The Houston Planning Commission and I'm calling this meeting to order at 2 32 p.m.

on Thursday, March 5th, 2026.

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

You may also monitor the meeting by viewing the HTV.

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

Consent and repeat speakers are allowed for one minute.

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 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 allowed allotted to another speaker.

To establish a quorum that we have 11 members present, I will call the roll.

Chair Clark is here.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Commissioner Brooke, Ballard, excuse me.

Present.

Commissioner Carroll.

Commissioner Hines.

Present.

Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Morris is not here.

Commissioner Naranho.

Present.

Sorry about that.

Commissioner Pham.

Present.

Commissioner Pierce.

Present.

Commissioner Shepard?

Present.

Commissioner Sarim.

Present.

Commissioner Sigler.

Present.

Commissioner Sykes.

Not here.

Commissioner Victor.

And Secretary Von Tran.

Here.

One, two, three, four, not seven.

Fifteen.

Commissioner Porce Pertle.

Present.

Okay.

So we do have a quorum.

We have 15 members present.

We need 11 for a quorum.

Thank you.

Before we get started, I do want to let you know that there are two items that have been withdrawn.

Items 73, Charles Mont Homes, and 86, McAlpine Terraces, both have been withdrawn and will not be presented today, and no action will be taken.

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

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

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

I have two announcements today.

The planning and development department is conducting a plot tracker user survey to collect suggestions, report issues, and identify opportunities for improvement.

The survey will continue to be available through this month.

Your feedback is valuable and will help improve the overall plot tracker user experience.

The link to the survey is available from the planning department's homepage.

The other announcement is that we will be holding the Planning Commission training session on Thursday, March the 26th at noon.

The location will be at 611 Walker in the Johnny Rea Conference Room.

We will be sending out emails to all commissioners so that we can go ahead and get a survey of what you guys would like to have for lunch.

With that said, I have no other news.

In closing, the planning and development department can be reached at 832-393-60 6600, or you can call Development Services of the Day or Planner of the Day at 832-393-6624.

Our website is Houston Planning.com.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Tran.

I also wanted to let everyone know on item reminder numeral three on the agenda, consideration of an off-street parking variance for uh 3520 and 3616 Center Street.

There is not a variance that's required for this based on the state law that I think took effect what last year?

Um oh two A2A.

That's confusing, I know, but that's the state law.

And they require only one parking space per unit.

So our ordinance says 1.2, but state law overrides what our ordinance says.

So they meet the one parking space per unit, so this item will not be heard today.

There will be no further action taken.

I do have speakers signed.

We're we're happy to hear your comments if you still want to share them, but again, we're not taking any action on that item as there's no variance that's required.

Okay.

Very good.

So now we'll move along to remind numero one plating activity.

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

My name is Akila Bidgee.

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

Sections A and B are items one through 71.

Section A consent items are numbers one through 37, and Section B replat items are numbers 38 through 71.

No items need to be taken out of order.

There are no changes to staff recommendations.

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

Thank you.

I think we have some uh recusals.

Uh Commissioner Shepard.

Yes.

Um I have numbers two, four, twelve, forty-one, forty-two, and forty-six.

Thank you.

Are there any others?

Okay.

So I need a motion, save and accept items two, four, twelve, forty-one, forty-two, and forty-six.

Motion Victor.

Second fam, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Please note uh Commissioner Montepaca joined us.

Thank you.

Okay, now I need a motion for items two, four, twelve, forty-one, forty-two, and forty-six.

Motion pours purple.

Second Hines.

Second Hines, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

All right.

Moving on.

Excuse me, we have to take the approval of the minutes.

Oh, yeah, I did skip that.

Thank you.

That would be good.

So we had in our packet the minutes for the meeting of February 19th, 2026.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Ballard.

Motion Ballard.

Second Victor, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you for that catch.

Now we're going to move along.

To see public hearings.

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

Item number 72.

I'm sorry.

Good afternoon, members.

Madam Chair and members of the planning commission.

My name is Dorian Poeflam.

Item number 72 is Broad Oaks Reserve.

The site is in use in corporate limits, west along East Broad Oaks Broad Drive, south of Briar Drive, east of Chimney Rock Drive, and off of Woodway Drive.

The reason for replat is to create 21 single family residential lots and one parking reserve.

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

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

There are no variants requested with this item.

Staff's recommendation is to defer the plat for Chapter 42 planning standards.

Staff has received advanced comments for this item concerning traffic impacts, density, parking, and drainage issues.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 72 is open.

I have uh the applicant here, Julianne Coyne and David White.

Did you all want to speak or just be here for questions?

We're here for questions.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

Thank you.

So I'm going to continue the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Sigler.

Motion Sigler.

Second Pierce.

Second Pierce, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving to item 73 is withdrawn.

74.

Item 74 is Frick Road Reserves.

The site is in Houston Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in Harris County, Texas, north along Fallbrook Drive and west of Veterans Memorial Drive.

The reason for reply is to create an unrestricted reserve and a reserve restricted to drainage and detention.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 0.0537 acre compensated open space reserve to be replatted into an unrestricted reserve.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a replat of a 0.0537 acres reserve.

Also it's 2,341 square foot of compensated open space reserve.

That was created with the Forest Woods Section 2 subdivision in 1999.

And two commercial reserves created with Aranda's estates at North Side Subdivision, recorded in 2011.

In 1999, when the Forest Woods subdivision with the Forest Woods subdivision was created.

With the original Forest Woods subdivision, 9,068 square feet of Compensable Space was provided.

The replat will only remove a small portion of the reserve that's the of the compensated open space re common space that is required.

They will only remove 2,341 square feet of compensated open space.

And 6,717 square feet of common sale space will remain for the subdivision.

The Compo Open Space Reserve is located north of the Forest Woods subdivision and adjacent to major thoroughfare for all Brook Drive.

The replet of the reserve will have no impact or little to no impacts to the compensated open spec open space required for this subdivision, and its location is conducive commercial development.

Harris County Engineers Office has no objections to the request.

Legal indicates that this plat would not violate restrictions.

File separately.

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

Thank you.

I'm opening the public hearing for item 74.

I do have two applicants.

Do you guys want to speak or do you hear for questions?

Okay, thank you, Ms.

Hodges.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

So I'm gonna close I have no one else to sign else sign to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Monday.

Motion Mandapaka.

Second porse purdle.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 75.

Item 75 is Fuel Depot Sophomore.

The site is a use and corporate limits at the southwest intersection of Live Oak Street and South Moor Boulevard.

There are no re there are no various, I'm sorry, requested with this item.

Legal is uh continually to review the item.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

Staff has received advanced comments concerning deed restrictions and the proposed use of the property.

Staff's recommendation is to defer the plat per the council members' request.

Councilmember Carolyn uh Shabazz had requested that this item be deferred, and so uh staff's recommendations to defer the item for her request.

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 75 is open.

I do have a speaker signed.

Mr.

John May.

Good afternoon, Mr.

May.

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

Good afternoon.

My name is John May.

I live at 2420 Rosedale Street, which is about a three-minute walk from the proposed replat.

I'm a realist and I have serious doubts if there's any legal reason you can stop this replat.

But it's an opportunity to state my opinion.

We have multiple convenience stores within a five-minute walk of this location.

And the thing I notice most about them is every one of them has three or four gambling machines.

Maybe they're eight-liners.

I've never played these things.

But you walk in those places and there'll be two or three people there playing on a game.

And I've never inquired how they get their money, but I know they do.

So I am concerned that that won't be helpful.

Also, uh it's across the street from a strip center that hasn't been able to stay full since it was built about 12 years ago.

I believe that if this replat is allowed, these folks are going to make a lousy business decision.

Everybody has a right to make a living, and everyone has a right to invest their money.

But this is a poor decision.

I feel confident.

And they won't make much money and will end up with a blighted lot.

That's all I had.

We appreciate you coming in, Mr.

May.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone anyone else that wishes to speak on item 75?

Yes, please come forward.

You can come on up, just state your name for the record.

Okay.

My name is Mary Quinlan and I live over on 2707 Ravisdale.

I've been in the neighborhood about 12 years.

It's a beautiful neighborhood.

We do not need to destroy it with another gas station.

Um gas stations are there all over.

There's three within what a quarter of a mile, two on the other side of 288, and one on this side.

But the thing that really hits me the most is when I'm in Houston, I try to ride a bike.

I ride a bike down here today.

Um, and I go that way frequently.

And from about three in the afternoon to six in the evening, there's a lot of traffic on live oak, and live oak is not a wide street.

This is a it's accidents waiting to happen.

You put a gas station there.

I'm not a civil engineer.

But I and I don't know if any of you are here, but I think anybody could see that has a lick of sense that this is a dangerous, dangerous intersection.

And I could go on and on.

I think I'm limited in time.

Um environmentally unfriendly, totally environmentally unfriendly.

We need to start thinking of our environment.

Um gas stations uh bring a lot of toxins with them, underlying tanks and all sorts of lines and so forth and so on.

And more than anything, it's a neighborhood.

It's a neighborhood with beautiful old houses and families and children and children walking to school and so forth or getting exercise, and it's just about the worst corner you could think of to build a gas station.

Please, please stop this.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Thank you so much for coming in and sharing your comments.

Is there anyone else that wishes to speak?

Okay.

Hearing none, I'm going to continue the public hearing for item 75.

There's a recommendation recommendation for deferral.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Baldwin.

Motion Baldwin.

Second Jones, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 76.

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

My name is Ken Calhoun.

Item 76 is HOB Homes on Alvin.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits, north along Alvin Street, between Edgar and Duane.

The purpose of the replat is to create two single-family lots and a flag lot configuration.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 76 is open.

I have the applicant here to speak.

Mr.

Espinoza, did you want to speak or did you just want to be here for questions?

Okay, thank you.

Commissioners, if there's no questions, I'm going to continue the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion pours purdle.

Second, sir.

Second sirem.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 77.

Item 77 is HOB homes on characters.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits, north along Caracter Street between Darien and Elbert.

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

There are no advances 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.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 77 is open.

Again, Mr.

Espinoza, just here for questions.

Okay.

Commissioners, if there's no questions, I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Second Hines.

Motion Jones, second Hines, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 78.

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

My name is Araceli Rodriguez.

Item 78, HLB home on Lower Cook Reaplet number one.

The site is located in the city limit west of Homestead Road and South of Keatwell Road.

The purpose of the REPLA is to create four single family lots.

No variants are being requested with this item.

The applicant has met all the notification requirement.

So that recommendation is to defer the flat per the applicant request.

Madam Chair, is the pleasure of the Commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 78 is open.

Commissioners, if you have questions, Mr.

Espinoza is here.

If not, I will continue the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion bald one, second Sigler.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 79.

Item 797.

HLB home on Sprindale.

The site is located in the city limit east of Homestead Road and south of Keatwell Road.

The purpose of the VEPLA is to create three single single family lot with a flag block design out of one lot.

No variances are being requested with this item.

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

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

Madam Chair, it's the pleasure of the Commission, you may open the public hand for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 79 is open.

I have no one but the applicant signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

All right.

Commissioners, I'm gonna ask if you have any questions.

Okay, very good.

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

Motion, fam.

Second ballard.

Second ballard, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 80.

Item 80.

HLB home on Springdale Estates.

The site is located in the city limit east of Home Town and South of Keywheel Road.

The purpose of the replay is to create two single family lots out of one lot.

No advances are being requested with this item.

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

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

Madam Chair, it is the pleasure of the Commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 80 is open.

Is there anyone that wishes to speak on this item?

Mr.

Espinoza, I know you just want questions.

So Commissioners, if there are no questions, I am going to proceed and close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Jones, second porse purle.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 81.

Item 81 is OB home on Toshstone.

The site is located in the city limit east of Homestead Road and thought of T Well Road.

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

No advances are being are being requested with this item.

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

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

Madam Chair, it is the please of the Commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 81 is open.

I have uh the applicant here just for questions.

Do you have anyone else that wishes to speak on this item?

Okay.

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

Motion fam.

Second Hines.

Second Hines.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 82.

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

My name is John Phillips.

Item 82 is HLB homes on Weyburn.

The subject site is nearly 9100 square foot property located in the Houston City limits at the southwest intersection of Weyburn Street and Obert Street, east of Homestead Road and north of Lay Road.

The applicant is proposing three front loading single family residential lots.

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

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

This is a replat of lot 362 of Rosewood Estates, Section 2.

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

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

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 82 is open.

Again, I have the applicant here.

If we have questions, uh is there anyone else that wishes to speak on item 82?

Okay.

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

Motion Victor.

Second fam, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 83.

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

My name is Devin Critdle.

Item 83 is Kelvin Park.

The sites located within Houston City limits at the northeast intersection of Roxton Road and Kelvin Drive.

The purpose of the replat is create four single family lots along a shared driveway.

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

Staff's recommendation is to approve the plat subject to the 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 83 is open.

I only have the applicants here to answer questions.

Is there anyone else that wishes to speak?

Okay.

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

Motion Sigler, second Jones.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 83.

Four.

Item 84 is Kingsbury Villas.

The site is also located within Houston City limits, uh, south of Griggs Road and north along Kingsbury Lane.

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

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

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

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 84 is open.

I have uh speaker Jessica McBride.

Good afternoon.

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

Uh hold on, I wrote some things down.

Um hi, my name is Jessica McBride.

Um I live at 4611 Kingsbury, so the sh the home next door to the uh proposed plot.

And I'm writing uh formally to propose to oppose that uh plot request uh for the two single family um plots.

Uh my primary concern is is drainage and flooding.

So I did send in pictures.

I don't know who got that, but portion of Kingsbury Drive from 2619 all the way to the end of the stop sign.

Uh it rains, I mean just the lightest rain, all the way to, of course, you know, the major hurricanes and things that we have.

It is flooding in all backyards and even in the front main street that comes all the way through, you know, to everyone's home.

And um there's no formal drainage, there's no ditching.

Um so my concern is that adding these additional plots, additional driveways, roofs, coverings is gonna directly affect my property first, but then everybody else on the street as far as how it's going to drain underneath our homes.

A lot of us have the brick um stilt homes, and so of course our foundation concerns, elevation and all of that are also at risk to where I don't know how far back or what will be covered as far as the plot, but all of that additional water will run right into my backyard into the neighbors' backyards.

Also, just the integrity of the neighborhood is really important.

This street has people that have been living in for 50 years.

I'm going on the sixth year.

I'm the youngest resident, you know, buying as a University of Houston and graduate in my own community.

And there's people 20 years, 10 years, families, and so you know, a two-story two plot right in the middle of this street really doesn't keep the integrity of the neighborhood there.

Um it's a very tight street.

We already, you know, balance out to go inside of um the space to park and traffic, and that'd be a major blockage as well.

So I oppose at this time.

Thank you.

Um just to let you know, flooding, drainage, traffic, all of that is not handled by this body, but we have a representative, Mr.

John Brown, in the back here, and he'll be more than happy to talk to you and uh tell you where this goes from here if it passes.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

Okay.

Do I have anyone else that would like to speak on item 84?

All right.

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

Anybody?

Motion bob.

Second Sigler, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Chair.

Yes.

Could also someone from staff maybe please um get with the person who just spoke and explain or maybe get their number.

It might be too much to do right now, but explain prevailing lot and prevailing um building line and just that process to them.

Yeah.

Mr.

Brown, you could probably get her get them in touch with Misty for us.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Sigler, for bringing that up.

Thank you.

All right.

Item 85.

Yes, ma'am.

Uh item 85 is Mariner Mariner Heights.

Uh, the site is located within Houston City limits, uh, east of TC Jester and north of Larkin Street and south of Darling Street.

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

There are no variances being requested with this item.

Uh legal has determined that one of the three lots from the original plat is still restricted to single family use, putting this plat in violation of separately filed deed restrictions.

The applicant has requested a deferral to either modify the plat boundary to remove this lot from the plat or to amend the deed restrictions.

Uh staff's recommendation is to defer the plat per the applicant's request.

You may excuse me, you may open the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

I'll open the public hearing for item 85.

I do not have anyone signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Hearing none.

I'm gonna close the no.

I'm going to continue the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion pours purple.

FAM second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 86 is withdrawn, so item 87.

Item 87, many bookstore and restroom.

The site is located in the city limit south of West Timer Road.

The purpose of the replat is to create one unrestricted resure out of one lot and one unrestricted resure.

The applicant requested a variant to section 42-193 to allow the replat of the single family lot into an unrestricted reserve.

The menu bookstore currently operates on reserve B of the menu replat number one.

Next to lot 7.

And the applicant plan to continue the 16 use.

The proposed replot will allow the expanding the reserve to provide additional restroom facility at the north end of lot 7 to service the existing bookstore.

Also, the entire recorder subdivision is held by a separate legal entity, all within the menu umbrella.

So a variant will not be required if a full replat were pursued, and granting the variant would not avertly change the character of the block.

The applicant has met all the notification requirements, and no public comment in event has been received.

Per legal, the proposed replat will not violate applicable restriction, and staff recommendation is to grant the requested variant and approve the plates to the CPC101 form condition.

Madam Chair, it is to please the Commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 87 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing and speak.

Seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Ballard.

Motion Ballard, second Baldwin.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 88.

Item 88 is Milwaukee Village.

The site is in use and corporate limits, south along Boykins Road, east of Roberts Road.

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

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

There are no variants requested with this item.

Staff's recommendation is to disapprove the plat.

The applicant failed to comply with the notification requirements of Chapter 42 and local government code 212.015 and posted the wrong public hearing date on the sign and in the newspaper.

Staff has not received any advanced comments for this item.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 88 is open.

I have no one 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 Jones.

Second Shepherd, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 89.

Item 89.

Montgomery Enclave.

The site is located in Houston ETJ in Montgomery County, east of U.S.

59.

The purpose with the Wii plat is to create two single-family residential lots.

No advances are being requested with this item.

The applicant has met all the notification requirements.

Per legal, the proposal replat will violate the applicable restriction.

The lot cannot be further subdivided.

So the applicant has requested a second deferral to allow time to coordinate with legal.

The step recommendation is to defer the plat per the applicant's request.

Madam Chair, is the pleasure to the commission.

Commission, you may continue the public hand for this item at this time.

We're both a little bit tongue-tied today, aren't we?

Okay, so I'm going to continue the public hearing for hearing for item 89.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

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

Motion balling.

Second Hines.

Second Hines.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 90.

Item 9 is park at Oak Forest replat number 1.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits, south along Juneway Street, east of Ella Boulevard, west of Gulf Drive.

The reason for replat is to create 50 lots and 10 reserves.

There are no variants requested with this item.

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

Staff's recommendation.

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

Staff has received advanced comments for this item.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 90 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Yes, please please come forward, sir.

Welcome if you would just state your name for the record.

My name is Steve Netemeyer.

I didn't understand how this process worked, but I did submit uh comments via email in advance.

And um I don't have a problem with the general direction of you know the creating these these 50 lots.

Uh what I do have a problem with is the infrastructure in the in the immediate area, which I think is inadequate to handle the additional load of 50 new homes, which will contribute to the traffic.

So now I understand from a previous uh comment that this committee doesn't address those issues, so I would like to be connected with whoever that is in the touch with Mr.

Brown.

And so just to clarify what we do.

We are just platts.

We are the very first stage.

Um it does it they can get their plat done, but it has to go to public works for permitting, and and that's where they handle detention and you know traffic and anything that's you know required for permitting before they can construct.

Okay.

Okay, so Mr.

Brown, I think stepped outside.

Yes.

Um Tammy, would you mind getting this gentleman over to John for me, please?

So if you have further comments, go ahead and finish up.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate it.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on item 90?

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

Motion Pierce.

Motion Pierce.

Second Jones, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 91.

Item 91 is Spring Branch Estates No.

Partial Replat 19.

The subject site has over 20,000 square foot property located in the Houston City limits, south along North Allegro Street, south of Hammerley Boulevard, and east of Blaylock Road.

The applicant is proposing two large single-family residential lots ranging from 9,500 square feet to one thousand eleven thousand square feet.

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

And staff has not received any advanced comments regarding this application.

This is a replat of lot two of block 17 of Spring Branch Estates No.

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

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

Thank you.

I'll open the public hearing for item 91.

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 Victor.

Second.

Second serum.

I think that's who I heard first.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 92 is Whispering Pines Estates, partial reply number 14.

The subject site is an over 26,000 square foot property located in the Houston City limits at the southwest intersection of Flowerdale Drive and Woodvine Drive, north of Westview Drive and west of Anchuan Drive.

The applicant is proposing two large single family.

I'm sorry, it's proposing one single family lot.

This is a replat of lot 30, block 6 of Whispring Pines Estates with the intent solely to reduce the existing building line from 30 to the 1019 formation before you today.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 92 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Shepherd.

Second peer.

Second Pierce.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 93.

Item 93 is White Oak Terrace Estates replat number one.

The subject site is a nearly 20,000 square foot property located in the Houston City limits, east along TC Jester, south of Little York.

The applicant is proposing five single family residential lots and three reserves along an 18-foot wide chair driveway.

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

Staff has not received any advanced comments regarding the application.

This is a full replat of White Oak Terrace Estates with the intent to increase the dwelling unit density.

SAP recommendation is to approve the plat subject to CPC 101 from conditions.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 93 is open.

I do have a speaker, Mr.

Craig Andres.

Andres.

Good afternoon.

Good noon everyone.

My name is Craig Andrus.

I live in that area.

But since I've been here, I've listened to you guys speak about what you guys do exactly.

So I'll have to meet with Mr.

Brown.

Because my concern is flooding.

So I think Mr.

Brown is still in the hallway, so yes.

He's a busy man today.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate you coming in.

Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on item 93?

Okay.

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

Motion Jones.

Second.

Ballard, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving along to D, subdivision flats with variance requests.

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

My name is Jeff Butler.

Item 94 is gooseby.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limit north of Beltway 8 and east of the East Tex Freeway.

The applicant proposes a reserve for a warehouse development.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for excessive intersection spacing by not extending a north-south street through the site.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is located along Old Umble to the east of an active railroad line.

The railroad qualifies for a street exception, so no east-west street is required along this track.

The site is to the south of an existing industrial site, which would limit future street extension to the north.

The applicant proposes three new warehouses and detention on the site and have asserted that a north-south street at this location would be impractical.

The surrounding block features mostly industrial uses on large tracks with direct access to the abutting thoroughfares.

This diminishes the need for internal circulation through new local streets.

Multiple intersection spacing variances have been granted along the east side of Old Umble for similar reasons.

Staff finds the request to be uh the requested variance to be a practical alternative to strict interpretation of the ordinance recommends approval.

We have received no advanced written comment on this item, but I believe there is someone here to speak about it.

Thank you.

Yes, I do have one speaker signed.

Junius Landry.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Junius Landry.

I would like to say good evening to all of the council.

I received this fantastic little card in the mail that told me my 17,900 square foot lot was put in the zone of this proposal.

The reason I wanted to come to you and tell you that I support the city's recommendation to put a street through this track.

I strongly encourage you to do that because I have acquired this property in 2019, and I have had terrible neighbors on the side of me that have nine and ten acre tracks.

That when I went in after I acquired the property, I went in to section off my property.

Somebody had put a fence across the area and made it look like it was just a wooded area.

There is actually a road, a dirty road that runs through this property at about 150 to 200 feet down from it.

There's a road called Manor Way.

On this dirt road, there is a sign that says manor way for the street sign.

I walked it with a realtor friend of mine, and also, by the way, I'm a licensed realtor, a general contractor, and a general real estate investor.

We walked this property.

Manor Way makes a U all the way back out to the main street.

So there's two ways out of Manor Way.

If you walk down the manor way that they had fenced off their abandoned houses, their abandoned metal buildings, there were abandoned cars.

That and their houses, you can see that people live there.

So this was a viable way for people to travel prior to it being shut off by somebody using a fence.

So again, I am here to tell you I strongly encourage you.

I strongly support your decision to put a road through there.

Go ahead and wrap up.

You can wrap up real quickly.

We won't cut you off.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you so much for coming in.

Yes.

Mr.

Butler, I don't know if you can address any of that to help us maybe understand a little better.

Sure.

Just to clarify the recommendation is to approve the request to not put a street through the site.

So there if this is if our recommendation is supported or accepted, then there would be no street near.

I believe Manor Way is part of a sub an older subdivision to the south of this along the Beltway feeder, and there are no stubs that point northward.

Are you talking about the lots down there on Beltway 8?

Correct.

Okay, that makes sense.

I think there is a restaurant there now, but there is no residential tracks that I could find.

But it's it's internal.

It wouldn't directly affect this property.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions?

Okay.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Uh you have a recommendation to grant the requested variants and approve the plat.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Heinz.

Motion Heinz.

Second Baldwin.

Second Baldwin.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 95.

Item 95 is Iglesia Apostales y Profetas Libres.

This item was deferred at the previous meeting.

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

Route 90, north of Oram and East of Fondron.

The applicant proposes a reserve for church and related uses.

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

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is located along a 30-foot access easement connecting the site with Zavala Street.

The easement contains a variable with paving of approximately 20 feet at its narrowest point.

The access road hasn't existed since the 1970s, and the site was initially developed in 2008.

The applicant has since added to the church building to its current footprint of approximately 7,000 square feet plus parking.

The app is required to plat in order to meet the current permitting requirements.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the current access to serve in lieu of a 60-foot public street.

Meeting the ordinance requirement in this case would impose significant burden on the applicant, as it would require dedication and coordination with multiple property owners.

The app is required by fire code to maintain and upgrade the existing access road to enable adequate emergency service access.

With this requirement, staff finds the variance to be safe, a safe and practical alternative to strict interpretation of the ordinance and recommends approval.

And we have received no advance written comment.

Thank you.

I have the applicant here for questions.

Commissioners, you have any questions?

Okay.

Mr.

Espinoza, you don't have anything to say.

Okay.

Thank you.

I don't want to skip you over.

I know I keep calling on you, and I know you are just here for questions, but I don't want to skip you.

So, Commissioners, item 95, we have a recommendation to grant the requested variants.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Ballard.

Motion Ballard.

Second Carroll.

Second Carroll.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 96.

Item 96 is Kirkendall Village Section 2.

This application was recently granted a 30-day extension.

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

Staff is in support of these requests.

The site is located along Kirkendall between two proposed collector streets, Klein Oak Lane and Lindsey 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 their property to front two reserves at the northern side of the tract.

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

The easements will provide adequate access to the site until the abutting tracks are developed to complete the collector system.

The appan has coordinated with Harris County to assist assist with the development of Lindsay Road where it abuts a future second point of access.

The append has also agreed to improvements along Kirkendall that will ensure safe movement of vehicles along the major thoroughfare.

Harris County has expressed no objection, and staff recommends granting the variances in approving the plat for the CPC-101 form conditions.

Thank you.

Commissioners, I know you were following along on your iPads.

It was not on the screen, so I didn't know if you all had any questions because of that or Okay.

I have the applicant here.

Mr.

Youngblood, did you want to speak or just here for questions?

Thank you.

Okay.

That's the only speaker I had signed up.

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

Do I have a motion?

Motion Sigler.

Second, Mondopaca.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 97.

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

My name is Tammy Williamson.

Item 97 is Paragon Place.

This item has been deferred twice, so must be acted on today.

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 Elmgrove Road or terminate in an cul-de-sac, and two to allow for the partial replatting of residential restricted lots into a use not prescribed by the ordinance.

Staff is in support of the requests.

The area within the plat boundary is a collection of acreage tracks and two recorded subdivisions.

The two recorded subdivisions, Middlebrook Place, platted in 1974, and JD Brunson estate, platted in 1991, both have restrictions on the face of the plat, limiting the platted lots to residential purposes.

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

A 193 variant is required to replat lots with a platted residential or single family residential restriction into something other than the land uses specifically listed in the ordinance.

Landscape park, recreation, drainage, or open space.

And the proposed replat is not a full replat of the previous subdivision.

The purpose of this ordinance section is to ensure lot owners who purchase the property with the understanding that their subdivision would maintain its character as restricted by plat.

Staff is in support of the request because the only portion of the recorded subdivisions to remain are dedicated right of way.

All platted lots with the residential restriction are being replatted into this proposed subdivision.

The other variance is for excessive intersection spacing and terminating a stub street without means of a turnaround.

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

From route road to the next nearest east-west through street is Dovershire Road on the north side of Willow Creek.

The Northampton General Plan was approved in 1967 with multiple stub streets on all sides of the development due to its placement mid-lock along Route Road as required by the ordinance.

Over time, the Northampton sections were recorded in addition to other residential developments connecting to several of these stub streets.

Elm Grove Road, the subject of the variance request, was platted with Northampton Section 2 subdivision in 1969 and was extended via the Middle Brooks Place subdivision in 1974.

The length of Elmgrove Road from Elmwood Court to the Platte boundary is approximately 360 feet, with four homes taking direct vehicular access.

The length of the stub street is not excessive, where not providing a turnaround would not be detrimental to the Northampton residents and guests.

A plat application to the South was granted variances not to terminate in Coles de Sachs to lower stub streets in 2019 and 2020.

The stub streets were not required to be extended to Gosling due to the location of multiple pipelines bisecting the site.

Elmgrove Road and Inway Court are the two remaining stub streets south of Dovershire Road.

Harris County Engineering's Department recommendation is to support the variance requests not to extend Elm Grove Road to Gossling Road, citing the existing circulation present for the neighborhood being adequate.

Staff supports Harris County's recommendation, especially for the requirement for pedestrian access from the stub end of Elm Grove Road to be provided.

There are three schools, elementary, intermediate, and high, and the Klein ISD North Crest AgriScience Facility immediately south of the Northampton area in which this site is zoned.

For the students, teachers, and facilitators who would choose to walk or cycle, providing a means to use the residential streets is a safer option and allows for alternative forms of transportation for these types of local trips.

The applicant has no objection to this condition.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variances and approve the plat subject to CPC 101 form conditions, specifically for the pedestrian access at the stub end of Elm Grove Road.

Staff has received one public comment seeking more information, which has been provided.

This concludes my presentation, and the development team is here for questions.

Great, thank you.

Yes, I don't have any other speakers signed.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Okay.

Do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion Monday Paca.

Motion Mandapaka.

Second Hines.

Second Hines, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to item 98.

Item 98 is Portman Center East, replat number one.

Madam Chair, staff just wants to note that in your materials, this is uh entered as with a recommendation of grant and approve.

However, we're changing that to recommendation of deferral per the council members' request.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limit east of Heights Boulevard and north of Washington Avenue.

The applicant proposes a 275 unit multifamily development.

The app is requesting a variance for a dual building line of seven and a half feet along Center Street instead of the required ten feet.

Staff recommends deferral per council members' request.

We have received numerous public comments with those in support citing the area's capacity for density, and those opposed citing issues with congestion.

Super neighborhood 21 or excuse me 22 has submitted uh a letter which should be in your packet in opposition and uh representative from the councilmember's office here to speak.

Thank you.

Okay.

So um which representative?

Hi, please come forward.

Thanks for coming in today.

We appreciate it.

Hi, Madam Chair.

Uh my name is Cole from Councilmember Abby Cayman's office.

I am speaking on behalf of the council member uh who is respectfully requesting a deferral of the item so residents in the community have uh additional time to review.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you so much.

I have no one else signed to speak as or anyone else who wishes to.

All right.

Commission, you have uh in front of you a recommendation to defer per councilmember's request.

Can I ask a question?

You certainly can.

So we approved this before whatever year.

I know they were adding a few more units.

I don't know where we stand with that.

I understand the parking salary per what are they changing exactly?

Did we have a 10-foot setback before now they're seven and a half?

It was ten.

Right, it was ten.

It the plat will still show a ten-foot setback.

There are some small encroachments on the ground floor, kind of on the eastern side of the track.

They're structural members that are holding up part of the facade.

They're about two and a half feet deep, and they'll be protruding into the uh setback area.

Okay.

And it's just yeah, right there.

Just a small little fraction, right?

That's what we're really talking about.

Correct.

Okay.

Right.

Any other questions?

Okay.

So you have a recommendation in front of you.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Baldwin.

Motion Baldwin.

Second Ballard.

Second Ballard, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving to item 99.

Item 99 is topp's surgical gosling.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Harris County, west and along Gosling Road, north of the Grand Parkway, 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 providing an east-west street through the subject site.

Staff requests to defer the application for two weeks per Harris County Engineering's request.

Staff has received two public comments for this application, one in support of the request and the other seeking additional information.

Great.

Thank you.

And I'm assuming you are getting in touch with them with the additional information.

Thank you.

Okay.

I have no one signed to speak on item 99.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

If not, Commissioners, I have a recommendation for deferral to have a motion.

Motion.

Motion Pierce, I'm sorry.

Second Shepard.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 100.

Item 100 is United Galvanizing Reserve.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Harris County, west and along Cunningham Road, south of Little York Road, and north of Tanner Road.

The applicant is proposing one 72-acre reserve restricted to commercial and industrial uses and requesting two variances.

One to not to extend Brittmore Park Drive, and two to exceed intersection spacing along Cunningham Road.

Staff is in support of the requests.

The property is an existing industrial site with some minor improvements proposed, shown in red and green on the screen.

The existing intersection spacing along Major Thoroughfare Cunningham Road is approximately 5,0900 feet from Little York Road to Tanner Road.

Strict interpretation of the ordinance would require two east-west public streets extended west.

However, the development to the west was granted a variance in 1998 not to have any stub streets to its east, restricting any east-west street connections.

Brittmar Park Drive was dedicated in 1999 with a 60-foot temporary easement for a turnaround, which is constructed.

Therefore, extending the street into the subject site for a dedicated turnaround is not necessary.

Providing for public street dedication is impractical with the site's present configuration, specifically the existing detention ponds where the street extension would be and the existing structures.

Thank you.

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

If not, you have a recommendation to grant the requested variants.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Jones?

Second seram.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

E there's nothing there.

So we're going to move on F.

There's nothing.

So we're moving to G, extensions of approval.

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

My name is Adesso Giade Syyodu.

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

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Sections G, extensions of approval consists of items 101 to 114.

Section H name changes consists of items 115 and 116.

Section I certification of compliance consists of item 117.

And Section J administrative consists of no items.

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

Thank you.

Commission, uh do I have a motion?

Okay.

Motion fam, second Sigler, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to K.

Development Platz with variance requests.

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

Item 118, 7720 Hoffman Street.

The site is located within Houston City limits at the southeast intersection of East Cross Fremst Cross Timber Street and Hoffman Street.

The applicant is proposing to construct a new 2,600 square feet square foot single-story duplex and is requesting a variance to allow a five-foot building line along East Cross Timber Street in lieu of the ordinance required 25-foot building line along a major thoroughfare.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site was originally platted as a mid-block 65-foot wide lot within the triangle triangle garden subdivision recorded in 1944 with a with a front 25-foot building line.

At the time, East Cross River Street was platted as Ernie Street, a local street.

When East Cross Ember Street was later realigned and widened lots 175 and 176 were dedicated to the right-of-way expansion, leaving lot 174 as a corner lot.

Applying the additional 25-foot building line leaves only 40 feet of buildable area, which is not suitable for the proposed duplex.

Due to the curb of the adjacent roadway and the land acquired to widen East Crust Embers to its current width.

The request that said bug will re will maintain approximately 30 feet between the street curb and the property line, minimizing any visibility and public safety concerns.

The proposed setback is also compatible with the surrounding development as many nearby structures predate current ordinance building line requirements.

Additionally, the proposed development takes vehicle access from the local street and provides the required safety buffer and sidewalk.

Staff recommendation is to approve the requested variance to allow a reduced five-foot building line in lieu of the major thoroughfare.

Sorry.

Yes.

Thank you.

Sorry.

I have no one signed to speak for item 118.

Is there any wishes to?

All right.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation of approval.

Do I have a motion?

Motion.

Second Hines.

Motion pours purple.

Second Hines.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 119.

Item 119402 navigation boulevard.

The site is located on the south side of Navigation Boulevard at the southwest corner of Navigation Boulevard and North Drenan Street.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a five-foot building line for an existing building to be remodeled.

And a one-foot building line for a proposed canopy instead of the required 25-foot building line along navigation boulevard, a major thoroughfare.

The applicant is also requesting a five-foot building line for the existing building and a two-foot building line for the proposed canopy along North Drennan Street, a local street.

In addition, the applicant is requesting a variance not to dedicate property to the right-of-way purposes along North Drennan Street for the existing retail remodel in addition.

The proposed construction includes raising the roof to provide uh improved attic access as part of the addition and remodel.

The proposed construction will retain the existing first floor wall, which is currently five feet from the property line along both Navigation Boulevard and North Drennon Street, and will add two canopies uh to provide shade for patrons along both streets.

The canopy along navigation boulevard requires a one-foot building line.

The canopy along North Drennage Street requires a two-foot building line.

Finally, since a development triggers right-of-way dedication only because it's undergoing the development plat variance process.

This required ten foot dedication is disproportionate to the scope of the project.

Because all ground level encroachments already exist, the new canopies will replace previous roof canopy and the second floor addition aligns with the existing building footprint.

Staff recommendation is to approve the requested development plat variants for the structure and canopy as well as approval of the variance to not dedicate right-of-way widening along North Drennan Street.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Commissioner Baldwin?

I I'm all for this.

I'm all for adaptive reuse of these buildings versus carrying them down.

What I would like to know about can you go back to the little picture of it?

Uh what I like about it is the windows as part of the transparency.

And I'd like to include in our approval that the amount of transparency, whatever we call that in walkable places, is a portion is that is a part of the approval because we have done this and then they it's just a solid brick wall again, and it defeats the purpose of the approval, which was to make sure that it slowed down the traffic, was interesting, was pr you know provided something.

So is it possible to include that?

Yes.

So I'd like to do that.

Okay, so you're making that motion.

Yes.

Okay.

Is there a specific square footage of transfer?

What do we call that in walkable places?

It was so much.

Administration?

Yes, that was it.

Yes, that's the same.

Is there a percentage?

Whatever we had multiple places, which was like 20 percent, whatever it was in multiple places.

40 percent for secondary.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, as a minimum.

Okay.

So we have a motion by Commissioner Baldwin.

Do I have a second?

Second by Hines.

Second Hines, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 120.

Sorry.

Item 120, 8303 Sunny Hill Street.

The site is located within Houston City Houston City limits in Harris County, north of South Victory Drive between TC Jester Boulevard and West Montgomery Road along the west side of Sunny Hill Street.

The applicant is proposing a new two-story single family residence and is requesting a five-foot building line along Mc uh McKinley Avenue and undeveloped street in lieu of the ordinance required ten-foot building line for a local street.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is platted 25-foot wide lot uh within the Washington Heights Annex subdivision recorded in 1912.

The recorded plat does not include building lines.

The right-of-way and private property west of Sunny Hill Street, including the 50-foot wide dedicated right-of-way for McKinley Avenue remain unimproved.

And the lot does not require the street uh for access.

Imposes imposing the 10-foot building line along the south property line will leave only 12 feet of buildable area, which would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the property.

The unimproved right-of-way results in conditions similar to what the ordinance allows in interior lots.

Additionally, recent development approvals in the neighborhood reflect similar patterns, making the request uh consistent with the surrounding character.

Staff recommendation is to approve the variance to allow a five-foot building uh side line in lieu of the ordinance required ten-foot building line along McKin uh McKinley Avenue and improved street, subjected to the following conditions.

The driveway entrance must be no wider than twelve feet, and the uh and a reduced sidewalk must be provided along Sunny Hill Street.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

If not, uh do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion Baldwin.

The sidewalk uh per current survey, the unfortunately there's there's not enough space for a five-foot sidewalk, but we believe that a reduced sidewalk can be uh uh proposed.

Four.

Probably a four with the SATSUT curve.

Okay.

Okay, great.

So I have a motion by Baldwin.

Do I have a second?

Second ballard, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Yes.

I need to I think we're okay.

Thank you.

So please note Commissioner Heinz is leaving us.

Okay.

So we're going to move along to Roman numeral two, which is establish a public hearing for the following.

Diamond Reserve, Finch Cottage Courts, Idaho Residences, King's Forest Section 1, replat partial replat number one, and Winton Villas.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Jones?

Second ballard, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Okay.

So Roman numeral three, I think maybe a few people came in after I made the initial announcement that due to the newer state law, which is 218.102 A2A, there is not a variance require that's necessary for this parking uh for this project.

The state law requires one unit, one parking space per unit.

They meet that requirement.

Even though our ordinance requires 1.2, state law always supersedes um our ordinances.

So we're not going to take any action.

I do have speakers.

We're happy to hear comments, uh, but there will be no further action taken on this item.

So I'll call your names if you want to speak after Mr.

Butler, did you want to say something?

You covered most of it, but it's the applicant had requested a variance for off-street parking reduction of 311 spaces instead of the required 388 for a 275 unit development.

Uh legals review of this uh application determined that state law uh 218-102 A2A uh supersedes the multifamily parking requirements of Chapter 26.

Uh the law limits parking restrictions to no more than one space per unit, and since the applicant is providing one more than one space per unit of variance is not necessary.

Thank you.

Yes, Commissioner Baldwin.

Is it just is there a definition of unit?

Is it can be seven bedrooms that only require one park?

I'm just educating myself now.

It's it it's per unit.

Per unit.

If it's three bedrooms, it's still just one parking spot.

Right.

Five bedrooms, one parking spot.

Yes.

Yep.

Market based parking.

Okay.

So the first speaker I have signed to speak is Christopher Farma.

Good afternoon.

How are you?

Hey, y'all.

Uh can you hear me?

I can.

Yeah.

So hello, Planning Commission.

Thank you for having me today.

My name is Christopher Parma.

I'm a neighbor that lives down the street from the PROS development on Center Street.

Uh I was here to express my support for this variance, uh, but I'm elated that I don't that's not necessarily needed.

But thank you for still being able to hear me today.

Um I would say I'd like to call into question the letter that Super Neighborhood 22 issued.

I am on the Super Neighborhoods Transportation Committee, which did support the variance.

However, during the special meeting for this letter, certain committee members were not allowed to speak, uh therefore not allowing full debate on the discussion.

And therefore, I think that does draw some concerns of the the legitimacy of the letter itself.

Secondly, I'd also like to lay out an important fact.

Uh from the city's own data, 53 percent of renters in the city only own one vehicle, and 14 percent of renters do not own any vehicle.

The city's parking requirements do not account for this.

Now, should they vary since the variance I guess is provided, uh that variance will allow developers to build more housing units instead of more parking stalls, which will help affordability in our area by increasing housing supply.

Further, the location is very walkable and bikeable with many destinations.

The developer is providing more pedestrian realm improvements as well as bikes, bike parking spaces to account for this.

Additionally, two frequent bus routes pass very close to allow um access to a variety of destinations, including downtown for jobs.

All these mean that fewer trips are needed to be taken by car and therefore fewer parking spaces are needed.

Additionally, I can vouch the concerns that many residents do have some, I think very valid concerns about parking flowing over under the street.

If that were an issue, I think those concerns are valid.

However, I think those really are unfounded.

There will not be any issue with parking overflow.

I can say this because I live in a 474 unit apartment complex built in 2001 to the city's parking standards.

Late last night I went and counted the number of empty spaces just to try to compare and get some data.

Uh in a SIF in a 650 stall garage, there were 280 empty spaces.

I must let that sink in for a second.

But almost half of these spaces were empty built to the city's standards.

If I may a few more seconds.

Really quickly.

We have quite a few behind.

Of course, of course.

So I just say this that to understand that the city's parking requirements are overly onerous and really serve just as red tape that prevents better housing and development.

And I would really encourage this commission to support future variances for parking as well as to support market-based parking citywide.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate you coming in.

The next speaker I have signed is Mike Pittman.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for having me again.

I think at this point, since there is no variance, I kind of would just like some clarification on the state superseding.

You said it's a new law.

It's a newer law.

I think I'll let legal address that.

Could you help us out here?

Oh, would you ask the question again?

I'm sorry.

That's okay.

The state's newer law that supersedes the city's code.

The city's code, the minimum is 1.2 parking spots per unit of five bedrooms.

The state superseding it just kind of eliminates the cities, right?

Correct.

Right.

The city just can't be more restrictive than the state law.

The state law is what supersedes.

Unfortunately, so I can report back to the people that will ask me.

Right.

The city can be less restrictive, but in this case it can't be more restrictive than state law.

Okay.

And so requiring more parking space would be more restrictive.

And so we have to go back to what the state requires.

Okay.

I think that's all I had.

If there's no variance, no variance.

Okay.

Thank you for coming to the case.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Pittman.

Our next speaker, I know I'm going to get your name wrong, Yusuf Sevaleti.

Did I get close?

Since no one's answering, maybe I didn't.

CIVELETI, I believe, or K, maybe.

Maybe he left.

Okay, moving on.

Ruben Garza.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you to the planning commission for uh giving me the opportunity to speak.

My name is Ruben Garza.

I was here during the last hearing.

I am a local conversation leader for a group called Strong Towns Houston.

We are the Houston chapter of the national nonprofit Strong Towns.

One of our five core priority campaigns is the elimination of parking minimums and parking subsidies.

And Strong Towns Houston is taking the lead on advocating for citywide parking reform in the form of market-based parking, eliminating parking mandates, and for uh promoting walkable, safe, and economically productive cities.

Um just speaking to the economics, excess of parking mandates burden Houstonians financially with each parking stall adding significant construction costs that translate into higher rents.

I will direct the planning commission's attention to a February 2026 study by the UCLA Institute for Transportation Studies and the UCLA Center for Parking Policy.

Yes, UCLA does have an institute specifically focused on studying parking thanks to the late great Donald Shoop.

Uh they found that uh in cities across in seven seven to fourteen sample cities across the United States, including Miami, Florida.

Um mandated parking adds about roughly 50,000 to 100,000 dollars uh per unit in parking and construction costs.

Uh it's well documented that parking mandates have no scientific basis, in fact, and they also translate into excessive costs that burden renters, homeowners, and communities alike.

So I would be talking about uh granting a parking variance, but luckily we don't have to do that today.

But I will point out that in future variances, please consider the economic downstream effects of mandating parking uh on residents and communities in Houston.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Last speaker I have signed is Caitlin Connor.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, thank you for having me.

My name is Caitlin Connor and I serve on the mayor's Houston Ready Roundtable and the Houston Commission on Disabilities.

As an amputee in a car accident survivor, I analyze infrastructure from a disaster preparedness standpoint.

Safety isn't theoretical, it's operational.

The developer claims state law removes the need for parking variants, but meeting a state floor is not a license to create a local crisis.

Providing only 275 spaces, leaving zero room for guests, 18-wheeler deliveries, service providers, or any ADA guests that may come creates an existential crisis for disaster.

Because the modern garages are gated and inaccessible to the public, this traffic will saturate to the curb as it does in our neighborhood.

Making Center Street a 12-foot driving lane and creating a lethal visual wall that blocks sightliness for pedestrians and wheelchair users.

Finally, this la this application was inaccurate.

Universal design really means the infrastructure works for everyone.

We invite the developer to meet the community and prioritize rollability, not just walkability.

I move back to my neighborhood because there is no denial for this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Yes, please come forward.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Donna Scudder.

I am not a resident of this area, but two issues or the one issue about the number of parking designated for residential use in this discussion, the one-to-one ratio.

As the Commissioner or someone over here mentioned, there may be multiple people living in that unit.

Though the statistics are that the young man showed is uh in contrast to what we might expect.

The fact is, I think the last speaker uh uh put it very well.

People who come to visit the lively neighborhood that we're trying to create in the heights or anywhere else in the city, people drive.

People either drive or take an Uber.

Um there is no safe place to be uh dropped off.

There are limited street parking, and if people are not being able to park in the residential parking lot, they will park in the street or guests.

So there's not a lot of buffer.

Um, and I believe having access to public parking in perhaps private parking lots because create the development so there is parking for people to visit would be advantageous for everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Is there anyone else that wishes to speak?

Okay.

Thank you.

Moving on to Ramon Numeral 4.

Consideration of proposed expansion to the existing Texas Medical Center Special Parking Area.

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

My name is Hector Rodriguez.

Um Texas Medical Center Special Parking Area.

The planning and volume department received a request to expand the Texas Medical Center special parking area under the all-street parking ordinance.

Go back, go to the vicinity map.

No.

This okay.

This shows the location.

No.

We don't have any music to play during technical difficulties.

Right.

There you go.

Well, that's jumping ahead.

Well, I had a overall map of City Houston showing where the location with a star where the Texas Medical Center is just south of the downtown area.

Right.

And then actually that skips another one.

I have another slide before that.

The uh a brief history on parking management area in the city of Houston.

In 1989, uh, with the adoption of Chapter 26, the All-Street Parking Ordinance, a Texas Medical Center parking management area was established.

There has been several additions to the Texas Medical Center in 1993, 2002, and 2007.

In 2013, City Council approved amendments to Chapter 26 to create special parking areas.

The preamble adoption language of the ordinance 2013-208 recognized the previous approved parking ratio of 1.2.

And Section 3 designated the South Main Texas Medical Center as a special parking area.

Hence, the Texas Medical Center is operating under the provisions of Chapter 26, Division 3 for SPA.

This one.

Okay, now we're on track.

The Texas Medical Center is requesting to expand the special parking area boundaries to include additional parcels owned by members' institutions of the Texas Medical Center.

This expansion helps create a unified and more efficient parking ecosystem as the Texas Medical Center continues to grow.

By adding these parcels to the existing SPA, they will be able to benefit from the same parking infrastructure, services, and operational advantages already in place.

The area in blue is the original SPA boundaries established in 1989.

The area in purple is a subject of today's hearing on the expansion of the SPA.

The other colors represent other expansions requested that were approved.

Okay.

Chapter 26 required notifications to all property owners within 500 feet of all the proposed 20 parcels.

We mailed out eight hundred and sixty-five postcards with a QR code directing people to our notification website.

Staff received three calls requesting information, and no one signed up to speak online.

The following slides aim to address all the requirements for a parking management plan.

These slides include the proposed alternative standard for number of parking spaces, bicycle spaces, or loading birds.

Number two, a summary of proposed and existing mitigation measures designed to prevent or discourage spillover parking into adjacent residential neighborhoods.

Number three, a summary of existing and proposed land use classifications.

Number four, an overview of existing and proposed parking facilities and available alternative modes of transportation.

And finally, number five, an analysis of parking supply and demand.

And this is uh this slide shows the parking ratios, including the 20 new parcels.

Chapter 26 originally established a minimum standard of 1.2 parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet within the Texas Medical Center parking management area.

The current ratios for the Texas Medical Center is 1.4.

When combined the current ratios plus buildings under construction and the 20 properties proposed, the projected ratio is 1.5.

This slide also shows existing and proposed parking supplies.

The Texas Medical Center provides clear and coordinated signage to direct traffic to designated parking facilities, reducing unnecessary driving looking for parking facility.

Lang uses.

It is important to understand how different land uses can contribute to the reduction in parking demand, especially when operating hours don't always uh overlap.

Uh this slide highlights the alternative modes of transportation that supports mobility within the Texas Medical Center.

Metro provides four light rail stops and seventeen bus stations.

The Texas Medical Center also has nine campus shuttles, and the Texas Medical Center is participating in the textile transportation alternative grant.

Planning Commission shall consider the fly following criteria.

Applicant uh provides a map clearly showing the proposed boundaries.

Number two, the Texas Medical Center Management has demonstrated capacity to manage parking needs throughout the campus since the establishment of the parking management area in 1989.

Number three, the Texas Medical Center is providing alternative parking and transportation options to prevent mobility deficiencies.

Number four, mitigation strategies have been implemented to eliminate spillover parking into residential neighborhoods.

Number five, the Texas Medical Center provided signage to direct customers to available parking facilities.

Staff recommendation is to approve the 20 parcel additions to the Texas Medical Center Special Parking Area and for the application to City Council for their consideration.

Thank you.

Before I call speakers, do you all have any questions?

Okay.

Our first speaker is Donna Scudder.

Welcome back.

Thank you.

I appreciate all the information that was presented.

As a resident of the spillover neighborhood, I am concerned about how traffic flows through Main Street onto Travis, which I think is one of the streets that you one of the parcels is in your blue dot purple diagram.

So as of today, if you approve it, you may have in front of you what they actually are planning, structures or structured parking, below grade parking.

I don't know.

As a resident, I know nothing.

I just get a postcard and I look at the diagram, and the diagram doesn't tell me exactly what is proposed in those areas.

The areas that are in purple that is dedicated within the proper uh hospital slash research area, it is not residential.

The areas that are next to the residential areas, uh the areas noted that is next to a residential or a pseudo-residential area, I think would need extra consideration for uh vehicular traffic.

If you've gone to a doctor's appointment at the med center, you know it's hard to park.

I started to volunteer at the hospital Houst uh Houston Methodist because when I go to appointments, I see tired, frustrated people.

Adding more parking spots may be very beneficial to the TMC, but the roadways do not support uh a lot of vehicular traffic well.

And even more parking spots, either paid or free, typically they're paid, you never get free parking in Houston.

Um it will create opportun i opportunities for people to park in the residential areas.

Were you finished?

I'll let you wrap up really quickly.

I I just I see a lot of people parking in my neighborhood now with the uh residential parking permitting system, which is not with a tag.

It is um, you know, you register your car.

As a person who lives in a neighborhood, if I see a tag, I know they belong in the neighborhood.

I can't I don't have control over the day parkers who are frustrated, they can't get parking, it's full, um, or they can't walk the distance and they park.

And that's it's okay, I guess, but it really takes it it's not really okay.

Um it creates a lot of confusion of who who really belongs in that neighborhood.

It's a bigger question, but adding parking and adding congestion isn't is uh difficult for adjacent residential areas.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate it.

Mr.

Roger Regis, maybe you can get with her after our last speaker and talk through some help her understand fully.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is uh I'm just gonna use the name in parentheses, June.

I do not want to do a lot of damage to your name, so that was the easiest.

Yeah.

There was a reason I put it.

Well, good afternoon.

Uh my name is June Liu.

Um, I live near Parcel 17, and so my comments are specifically about that particular parcel.

In fact, I live my front door is three minutes is a three-minute walk from that parcel.

Um so this proposal would directly affect my neighborhood.

Um this area, Parcel 17 is a residential community, and many of the people who live there are students, trainees, researchers, and health care workers in the Texas Medical Center.

I first moved there as a graduate student, and I chose to stay there because it offers something very rare in the medical center area.

It is a neighborhood that is quiet and residential and pleasant.

So for many of us, our homes here serve as a respite from the intensity of working and training in the Med Center.

A parking facility at Parcel 17 would shift the area further toward the commercial behemoth that is the med center, rather than preserving it as a place where people live.

Parking lots don't just store cars, they uh generate traffic.

And this parcel sits at a at a big intersection.

Right now it's only stop signs, thank goodness.

Um, but it is already experiencing increased congestion due to the new construction and the highway access at uh Cambridge and the 60 South Loop.

Um so you know, I am already seeing um basically um uh what do you call traffic jams at that intersection?

And a parking facility there will not help.

Um walk, bike, or take public transit to get to where they need to go, much more so than your typical neighborhood.

Um increasing uh vehicle traffic at this intersection would make it more congested and potentially more dangerous for the people who live there.

Um if I can have You can wrap up real quickly, yes.

So I also want to highlight the visual context, right?

So right now at that intersection in the four corners, it's all apartments and condos.

And where that parcel sits is currently green and it is very nice.

And a surface lot or a parking garage would stick out like a sore thumb and make us not want to be there.

Um finally I want to raise a process concern about the lack of comments um about this proposal.

Um T housing is made up of all students all around these condos and apartments.

They're all students who have no idea what this process is, can't get to downtown in the middle of the afternoon to make comments, you know, about a process that they don't understand.

So I really urge um before approving uh or moving forward with this proposal that we have additional meetings that can actually be attended by the people who will be affected um in this area.

So thank you.

Thank you so much.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

Okay.

So commissioners, um you've got the recommendation by staff.

Do you want to put it back up on the screen?

It's not there, so make the recommendation for me again, Mr.

Rodriguez.

Uh recommendations staff recommendations to approve the application and and push it towards uh I mean forward it to the city council for consideration.

Okay, thank you.

So, Commissioners, there's your recommendation.

Do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion just to kind of get things going.

So for approval.

Okay.

Did you have any questions?

Well, I mean, what about a public meeting in the evening in the area?

I mean, I think that sounds like a very good idea.

Was any of that considered not by staff?

I don't know if uh well.

I mean several acres, right?

I mean, yeah, it's acres and acres.

Director Tran, did you want to?

Sure.

Um so the process is that uh we are asking Commission to approve to forward this to City Council.

People can show up to City Council again to speak.

But again, you can have this discussion and we can make a different recommendation.

So go ahead.

I just have a question.

Does it automatically become a parking garage or is it just a lot?

Uh the parcels you meet, yeah, the parking parcels.

Some are parking garages and some areas.

Existing, though, they're existing.

Yeah, there are some existing.

A lot of existing proposed.

Okay, so it's existing.

I guess I'm asking because of the interesting.

Can you talk about the specific number 17 that was a good one?

No, it is all of them.

Just all of them.

Are they all existing and it's just being used for Texas Medical Center or are they creating the same thing?

Yes, go ahead, Dr.

Team.

Can you pop up the slide showing the 20 parcels and the uses of that?

They're not all parking lots.

They are ex some of them are existing buildings.

Not that one.

The list of buildings.

Yeah, the different line uses.

There are proposed buildings and parking parking garages as well.

Yeah, she's looking for that list, that great list you had.

There we go.

There it is.

Yeah.

Can you zoom in?

It's not tied to the map.

Do you have something that's tied to the numbers that were shown on the screen?

No comments from the audience, please.

I'm sorry.

No, ma'am.

Thank you.

Do you have anything, Mr.

Rodriguez, that shows us like what number 17 is going to be or what number 10 is going to be or it was in our deal.

It's adjacent to the map and ideal.

It's the apartments.

Okay.

We don't know whether it's existing or proposed, correct?

At least I can't tell.

Yeah.

It's not very much.

Because if it's saying apartments, does that mean they just get to use their parking spots?

I don't understand.

Can we get additional information?

And is it okay to defer this?

I mean, can we have a lot of things?

Is there any rush?

Is there yeah?

Is there any deadline?

We are trying to meet.

I'm sorry?

Is there a deadline we are trying to meet?

A deadline to meet.

The question is can we defer this?

Seek additional information.

So I think what would help is if we had one through 20, what it is.

Is it existing?

If not, what are they adding?

What is it going to be?

Okay.

Number of parking spaces.

Just some information to help them understand.

Is that the Yes, Commissioner Carroll?

Could we have the applicant come and talk to us and answer some of these questions?

They're here.

Yeah, they're here.

Yeah.

Commissioner Sigler?

Yeah, and I was going to add just because it's just a little bit confusing because you do have a lot of the information, but just not being explained, like some parking spaces.

It says 1700, some zero, some 280.

And so it's I don't understand the zero in a location.

Okay.

Maybe just some explanation.

Thank you.

And would the applicant like to come up and answer some of these questions?

Please come forward.

Sorry.

Hi everybody.

Ashton McFellow, Texas Medical Center, and this is Abby Robinson as well with TMC.

So all of these except for one potential parcel is already built in in.

The SPA, since we moved over since it changed from parking management area to the SPA, the special parking area, sorry, in 2013.

TMC has not gone through the updated thing.

And so this is part of that process.

It's just adding in existing ones back into the actual thing.

So all of these except for one potential one is a future build.

So everything is built except for number what?

Except for it sorry, except for one of them, which I believe is the one at number nine, I believe.

Number nine, I believe, is an existing parking lot.

So but they will be building a garage potentially in the future on that spot.

Okay.

But the rest of the one that was specifically asked about 17 is already there.

It is already there.

Okay.

So really the purpose of this, make sure that I say this right, is to pull these properties into the SPA.

Yes.

You're not creating 20 new properties.

No, it's just updating document procedure to make sure that everything that is within the boundaries is included on the listing.

Right.

Correct.

Correct.

Sorry, yeah.

Yes.

Do we have this?

Right.

Right.

I'm still good with fundamental.

Okay.

So the other question.

In your motion, repeat it.

To accept the staff recommendation for the special parking area to the city house.

Okay.

Do I have a second?

Second Sigler.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

That really helped a bunch.

Okay.

Moving on to make sure I say it right.

Consideration of a Hyde Park Hotel located at 704 Hyde Park Drive Boulevard.

Yes, ma'am.

Roman 5 is Hyde Park Hotel located at 704 Hyde Park Boulevard.

The site is located in the Houston area in the Montrose area at the intersection of Hyde Park, Villa Bard, Crocker Street, and Stanford Street.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an eight-room hotel to be located in a residential area and to take access from a two-lane local street.

Staff is in support of this request.

This application was previously approved in 2024 as a seven-story, 80-room hotel containing a bar, restaurant, and pool area for the guest.

Now the applicant has resubmitted the application to reduce the room count from 80 rooms to just eight rooms, and to go from seven stories to just one story.

Another change to the application is the location of the driveway.

Previously, all ex all access to the site was taken from Crocker Street.

Now the design shows a one-way entry from Hyde Park Boulevard and one exit along Crocker Street.

Both of these right-of-ways are sufficient in width and contain roughly 30 feet of paving.

Overall, the smaller scale of the project fits the character of the neighborhood.

The site will have adequate parking with additional spaces for valet service across Crocker Street.

Montrose is a popular destination with many bars and restaurants in the immediate area.

Approving this hotel will allow guests to have a unique experience for extended stays without being limited to the larger hotel chains in downtown or along major freeways.

Madam Chair, staff has not received any objection to this request, and staff recommends requesting, excuse me, staff recommends granting the requested variants, and the applicant has made themselves available for questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Yes, Mr.

Crittle is right.

We have the applicants here.

If you all have any questions, I do want to say that the applicants meeting with the residents made this project what I think a better project for the community.

So I commend them for doing that.

I think this is a great change of plan.

I mean, that it was going to create too much traffic, the otherwise.

I mean, this is a much better plan.

I search out these small little boutique hotels when I travel to areas like this.

I think this is great.

And I applaud them for working with the community.

Great.

If you have no questions, do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion Baldwin?

Second ballard.

Second ballard, all in favor?

Excuse me.

All opposed?

Motion carries.

Roman numeral six, excuse the absence of Commissioner Lydia Marez.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Sigler, second.

Victor, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Roman numeral seven, public comment.

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

Okay.

Hearing none, we are moving to adjournment at 419 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.