want to make sure that that's still correct.

And to see if there is any other precedent for within the neighborhood, I guess within the neighborhood or within a mile, maybe of a reduction of this amount.

Because the original the paperwork and the variants is very confusing.

It states there's 374 spaces required.

They're looking to get to 311, which is 20 percent.

If there's been a 20 percent reduction for a multifamily build like this in the neighborhood or somewhere near there, which there are quite a few, uh, we would just like to know where that was or where that is and if it was uh approved or denied.

And that's really all we have.

We are for the project.

We would love to have new neighbors.

Um, but that's really all that we're looking for.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Buckley, when we're done, maybe you can help us respond to these questions.

Okay, our next speaker, and I hope I don't butcher your name, Lewis Rafa La Rotha.

Correct me, please.

I know I got it wrong.

Yes, uh, it's Lewis uh pardon me, La Rota.

Uh I'm here also speaking in support of responsible development, but again, the variance request.

Our concern is safety uh and also the infrastructure capacity, as well as applying a consistent standard across the board.

Um already along some of those roadways, notably around like Harvard Street, we're seeing that as the city's expanded uh walkways, we have reduced parking.

It's creating tightened public parking areas and lane flexibility.

Uh that's to the north side of the development.

Um the compounding reduction effect shifts all that demand back onto the street, which, as we said, is already constrained.

So that's our concern.

Um when we see vehicles park along Harvard, those two cars can barely fit.

I've had my car personally hit a few times.

And heaven forbid there should be an emergency vehicle coming through E second because then it would be a one-way street and you can't even turn a large truck.

So that is our concern, and we want to make sure that those uh those voices are being felt.

I I live in the neighborhood, so I've seen the development, but it it proposes significant risk to public safety.

And um that's all that I would consider, and I would also ask to respectfully ask whether a full occupancy and fire access and traffic impact analysis have been conducted under a no additional parking scenario.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Commissioners.

Any questions?

Okay.

Our next speaker is Kevin Strickland.

Hello, I'm Kevin Strickland, founder of Walk and Roll Houston, a nonprofit working to create a city where Houstonians can walk and roll safely and easily as we need.

People do not own street parking near their houses or around the corner.

Star Pizza does not own street parking for its customers who decide to not use their parking lot.

A few nearby property owners do not control streets, which belong to all of us.

Houston has three areas where parking minimums have already been removed.

There's nothing special about the center corridor which says it should have parking minimums.

If you've been through this area, I bike through it a couple of times a week, and I literally biked past it on my way here.

The whole area is rapidly densifying.

Parking minimums for the whole corridor should be removed.

In a hyper capitalist city like Houston, parking minimums or socialism.

The developer has carefully considered the amount of parking it needs.

Neither the residents or Star Pizza have the expertise to second guess them.

The commission should also not second guess the their analysis by simply denying the variants.

In a much better version of Houston, the Commission and Public Works would coordinate to actually plan and build traffic harming improvements as these projects are approved.

But here we are.

The project in and of itself does not create dangerous parking.

You cannot parse out a one bad actor.

Enforcement and signage does not prevent people from parking to the corner.

The solution to the dangerous parking that the residents claim, which happens all along this corridor, is daylighting.

I'll be back to probably pretty much repeat the same thing.

I hope you approve the variance at the second meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the last speaker I have signed to speak is Ruben Garza.

Hello, Commission.

My name is Ruben Garza.

I am a local chapter lead for Strong Towns Houston, which is the Houston chapter of the National Nonprofit Strong Towns.

And on behalf of our organization, we'd like to offer our full support uh full support in favor of this variance.

Um as far as the numbers are concerned, you know, this is approximately a 17% reduction in the parking requirement, which is roughly about 1.25 parking spaces per uh per unit, assuming a 90 percent occupancy.

So, you know, there there will be parking provided.

I want to make that very clear.

Um, you know, parking mandates uh stifle the creation of homes and businesses.

Land for city mandated parking means less land for housing and economic development.

Uh the developer in question should not have to sacrifice housing for parking.

Uh you know, mandating also hurts uh exating excess parking also hurts uh Houstonians financially per research from Strong Towns National and the parking reform network.

Every $10,000 in construction costs uh associated with parking leads to a roughly $10 increase in rent.

And the parking reform network further found that $200 to $500 in increases in rent are attributable to parking construction costs.

If the planning commission is very serious about supporting housing affordability in the city of Houston, it should uh approve and preferably not defer this variance request.

Uh I also understand that there are some concerns about uh about the street parking, and we've heard some of the concerns from the neighbors.

But there are other ways to mitigate any of these concerns if they materialize.

I don't think they will, because cities have repealed uh parking mandates around the country, and the sky has not fallen.

Austin is a classic example, as is Buffalo, New York, and San Jose, California.

Uh but again, these perceived any perceived risk by the neighbors are not uh solved by shrinking the housing supply in favor of the parking supply.

You know, as far as uh parking concerns, uh there are effective tools to mitigate uh on-street parking concerns, such as metering and parking benefits districts, and as my colleague uh and my friend Kevin Strickland said, you can use daylighting and traffic improvements to handle any sort of the safety risks.

And I know that we're not gonna be able to do that.

We need you to wrap up really quickly.

All right, cool.

We have competing petitions and the ones in favor of the variants outweigh the ones against the variants.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

Okay, Mr.

Buckley?

There are a lot of things brought up that I think you need to address.

Um bottom floor is going to be retail.

We don't have any control over that.

Um we don't even really see their plans.

We'll see their site plans.

Sometimes they'll provide us with plans, but correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not something that at this stage we'd have.

In this case, I mean it's a project that is in permitting, so we do have a full plan set.

The current proposal does not include any retail use.

Okay.

So the permit that's the permit application that's submitted does not have retail on the bottom.

Right.

Okay.

Um there any other multifamily uh projects in the area with the same reduced parking.

If we can answer that without study, but yeah, I would have to further research that.

But yes, I believe the answer is yes.

Yeah.

State law changed.

Yes.

No.

Can I just ask one question?

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, we approved this before, so what is the difference from the one we approved before?

I mean, we have approved this apartment complex, but that's Skybridge.

There's some additional information that staff needs to finalize.

Oh, I know, but the difference between what we approved before.

Right.

Yeah.

The Sky Bridge was a building line variance.

This is parking.

This is parking.

Just they now they just want to reduce the parking from what they had before.

Right.

And nothing else changed.

Be another variance related to a building line on the next planning commission agenda, which is really the primary reason why we're deferring.

Okay.

You want to put it all together in next commission meeting?

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Um you might still want to talk with the neighbors, because I know there were questions about studies that were done.

We don't do TIAs at this level.

So maybe you and Mr.

Brown from Public Works could get with them afterwards and talk through some other questions.

Yeah.

Okay.

So commissioners, you have a recommendation of deferral.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Baldwin.

Motion Baldwin.

Second Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

We don't need to do we uh we do need to do that.

We did that.

No.

Four, yes.

Establish a public hearing date of March 5th, 2026 for a proposed expansion to the existing Texas Medical Center special parking area.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Victor Second Sigler, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

We do not need to do item five because Commissioner Pierce is here.

Do we have anyone here for public comments?

Hearing none.

I will close this, adjourn this at 3.20 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.