Welcome everyone.

I'm my name is Lisa Clark.

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

on Thursday, the 19th of March 2026.

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

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

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

Consent and repeat speakers are allowed for one minute.

New speakers are timed for two minutes.

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

Council members speaking on an item are not timed.

Applicants have their allotted two minutes time as well as but rebuttals.

Non-applicants and general speakers are allowed two minutes time, and there is not an option for a rebuttal.

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

To establish a quorum of 11 members, I'll I will call the roll.

Chair Clark is present.

Vice Chair Garza.

Present.

Commissioner Ballard?

Present.

Commissioner Carroll.

Present.

Commissioner Heisch.

Present.

Commissioner Jones?

Present.

Commissioner Heinz.

Heinz present.

Commissioner Marnas.

Commissioner Naranjo.

Present.

Commissioner Pham.

Sham present.

Commissioner Pierce.

Present.

Commissioner Saram.

Not here.

Shepard's not here.

Commissioner Sigler.

Sigler, present.

Commissioner Sykes.

Present.

I don't have anyone from the county.

And Secretary Von Tran.

Tren, present.

Okay.

We have 14, so we've established our quorum.

Commissioners, the minutes for our meeting on March 5th, 2026.

We're in your packet.

Do I have a motion for approval?

Motion.

Who is it?

Oh, okay.

Garza.

Okay.

Motion Ballard.

Second Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

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

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

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

Welcome.

I have three items to report today.

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

The survey will remain open through March and it is available on the planning department's home page.

Second, review of the major thoroughfare and freeway plan amendment applications is underway following the March 6th deadline.

We have six complete applications for street segments within the city and the ETJ.

Staff is reviewing these applications in advance of the May 14th workshop, which will be held at 1 p.m.

at this location prior to the Planning Commission meeting.

Last Planning Commission training is scheduled for March 26, noon through 2 p.m.

at 611 Walker, 6th floor.

Commissioners, please confirm your attendance and complete the lunch selection form, which was included in the invitation.

In closing, for assistance, please call the planning and development department at 832-393-6600.

To reach the planner of the day, please call 832-393-6624.

You may visit us online at Houston Planning.com.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Tran.

Okay.

Moving along, we've done the minutes, so we're going to move along to items A and B, consent agenda.

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

My name is Maria Tolar.

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

Sections A and B are items 1 through 71.

Section A, consent items are numbers 1 through 39, and section B, replot items are numbers 40 through 71.

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

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

The planning and development department requests the approval of all staff recommendations for consent and reply items not requiring notification.

Thank you.

I have no speakers signed for any of these items, but I do think I have some recusals.

Commissioner Heis.

Yes, Madam Chair.

I need to abstain from items 4 through 8, 26, 34, 35, 36, and 44.

Thank you.

Commissioner Modass.

Yes, I will stay from items 25, 30, 40, and 44.

Thank you.

Are there any others?

Okay.

So I need a motion save and ex for all items under A and B, save and accept items 4 through 8, 25, 26, 30, 34, 35, 36, 40, and 44.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Sykes, seconds.

Second Hines, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Now I need a motion for items four through eight, twenty-five, twenty-six, thirty, thirty-four, thirty-five, thirty-six, forty, and forty-four.

Motion Sigler.

Second Jones, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now we'll move to C.

Replats requiring public hearings with notification.

I am sure you already caught it, but did you note that Commissioner Pham has a Ram has joined us?

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Madam Chair, a member for the Planning Commission, my name is Araceli Rodriguez.

Item 72, Blood Oaksure.

The site is located in the Sudalimit, east of Shimley Walk Road and north of Woodway Drive.

The purpose of the WIPLA is to create 21 single family residential lot and one reserve for parking purposes.

No variances are being requested with this item.

The applicant has met all the notification requirements, and per legal, this paper wee plat would not violate applicable restriction.

That we see multiple public comments in event, voicing concern, meaning on joining, flooding, increased entity, traffic, and parking.

That recommendation is to approve the plasma subject to the CPC 101 informed condition.

Madam to please to the Commission, you may continue the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

I will continue the public hearing for item 72.

I do have speakers.

Our first speaker is Garney Griggs.

Good afternoon.

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

Garney Griggs.

Thank you.

I am here speaking on item 72.

It's 2026 0098, 51 each Broad Oaks Broad Oaks Reserve.

I am Garney Griggs, President of the Broad Oaks Area Civic Association.

This property is in our subdivision.

We are not here to oppose this development.

We oppose the density of the development, building 21 homes on a 2.5-acre track with limited and inadequate parking on site and no parking on the street, particularly on a narrow street that is 18 feet wide, is not responsible development.

The number of lots in the project should be appropriately reduced to provide more on-site and on street parking.

Two council members, Councilmember Huffman and Councilmember Alcorn have submitted opposition letters to this project to the Commission.

I would ask all neighbors who are present to oppose this project to stand.

There are many who could not attend, and they have submitted letters in opposition to this Commission.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Mr.

Garney.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

Our next speaker, I mean Mr.

Griggs, I'm sorry.

Uh Glenn Hilford.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Glenn Hilford.

My wife and I have been residents of Broad Oaks for five years.

I'm going to be brief because George Fernando was going to cover the points that I wanted to cover and he'll do it better.

I did have the opportunity to go on a property yesterday.

The front half, I'm sorry, the front quarter or perhaps third of the property is a deep ravine.

I personally walked down the front half of it.

It is six to seven feet below grade, street grade.

And there was a portion I could not get to that was a couple of feet lower than that.

There's a serious drainage issue that has to be addressed here.

Otherwise, the properties downstream are going to be affected, and the properties upstream are going to have some flooding problems.

There are also issues with the parking and the narrowness of the streets.

But others will take care of that.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Bill Pyle.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

A lot of the comments that have been made are mine as well.

I also submitted a letter when spelled out some things.

Ironically, I live in a development to the to the south, very close to closer to Woodway that Frank Lou developed.

And if he was developing this project in similar scope and effort with lower density, I would think it would be great.

I don't doubt there is a good project trying to be built.

But the biggest problem I see is the it's it all kind of starts with the road that has been in disrepair for 20 years, from what I can tell.

It's probably lost five feet on every on both sides by encroachment.

And underneath that, as in sewers that were put in decades ago.

And I think the it I think we had 21 homes on top of what a sewer system towards Buffalo Bayou.

It wasn't designed for that.

And I think if the road were to be built, you probably could solve the parking problem by yourself if you were to put better drainage under it.

So I wish it would be delayed.

I wish the city would take care of business and get that street rebuilt.

And I hear that might happen, but I have been hearing that for the 12 years I live in the area.

But thank you for your attention.

Thank you so much for coming in today.

Our next speaker is Debbie.

Debbie Layton.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for letting me share my thoughts with you.

To put my remarks in perspective, I am one of the original homes and directly adjacent to No.

51.

My husband and I moved here in 1991, 37 years ago.

At that time, almost.

We needed approval by the other six homes in our plat just to convert a carport to a garage.

Broad Oaks is a beautiful small neighborhood known for safety, peacefulness, and friendly neighbors.

The piece of property in question today is heavily wooded, and on it sits the original single-family home owned by the Wozencrafts.

They love their secluded location, knowing it was home then and today to countless rabbits, turtles, possums, raccoons, armadillas, and honeybees and snakes.

Deed restrictions were allowed to lapse around the time we moved in to enable homeowners to subdivide their property.

The builders from that point and up to now have maintained the overall integrity of our neighborhood.

As one of the homes adjacent to 51, we will be directly impacted daily by the construction, disruption, and loss of nature.

And I am deeply disturbed.

It is incredible to me that anyone would think it is right or even a good idea to build 21 homes on a piece of property less than three acres.

The neighbors on my private drive and I have survived the last six years, six of constant new home construction, one home at a time.

Many days we could not get out of our driveway, and we were blocked by workers who disrespected basic parking etiquette.

I cannot imagine the chaos involved in building 21 homes.

Where will the workers park?

When we are denied access, which we were, who will help us?

It was barely manageable on our street.

Legally, you may have the right to do this, but to me it is wrong to think this is the best way to develop a lovely piece of property.

We love this neighborhood and have no plans to leave.

All we ask is consideration for the extreme density and loss of green space when planning.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for coming in today.

Our next speaker is Lisa Francisco.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

I'm Lisa Francisco.

I'm a 20-year resident of Broad Oaks.

And I am not opposed to the development.

I am opposed to the density of the development.

And I feel that it is irresponsible to add 20 homes, I think, now.

It will have a significant adverse impact on the important natural ravine drainage system and the already insufficient roadway infrastructure.

Section 4243 of City Code states, in addition to the requirements of Section 4241, applications for a preliminary Class 3 plat, show the location and approximate width of existing and proposed water courses, ravines, and drainage easements within the subdivision plat boundaries.

These are not shown on the plat.

Also not shown are existing storm sewer inlets and the paving width of East Broad Oaks as required by Section 4256.

The proposed plat does not meet Chapter 42 requirements, is incomplete and should not be approved.

The ravine system on the property is present in city contour maps and is clearly visible from the street as are the storm sewer inlets.

Adjoining developments were required to take extraordinary steps to preserve the ravine system.

A directly adjacent home had to largely be constructed on elevated piers.

Sorry, to preserve the ravine system and allow water to pass beneath.

Can we be assured that the ravine and its function will be maintained?

It seems difficult given that the entire property will be paved over with foundations and drives and the associated retention requirements.

Our existing roadways are approximately 16 to 18 feet wide on average, without curbs or sidewalks.

They are asphalt many years old and substantially deteriorated.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Our next speaker is Lee Lahorkade, and I am sure I butchered that, so please correct me when you come up.

Good afternoon.

Not the first time, Madam Chairwoman.

Hello, uh, Madam Chairman, other esteemed members of the Commission.

My name is Lee Laura Cade.

I am a resident of 47 East Products Drive.

My home is located a few hundred feet from the proposed development.

As many people have said, and I would can uh agree as well.

When I heard that Frank Liu had purchased the tract, I was relieved as I was well aware of the quality of homes that he built throughout our city and many in our neighborhood.

Uh certainly regretted the fact that the last remaining large lot in this very special neighborhood would be going away with this thick tangle of trees and shrubs and its sponge-like characteristics in heavy rains.

We would all hope that the property would be developed with 8 to 10 well proportioned single family homes, which would be totally appropriate for the neighborhood.

Unfortunately, our positive expectations were dashed when we learned that there would be 21 homes squeezed onto the property.

The density of the proposed development is totally out of scale with the neighborhood, and the narrow width of East Broad Oaks Drive, which you have heard is only 18 feet, which cannot handle the additional traffic and parking needs.

Additionally, there are some unanswered questions, as Lisa has just said, about the drain-off drainage, drainage patterns on the plot.

So my request to you, Madam Chairwoman, and other esteemed members, is for the Commission to defer the application simply until a traffic study can be conducted and a drainage plan is submitted to the Houston Public Works Department.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is George Francisco.

George Francisco, also a 20-year resident of Broad Oaks.

I will just finish again on the parking with the narrow streets.

On-street parking is not viable.

And we would like the Commission to know that this one development is going to increase the number of homes that access whose property is accessed off that section of East Broad Oaks by 40 percent.

40 percent in one development, as people have said, this is a very narrow area.

So my question is: has the traffic impact analysis been performed?

What recommendations are shown there?

How will construction traffic be managed, both the large trucks and the workers?

And once completed, how much on-site parking is available for guests, workers, and others, because as we said, there is no on-street parking available.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Julian Coyne.

For questions.

No, that's the next one.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

David White with Touchland Services Applicant.

Okay.

Gotcha.

So yes, we are both here as on behalf of the applicant to answer any questions the Commission may have.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Commissioner Hines.

Sorry.

Guys, I'm just going to remind you, do a little hand raise and I'll call you in order.

There you go.

Commissioner Hines.

Yes, has the applicant met with the community?

Yes.

Actually, the uh the developer, the owner has met with the community.

Thank you.

Commissioner Jones.

Was it your Commissioner Sykes?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have seen the property, okay, and I have recognized the drainage swale and even recognize that that swale from southwest to northeast meanders underneath the three lots that were built to the north.

Those three homes were all built on significantly sized piers.

So I guess this is really a matter for public works and the permit center to address.

We just want to make sure for the residents to know that there is another division or part of the city, through the permit center and other departments that will definitely be looking at this for the drainage consideration of the flow of that water and in fact potential impedance of that water.

That's as much as really there's nothing we can do from the planning perspective, horizontal lines on a piece of paper.

But there are other departments within the city who will definitely be looking at that, you know, for your benefit.

Yes, sir.

That is correct.

Thank you, Mr.

Commissioner Sykes.

Did you have something?

Do you plan to have any on-site detention on this?

Because all I see is lots and then uh a small little parking area under the the for the civil engineering plan for detention, that would be part of their plan set to be handled at permit at permitting.

So the permitting, the civil engineer will have that prepared and meet all the requirements for the City of Houston permitting for any drainage detention or flow for the site So you are saying these all these lots will stay here.

There is not going to be a detent you are just going to put your detention in the street or that's correct.

Generally, when you are doing this type of development, you are underground for detention.

Understood.

And this area is old and does not drain very well to start with.

Are you saying your development is going to improve?

Well, certainly the City of Houston permanently is not going to allow a development to not meet any standards that would affect you know that would affect a neighboring property.

So any any calculations for previous sheet flow or anything else will be handled by the civil engineer and the drainage plans in their submittal to city permitting, who will do always does a very thorough job to make it.

I mean, it's a big question for everybody in the city, right?

For every all of us that are property owners, make sure your neighbor doesn't push water your way.

And I think the City of Houston permitting does a really good job and very thorough in reviewing the plans and making sure anything a civil engineer submits, especially after several floods, that it all works out well and there is no issues with neighbors and it keeps everything moving in the appropriate direction at the correct rate.

Okay.

So you've you have got a lot of people here that are against us.

And so have you showed them to alleviate their fears about drainage and detention?

Have you showed them these plans?

Or are you just saying the developer still working that plan set up?

Right?

And so and then and developing drainage plans, when you know he is going to work up his drainage plan, he is going to submit that to permitting.

There is going to be a back and forth.

And so once that's once that sets in, once again, I am sure whatever questions the neighbors have, we can brought up with permitting, and the permitting will be very happy to talk to them.

The developer has done a lot of projects all around the city of Houston.

Everyone is very aware of these type of issues, very cognizant of how important they are.

I mean, certainly if you are a developer, you wouldn't want to put together something that doesn't work, right?

Because then people aren't going to buy those lots on there, right?

So clearly very interested, very eager to make sure everything is working properly and the neighbors are happy with the final end product, which is the history of his firm.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Before I call the next speaker, I just I kind of want to make a few things clear.

So this body just looks at plating.

This is the very, very first step for any development in the city.

So we don't do traffic analysis, we don't do drainage studies.

That all comes at the next phase when it goes to public works.

And I see John Brown back in the back.

I am going to have him walk out with you guys and answer some of your questions of how this works, what might trigger a TIA.

I don't know if this project will, but Mr.

Brown can help you with that.

The drainage impact analysis, you don't do an analysis until you know what you are building.

And so they have to go through the preliminary and final plotting stage to know that yes, we can do this.

And so now we take them, we do our construction plans, our drainage plans, uh looking at traffic if that is an issue.

So all of that is done at a later stage.

And I know everyone would like for us to deny this or hold it up, but we don't have that power.

This is a shall-approved plat, which means by state law, we have to approve this.

Um we can question it.

We can give you all direction, and that is why I am asking Mr.

Brown.

He can tell you the next step and how to follow this along the way.

And I would encourage you to stay during the discussion with Mr.

Brown so you can help answer questions.

Things like parking.

It would be really great if you could talk to them about what parking you are providing and how you'll control your construction crews and all of that.

So I I would appreciate that.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

So our next speaker is Commissioner Mates.

Not a question.

I really just wanted to highlight it for the record.

Um the center point notes on the CPC 101 form in case it impacts anything that you are doing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ballard.

I am going to ask the obvious question, which is why why so many?

Why why the density?

Is there a reason why you have to have so many?

The architectural layout believe that they that this works well for the community and for this site.

So the there just to the south of it, you have some similar developments.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Carroll?

Is this property in the 100 or 500 year floodplain?

It is not.

It is not.

Yes, Commissioner Garza.

Um a lot of people have asked about parking.

Um, one is I'm assuming that because of the size of the lots, guest parking is not required.

This is your basic subdivision, and the lots vary from 50 plus to 70 plus.

So that's not an issue.

You also have a, I think it's a 28-foot uh PAE.

Yes, sir.

Which means on street parking would be available to guests who are visiting.

In addition, is the plan I know it may be too early, but like two car garages is what the plan is?

I believe so.

That's that's what we have seen along with there is a parking reserve as well.

And uh oh, there is a parking reserve, because I didn't see it on here.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

And then because of the ordinance, uh every house, like every house that's built today, has maybe a two-car garage and space for two more cars.

Yes, sir.

Plus a parking area for you.

Great.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Where is that parking reserve?

Can you it's on the north northwest side, northeast side of the property?

Northeast.

A.

Okay, reserve A.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, there it is.

Yes.

Thank you.

Just the one.

Yeah, Commissioner Sigler?

That was my question.

And how many cars fit in that reserve?

Uh I think that was moved up to the far.

We have four now.

Four.

Okay.

Commissioner Sykes?

Wait a minute.

I I I live around here.

Where are two and a half acres built with 21 residential lots?

Well, 21, I believe the question was the type of development.

I think just to the south, you have got a shared drive, you have a shared dry driveway with several houses just to the south of this.

But not on two and a half acre lots.

I mean, this is like a huge development for this area.

The most of them are very piecemeal with three or four lots.

Yes.

Am I missing something there?

No.

So the 21 lots on two and a half acres you are saying is common to the neighborhood?

Well, the the type of development with the shared driveway is.

Okay.

The other question is for density, which of course they meet all the rules for the seat of Houston density requirements.

Okay.

Lots are even that small.

And the lots are actually very sizable compared to most developments of this kind of the City of Houston.

And I will say that, you know, this is not a shall approve unless they meet the density requirements.

And so according to Chapter 42, they meet the density requirements.

I saw another hand.

Did you have a question?

Commissioner.

Just one question.

I don't wanted to understand what's the smallest uh lot size here, square footage?

Do you have an idea?

3599.

Commissioner Heinz, did you have some?

I just wanted uh to not make an assumption.

There were two acronyms we use, and I just wanted you to share with the audience what that might mean.

Oh, TIA is a traffic traffic impact analysis and then what else was it?

DIA?

Oh, PA public access easement.

Yes.

And if I said DIA, that's a drainage impact analysis.

Sorry.

I used to using industry lingo, so thanks for pointing that out.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Yes, Commissioner Sigler.

When you held the community meeting, were you present?

Who was that?

That was the that was the developer meeting.

He knows of many individuals in the neighborhood, and I think believe some of the people that spoke today.

So they have to do that.

Was it a posted meeting or was the whole community?

I believe he just met with uh or he spoke to right several of the residents who had contacted him.

So it wasn't really a meeting.

He spoke to several people who are in the presentation.

Well, whether or not he had a Zoom meeting or in-person meeting, I just know that he has spoken to.

I had received calls that they had spoken to.

I am sorry.

We can't have anyone come up from the audience.

No, sir.

No comments.

You can't yell out comments to us.

It is our rules for the uh commission, but we appreciate it.

Okay.

I guess I do have a question that how do we find out if it was a phone call that one person made or if the developer truly did hold a meeting to possibly get ahead of the drainage, the density, and just to to reach out and be a good neighbor?

That letter that one of them sent.

We received a letter from the community members here, and they actually mentioned that they had met with Frank Lou and discussed things relating to drainage and parking and so on.

And they still had concerns, of course.

You know, but they did mention that he had shown them, you know, his plan, some of his plans, or at least it is preliminary plans.

Do we have a copy of that letter?

Is it in the packet to staff now?

I believe that was forwarded to the office planning.

I believe the letter was addressed to the planning, right?

It was sent by the Yes, it was sent to planning.

It was sent to planning by the Association.

Yeah, that's three true.

It was either sent to one of both.

Mr.

Rodriguez, did we put it in the packet or?

I don't think so.

Okay.

I believe I haven't seen it.

I took over from Doy Am last cycle.

But um I can double checks.

Okay.

And have an answer.

Okay.

So I guess my question to legal or to the chair is if it is a shall approve, uh I do feel like it's it's a great area.

It could be a great project.

I would if there is a possibility for communication, is a deferral a possibility to ask for the developer to schedule something within the next two weeks?

I believe this has only had one deferral, correct?

So uh a deferral would be possible at this time if if you wanted that additional time to work with the developer.

Do you have any more questions?

Okay.

Any other comments or questions?

Do I have anyone else that wants to speak on the matter?

I would add to the other.

It hasn't spoken.

Yes.

Yes.

The only people that haven't spoken, yes, Commissioner Hines.

I could support a deferral if in the interim the residents meet with Mr.

Brown, and subsequent to that, there is a meeting with the developer and the community.

I have a comment.

Commissioner Garza.

I would vote for that if there was a question.

I mean, what you are asking for is you are making a rule for, I'm sorry, courtesy.

So I personally would not vote for this because it is a shall approve.

Um by the by the what the neighbors are saying right now is um I don't think, again, my opinion that there is no placating at this point in time.

Nothing is going to change.

I don't see that you could tell me whether or not a meeting with the applicants is going to change this dramatically.

I don't know how it would.

The plans have been made, it has been drawn up, millions of dollars are going to be invested.

I would doubt seriously that anything would be changing at this point.

So my point is it's a shall approve, and I won't vote for a deferral.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

Yes, Commissioner.

Just one more.

I I thought what Commissioner Garza was going to get into what is what he usually gets into about minimum lot sizes and so on and so forth.

Um, your piece.

Okay.

Would you like to make the comment?

No, no, no.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Anyone else that would like to speak?

Okay.

Yes.

Uh let me let Mr.

Rodriguez speak and then you can come up afterwards.

We receive a letter upon the Boat Local CVs Association actually in the packet on the public comment speaker.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, sir.

You can come forward.

Thank you.

And if you wouldn't mind stating your name for the record when you come up, I'd appreciate it.

Uh hi, good afternoon.

I'm Randall Hicks.

I live directly to the south of the development at 35 East Broad Oaks Drive.

I can speak with all my neighbors behind me and say very clearly there's been literally no communication for Mr.

Liu.

Mr.

Liu met with a select group of four people of which I was one of them.

And uh he came and he showed us a plat.

And uh it was kind of his way of the highway.

And uh he informed us that he would work with us and be amenable, things like that.

But I don't think that's occurred.

Uh Garney Gregg who has spoken, uh I think has tried to rally the troops.

And uh I think a lot of us understand about the permitting process, and I don't think we understand shallow verse, deep proof, et cetera, et cetera.

But it is a great place to live.

Uh I would like to continue to live there.

I will continue to live there.

And uh I just think this this is not in character with the neighborhood, it's extremely dense.

And uh we have asked uh Lovett and Mr.

Liu to consider that that we're not against commerce, we're not against capitalism, we're not against moving forward.

However, we are against the density as as proposed.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

So what a shall approve is it's an application for a plat that comes before this commission.

Pardon me, that meets all the requirements of Chapter 42, which Chapter 42 is the ordinance that controls development and in the City of Houston.

So when something is a shall approve, that means that we as a Commission, by state law, must approve it and send it forward to City Council.

So that's what a shall approve is.

Yes, sir.

Would you like to come up, please?

Yes, I want question, Kenny Gerais.

I am with uh 29 East Broad Oaks, directly south as well, and I echo everything they say.

Um this Chapter 42, it it says it is supposed to have the sewer inlets and paving widths on the plat, and to our knowledge, we don't see that there.

So that would be a question that we have.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Rodriguez, can you explain that?

What was the question again?

Um per Chapter 42, you're supposed to show your sewer inlets, paving width, all of that.

So on the platform.

It is a private street and it's 28 feet wide, it has to be entirely paved, and there should be no public utility at all private.

Okay.

Thank you.

Did that answer your question, sir?

Okay.

So the speaker, come forward, please.

Now he spoke already.

I know we can do that.

I'm sorry.

I'm the one that can help answer this.

I understand.

We just have to follow the rules.

I am sorry.

Um I get more, I get more of my two minutes, right?

No.

We can try though.

It's a they didn't understand the explanation on the PAE and how all of that works.

But let's repeat the question again, please.

Yeah.

So I'm going to rewave my answer.

So um a type 2 mean is a private street.

And um the entire width that is shown on the plat, so all that right-of-way that you see on the plat is going to be all paved.

And within that and that development, because of private street type 2, we cannot allow to show public um waterline easement or sugar line easement on the plat, but that doesn't mean that they will not have any.

It's just that it will be a private system.

Right.

That's a better explanation.

Thank you.

Did that help?

Okay.

Well, Mr.

Brown can help you out at the end of this portion of the meeting.

Um he'll step out with you and and try to answer some of your questions.

And then the applicant is here as well.

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

Okay.

So uh the recommendation is to approve the plat subject to the conditions listed.

Do I have a motion?

It's the group make a motion to defer.

No, she just said she would defer for um two weeks in the hopes that truly we I think most of us know and not a lot is going to change, if anything, but you might have just some more answers and um goodwill for the neighborhood.

So I'll make that motion.

Okay.

So we have a motion by Sigler to defer and require a meeting with um the owner.

And I would second that motion.

Okay.

Second Heinz.

With the purpose of the deferral allowing more communication.

Uh yes, I understand developers are trying to develop and it costs time and so on to do this.

But I think it would uh benefit the community.

Um there is some support by council members, and what I I am hoping in that interim is uh a better understanding of what the developer is doing, an understanding of your concerns and perhaps uh an understanding of what we do versus what um Mr.

Brown back there does, and perhaps uh that just provides some clarity and perhaps some change.

We will see.

Thank you.

So we have a motion by Sigler, a second by Heinz to defer and in hopes that uh Mr.

Liu and company will meet with the neighborhood.

Um Holland.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Opposed.

Okay.

No.

Commissioner Heich and Commissioner Garza are opposed.

Motion carries.

So Arcelli, are you done ri presenting for right now?

So maybe you and Mr.

Brown could I have three more.

You have three more, okay.

Well, maybe Mr.

Brown can start and you could step out and answer any questions about plating and how this works and and all of that.

That would be very helpful.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Just mention that it's deferred.

Yes.

Yes.

So it's deferred now for two weeks.

So we will see you all in two weeks.

Yes.

Moving on to 73.

Item 73 is quite with partial replat number 41.

The site is located within the city limit north of Westview Drive and east of Worth Road.

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

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

Review by legal indicate that this plot will not violate applicable restriction.

And staff have not received any public comment in advance.

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

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 is open for item 73.

I do not have any speakers on this item.

Is there anyone that wishes to speak?

Okay.

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

Motion Jones.

Second fam, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 74.

Item 74.

Estate on Winkley.

The site is located in Houston City Limit east of Scotch Street and south of Belfort Street.

The purpose of the Wii plat is to create three single family lot in a plat lot configuration.

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

Review by legal indicate that this plot will violate separate file due restriction.

And that recommendation is to defer the plot per the applicant request.

Madam Chair, is the pleasure of the Commission?

You may open the public hearing for this item.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 73 is open.

I have the applicant here for questions.

Commissioners, if you have any questions.

Yes, Commissioner Modest.

I mean, just during the deferral, are you going to change your DIM?

Or that's the Espinosaurus.

I mean that the request for a deferral, so normally it would be a not denied because it's not meeting due restrictions.

So are they going to revise the question?

I believe so.

They will have to redesign to meet with the applicable builder line restriction.

Mr.

Espinoza, do you have anything you want to add?

Hi, good afternoon.

Carlos Espinosa with CG Planning and Design.

Just to answer a question, the changes were a 15-foot setback in the front.

And then five feet interior setbacks.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you for that clarification.

Any other questions?

Okay.

So I close the I mean I could continue the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Models.

Second Hines.

Second Heinz.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 75.

Item 75, Fool Depot Stoutmore.

The site is located in the city limit, South along Southmore Boulevard and east of Day Highway 288.

The purpose of the Wii plat is to create one unrestricted reserve.

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

Per legal, the proposed wee plat would not violate applicable restriction.

So staff have received multiple public comment in advance voicing opposition to the Wii plat.

Step recommendation is to defer the plot per the State Representative Yolanda John request.

And Madam Chair, if the pleasure of the Commission, you may continue the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 75 is continued.

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 Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second by one.

Second fam.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 76.

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

My name is Devin Crittle.

Item 76 is Greenwood addition, partial replat number one.

The site is located within Houston City limits in the gallery or area just south of West Timer Road along 610 and Ivanhoe Street.

The purpose of the replat is create two excuse me.

The purpose of the replat is to combine two lots into one single family lot.

There are no variances being requested with this item and review by legal indicates that this plat will not violate separate file D restrictions, but they are subject to a 10-foot side building line.

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

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

Thank you, Mr.

Crittle.

The public hearing for item 76 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

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

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second ballard.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 77 is HLB Homes on Alvin.

The site is also located within the city limits north of Alvin Street between Edgar and Duane Street.

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

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

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

Staff has not received any advanced written comments regarding this application, and staff's recommendation is to defer the plat per the applicant's request.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 77 is continued.

I have no one signed to speak.

Mr.

Espinoza is here for questions.

Commissioners, do we have questions?

Is there anything you would like to say, Mr.

Espinoza?

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

So I will continue the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Midas.

Second Jones.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 78.

Item 78 is HLB home on lower COP WEPLAT number 1.

The site is located in the city limit west of Homestead Road and thought up Twill Road.

The purpose of the WEPLAT is to create four single family residential lot.

No variants are being requested with this item.

And the applicant has met all the notification requirements.

Per legal, the proposed WEPLAT will violate applicable restriction on the lot or subject to restrictive building.

That recommendation is to defer the plat per the applicant request to provide with information by next one day.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 78 is continued.

I have no one signed to speak.

I do have the applicant if you guys have any questions.

So, Commissioners, do we have any questions?

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

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second ballard.

Second ballard.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 79 is Isabella Villas.

Other sites located in Houston City limits in the third ward area near emancipation along Isabella Street.

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

We have not received any advanced comments on this item.

And if it pleases the Commission, you may open the public hearing for this application at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 79 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

All right.

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

Motion ballard.

Motion ballard.

Second Jones.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 80.

Item 80 is Mariner Heights.

This application was deferred at the previous Planning Commission meeting.

The sites are located within Houston City limits, east of TC Jester along Larkin Street.

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

There are no variances being requested with this item.

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

Madam Chair, the applicant has requested, excuse me, the applicant has met with staff and has requested a second deferral to allow time to amend the deed restrictions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 80.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Oh, I need to continue the public hearing.

Yes, ma'am.

Public hearing continued.

Is there anyone that wishes to speak?

Okay.

So I will continue the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Moders.

Yes, Commissioner Myers.

You said amend the deed restrictions, not an amend the blat.

So possible in two weeks.

We will.

I'll give you an update next next Planet Commission meeting.

But we have to give them the opportunity.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm just making sure I heard correctly.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

So uh motion Motion Garza.

Second serum.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 81.

Item 81, Montgomery and Clay.

The site is located in Houston E.T.J.

in Montgomery County, east of UF 59 and North Park Drive.

The purpose of the Wii plat is to create two single family residential lot.

No variance are being requested with this item.

And the applicant has met all the notification requirements.

Per legal the people replat would not violate applicable restriction.

That recommendation is to approve the plates with the CPC 101 condition.

Madam Jair is applicable the Commission, you may continue the public hand for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 81 is continued.

I only have the applicant here for questions.

Is there anyone else that wishes to speak?

Commissioners, do we have any questions for Ms.

Owens?

All right.

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

Motion Motors.

Second fam.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 82.

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

My name is John Phillips Ole.

Item 82 is Morning Creek Ranch, Section 16, replat number one and extension.

The subject site is nearly 23 and a half acre property located in the Harris County extraterritorial jurisdiction, east along Peak Ridge Road, just north of Morton Road and west of Grand 99 Parkway.

The applicant is proposing 108 single family residential lots and nine reserves.

There are no branches requested with this application, and the applicant has met all notice requirements.

Staff has not received any advanced comments regarding this application.

This is a full replat of Morgan Creek Ranch Section 16, and it extends to include the acreage to the south of the property.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 82 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Jones.

Second Sigler, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 83.

Item 83 is Palais Belafonte.

The subject site is an over 11,000 square foot property located in the Houston City limits at the northwest intersection of Local Street, Belafontein Boulevard, and Major Thoroughfare at Green Briar Drive.

The applicant is proposing two large single-family residential lots, around 1,500, 5800 each.

Sorry.

There are no advances requested with this application, and it has met all notification requirements.

This is a replat of lots 23-22 and the remaining eastern portion of lot 21 in block 15 of Bracewood extension.

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

And staff has not received uh has received advanced comments regarding deed or concerns over deed restrictions for the site.

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 83 is open.

I do have a speaker, and I already know I'm going to mess your name up.

Evelyn Crudy.

I can't tell if that's a D or a T.

I'm so sorry.

It's a D.

Okay, good.

Good afternoon.

Yes, it's crudy.

Thank you so much.

Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to address you this afternoon.

I'm here on behalf of the old Brayswood Property Owners Association.

I serve as their executive director.

And this replat is in the Brayswood extension section, as he mentioned, which is one of three sections of old Bracewood.

We have had a lot of discussion in the neighborhood and lots of comments and some fears, which I just want to convey to you.

So I'm really not here to oppose this at all, but just to pass along some of the things that have come up that I think might be helpful for future replats and to ease the process for the entire city going forward.

So we were working with this applicant as they develop plans for the site.

We are not opposing it, but there are a number of residents concerned about the naming conventions for replats in single family deed restricted neighborhoods.

So the subdivision name will not override the deed restrictions, but it places a burden on the association when the restrictions are amended.

And we are a subdivision that is a hundred years old, and there are a lot of antiquated things in it that need to be updated from time to time.

And we seem to find them every time there is new construction in the neighborhood.

So if the replat name is omitted, then the amendment to the restrictions may accidentally, accidentally amended.

In the new restrictions, the um the replatted property may not actually be subject to the amendment.

And that's been experienced in a couple of other subdivisions that I have worked with.

So I just wanted to bring this to your attention and see if there's a way you could require in the future, or if we could work with some wing of the planning department or city council.

May I finish?

I'm almost done.

Um to see if we can go back to including that name in replats for the single family deed restricted neighborhoods.

Um the good news is this applicant has agreed to work with us, and they said that in the final iteration of the plat that they file with you, they will have our name in it.

Um but I was asked to confirm that there was no fee to do that.

So does anyone know the answer?

Mr.

Sidio, there's not a fee, is that correct?

Okay.

Oh, thanks.

Uh no, for the fact that between the preliminary and a final, there is no fee to change the name.

If it were to be a final approval before recordation, then there would be a name change as that would be the final uh granting approval.

Great.

So they do have the opportunity for free uh to change this with the final application.

Thank you so much for that explanation.

Yes, Commissioner Garza.

So I'm sorry.

Were you finished with your comments?

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

But to address those comments, that's a really valid question because we have had several people come up here and say, is this part of our neighborhood are the deed restrictions?

Does the city have a solid line that says when you renew your deed restrictions or make new deed restrictions?

That the new quote, the new subdivision within the subdivision is automatically included and it follows the land.

Do we have anything on paper or written out that would help the neighborhoods have a better understanding?

So that's a good question.

Um as you are aware, deed restrictions are private covenants between property owners.

And so the City of Houston, although it has some limited authority to enforce deed restrictions, it doesn't advise communities or represent neighborhoods or individuals in those communities.

So you know, when the City of Houston is enforcing deed restrictions, you know, all of the title work for the real property in question is pulled as part of that enforcement process.

So our title examiners are very good at pulling that information when there are issues.

And I've worked with Evelyn for many years.

Um, I'm so happy to see you.

Thank you.

We were happy to see you.

I'm going to have to give you a hug later.

Okay.

But um, you know, it's it's it's really a private matter in terms of how that's controlled.

So I wish that there was an easy answer.

That is what I was hoping for.

But no, but Mr.

Sidio, you have something.

So in the uh acknowledgement and dedication language of every plat and Milo that we have in when it is a public hearing, i.e.

there are deed restrictions to be addressed, there is a special comment within those that's uh a specialized replat statement that we use as an identification that this is something that did have to go through public hearing, i.e.

had single family restrictions at some point.

Again, because public hearings, of course, are not for active, not just active single family restrictions, but even those that have expired or nullified, if there was ever a protection, this qualifies for a requirement for public hearing.

So this is kind of another guaranteed weight that is on the face of the plat that ensures that this is applicable to those restrictions, at least through the public hearing process.

Can I just can I just add that in the past for a while, and I don't know for what period of time it was in place, there was a policy where you had to have that subdivision, original subdivision name in the replat.

I'm not sure why or how it changed, but I'm just I guess our our request is could we possibly go back to that?

So I think Mr.

Sidio, you can correct me if I am wrong, that would be an ordinance change.

Um so that is something when we have these issues pop up, staff does make note of them, and when it's time to look at the ordinance, those issues are brought up and discussed.

And um, you know, if it's recommended that it is a change, it would be redlined into it for review would that be Chapter 42?

Yes.

I was about to go into that.

So that it was a change with the livable places alterations for Chapter 42.

This became a recurring issue because we do have plats that already have very long names and incorporating those long names with partial replat number one and extension and replat number three.

Right.

Kind of became uh some of that would not fit within our limited fields for programs and things like that.

So that was something that changed, but also to kind of maintain the continuity of where we can have unique names but still have those kind of notes and commentary that do protect those deed.

So as you can see, it was kind of issues on both sides.

Um but they will take a look and you know, as as they look through Chapter 42 in the future, they bring those recommendations before Commission and take them to City Council.

So, you know, they'll make note of it.

We will be looking forward to the next update of Chapter 42.

I am glad you are.

They are always very difficult.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate it.

Yes, Ms.

Bandy, did you want to say something?

Good afternoon, Planning Commission.

Savida Bandy.

I just wanted to mention that the recent amendments to Chapter 42 through livable places.

The technical amendments, the requirement of following the name of the original subdivision was amended.

So it is an option.

The applicants can choose to continue the name of the original subdivision, but they can also choose to have a unique name.

Regardless, all replatts, they will continue to carry in the legal description the name of the original subdivision.

So therefore, it is always part of the replat is always part of the original deed restrictions, and they must comply.

Right.

Right.

They carry with the land.

So when they are doing deed restriction amendments, hopefully they are having a title company or someone pull the legal records, and so that would all follow the land.

Thank you for that explanation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item?

Okay.

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

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Ballard, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 84.

Item 84 is Ventana Lakes East Dill Site Park.

The subject site is an over 4.2 acre property located in the Harris County extraterritorial jurisdiction at the cul-de-sac end of Patrese Street, north of Clay Road, and west of Grand 99 Parkway.

The applicant is proposing one reserve and is requesting a 42193 variants, requesting a change of land use from landscape and open space reserve to landscape, open space, and recreation use.

Staff is in support of this request, and the applicant has met all notice requirements.

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

This is a replat of Reserve F and a portion of Reserve C of the Ventana Lakes East Section 8 subdivision.

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

The variance request is to address the change in use, but to verify there would not be a need for the variants to have included the recreational use on this reserve in the original plat.

The intent is to create a park with a playground, a pavilion, and open play area with parking.

Harris County MUD is proposing to create this amenity for the subdivision.

The proposed improvement would add connecting trails to the existing trail system surrounding the subdivision and its detention ponds.

Harris County Harris County Engineering has no objection to the variance requests.

Staff recommendation is to grant and approve the subject and 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.

The public hearing for item 84 is open.

Commissioners, if you have questions, the applicant William Mohammed is here.

Do we have any questions?

Yes, Commissioner Carroll.

I see that the name of the subdivision says East Drill Site.

Is it is it open for drilling?

So there is an existing uh drill site easement over the area of the original four acres of reserve F.

I believe there was a they did an exploratory drill back in 2010, but there is no drill on site.

This this is the intent for the community to kind of turn this open space into something that is valid and usable.

Um in coordination with the applicant, they did state that it were there to be any attention to for some reason start at some kind of extraction program with the area, the park would be closed down, and therefore there will be no conflict of uh traffic or you know anyone playing there when that something like that would come into use.

But the uh the owner of those mineral rights would not relinquish those rights.

So the mineral rights still uh allow for drilling or they could do directional drilling.

Correct, within the site.

But they stated that if that were just a lot of people.

At 136 dollars a barrel.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

So you have a recommendation for approval.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Ballard.

Motion ballard.

Second Mattes, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to D subdivision plates with variance requests.

Item 85.

Item Item 85 is Beltway Ponds GP.

The site is located in the ETJ of Harris County, north of Beaumont Highway and east along Beltway 8.

The applicant is requesting the variance to exceed intersection spacing by not extending multiple right-of-ways through the plat boundary.

Staff is in support of this request.

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

The site plan indicates the main ingress and egress to the site is from the service road along Beltway 8.

There is an unrecorded subdivision to the east comprised of residential lots, storage areas, and a pipe lay down yard.

Based on the distance to the nearest intersection, the ordinance requires these streets to be extended.

Instead, the applicant intends to terminate Smithman Road with the cul-de-sac.

The main justification for supporting the decision to terminate with the CODISAC is based on the existing street grid.

The goal of extending Smithman Street is to allow vehicular traffic to continue in the westward direction.

The street cannot go any further west than this site due to the controlled access along Beltway 8.

This site abust the feeder road that only allows traffic to flow north and does not provide a street crossing until you get to Tidwell Road to the south or literal Little York Road to the east, to the north, excuse me.

Also, Twell Road to the south is a proposed minor collector that will provide an east-west connection through Beltway 8.

Staff has coordinated with Harris County regarding this variance and has voiced no objection to this request.

And staff recommends granting the requested variance and approving the plat subject to the CPC 101 form condition.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Mr.

Crittle.

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

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation of approval by staff.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Jones.

Second fam.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 86.

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

My name is Tammy Williamson.

Item 86 is City of Houston A.

G.

Farms Lyft Station.

The site is located within Houston's within Houston in Harris County, east of Woodland Hills Drive, south of Kingwood Drive, and north of the San Jacinto River.

The applicant is proposing one reserve restricted to lift station and is requesting a variance to allow the reserve not to have frontage on a right-of-way, but instead to take access from an access easement.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is an existing lift station with a recorded access easement from 1971 and was shown when the neighborhood to the north was platted in 1974.

The City of Houston is intending to make improvements to update and modernize the existing sanitary sewer lift station facility and thus is required to have the property platted.

The recorded access easement provides access from the existing lift station to Woodland Hills Drive.

Although the site does not have frontage on a public street, the recorded and constructed access easement meets the intent of the ordinance requirements for providing for a means of sufficient access to the lift station, which has been in use for approximately five decades.

Houston Public Works has voiced no objections to the request.

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

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

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on this item.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation of approval.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Sykes.

Motion Sykes.

Second MATES, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 87.

And I believe Commissioner Matez is recusing herself.

Thank you.

Item 87 is Newport Point, Section 8.

This site is located in the ETJ of Harris County, east of FM 2100 and west along Miller-Wilson Road.

The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not providing a stub street along the northern boundary of the GP.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a section out of the Newport Point General Plan consisting of 48 residential lots.

In 2019, the general plan showed a northern stub street that would extend vehicular traffic to the north.

Since then, the developer has decided to not provide that street connect street connection.

The main justification for the request is that the area subject to the street extension is currently occupied by large residential estate lots.

The general plan does provide sufficient access to nearby north-south major therapies, which will help mitigate the need for a connection in this specific area.

Staff has not received any objection to this request.

And Madam Chair, we did receive a letter of support, but we received it after the window for public comment.

So we do have support from one of the neighbors to the north.

Harris County has not provided any objection to this request, and staff recommends grant the requested variance in approving the plat subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 87.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

All right.

Hearing none, Commissioners, you have a recommendation of approval.

Do I have a motion?

Motion.

Motion fam, second Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 88.

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

My name is Chef Butler.

Item 88 is Portman Center Street, East Replat No.

This item was deferred at the previous meeting.

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

The applicant proposes a 275-unit multifamily development.

And the applicant is requesting a variance for a dual building line of seven and a half feet along Center Street instead of the required 10 feet.

Staff recommends a second deferral per the applicant's request.

We have received numerous public comments with those in support citing that areas capacity for density and those opposed citing issues with congestion.

Just to note a lot of those letters tied in the parking variance that was once associated with this development.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And if I might ask, what is the applicant?

Did he did they say what they were trying to do during this two-week deferral?

So the uh the posted sign, uh, the variance one needs to be updated.

Okay.

Um we are working with Center Point on an exhibit for the power lines on the street.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Okay.

I have no one signed to speak on item 88.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

All right.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation for deferral.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Heinz.

Motion Heinz, second Sigler.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 89.

Item 89 is topps surgical gosling.

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

The applicant is proposing one unrestricted reserve and is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing along Gosling Road by not providing an east-west street through the subject site.

Staff requests that the item be deferred for two weeks per the applicant's request to allow time for them to provide additional material.

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

Yes, ma'am, please.

The current intersection spacing along Gossling Road from Dovershire Road to Root Road is approximately 6,700 feet, with the subject site's northern boundary approximately 1,600 feet from Dovershire.

The applicant is proposing to develop the property as a surgical hospital.

Inway drive, the stub street to the west was platted from the Northampton Section 3 subdivision in 1970 and extended in 1983 with Inway Forest of Northampton Section 1 subdivision.

The applicant provided a letter of support for the variance request from the Northampton Municipal Utility District, opposing the extension of Nway Drive, which is included with the item's agenda materials.

Harris County Engineering is in support of the request, however, has raised concerns about access for the two acreage tracks to the west of the subject site.

The applicant is working with the county to address their concerns and has requested a second deferral to accomplish this.

Staff has received numerous public comments for this application, 33 in support of not requiring the extension of Nway Drive, and one opposed to the request.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

Okay.

I do have one speaker signed, and I am so sorry to say I cannot read the writing.

It is Randy.

Randy Nearin.

Thank you.

Please, if you'll just state it for the record, I appreciate it.

I am sorry that I butchered it.

Sure.

Thank you, Houston Planning Commission, for the opportunity here.

My name is Randy Nearin, and I live on Inway Oaks on that street.

And I was not aware that there had been a request for deferral or might not have come down today.

But in regards to one of the two questions, there I think there needed to be some comment on the two-acre tracks at the end.

One of the owners of the two-acre tracks is here today as well.

He is also a neighbor on the street.

He is in support of the variants which would continue the dead end street.

As mentioned, there were 33 in favor and one opposed.

The Northampton Homeowners Association is in favor, the Northampton MUD is in favor, the NY Oaks is HOA is in favor.

And on that street, literally across from the street from my house is the neighborhood community pool and play area.

So I I think for that street to go through to Gosling would present considerable safety concerns.

I am glad to hear that the vast majority are uh in favor of the variants which would continue the dead end.

I simply didn't know that the applicant had deferred it.

I came here to support them.

Well, we appreciate that.

And you know, sorry you came down.

You could have waited for two weeks, but um thank you for your comments.

And it sounds like uh between staff and Harris County that hopefully they will get that worked out for that those two acreage parcels.

Thank you so much.

Thanks for coming in.

I don't have anyone else signed to speak on item 89.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Yes, please come forward.

Good afternoon.

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

My name is Ken Wilson.

I live at 5903 Inway.

On the plat, it's the last house on the right at the dead end.

I have lived there since 1992.

Uh whoever requested this, I cannot imagine.

If any of you lived on that street, you would be standing here with me.

Because there's there's plenty of uh ways to get out of our neighborhood.

We don't need another access point to get in.

So what I don't understand is who who is the author of this variance.

The variance is to continue the dead end, not to carry the road through to gosling.

That's what the variance request is.

Well, I'm just I'm just excuse me, I'm not a legal scholar or anything, but who wants this to go through?

So, in order to have connectivity, and Ms.

Williamson can probably answer that better.

I'll let you answer it, because I may just you know mess that up.

Sure.

Speak on the microphone.

So the ordinance requires that every certain distance of roadway that there be intersections to help with traffic connectivity.

And so the strict interpretation of the ordinance would say that for the entire length of goslane that there needs to be more intersections just by straight, you know, objective criteria.

And then applicants can choose to request variances to not meet those specific standards of the ordinance to and then provide whatever justification and hardship that they would have.

Yes, but point is it's been fined for 34 years.

So these properties are now plating, and so they now have to address not meeting the ordinance.

And we have to have the requirement and the ordinance for safety.

If we did not have distance requirements, no one would want cut through roads, and in a case of an emergency, no one would be able to get out of anything.

So it's there for a reason, but issues like this where there's it's been a dead end and it you know is gonna cut over through some commercial, a lot of times they ask for a variance to not extend, and that's what they're doing.

They do not want to take that road through to Gosling.

No.

Because it would be a mix of uses.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

The applicant is requesting.

Yes.

You're in support of the applicant's request.

Yeah.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate you coming up.

Ms.

Williamson, thank you for the explanation.

All right.

Okay.

Anyone else wishes to speak?

All right.

So you have staff recommendation to defer for item 89.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Hines.

Motion Heinz.

Second.

Minus.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

We will move along.

There is no there are no items in E, so we'll move to F.

Recommendation of requirement.

Reconsideration of requirement.

Item 90 is leady family addition.

The site is located within the ETJ within Harris County, east of FM 2100 and north of FM 1960.

The applicant proposes a reserve for an office and warehouse development.

The applicant is requesting a reconsideration of the requirement to create north-south and east-west streets through the site.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is located along Huffman Eastgate Road between FM 2100 and a proposed segment of Miller-Wilson Road.

The applicant proposes to develop the 15-acre tract with a mix of office and warehouses and detention.

The previous plat was approved with conditions to provide public streets due to the size and location along the block.

The site is surrounded by land owned by the Harris County Flood Control District.

The district has no plans for improving the property, so the site does not qualify for the street exemption related to active drainage and detention.

However, considering that the land is ties into the drainage system within recorded easements, it is reasonable to conclude that this land will be needed for detention in the future.

Staff finds the request is consistent with the intent of the intersection spacing requirement and recommends approval.

And we've received no advance written comment.

Thank you.

I have no one here to that has signed up to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to speak?

Okay.

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

Do I have a motion?

Motion high.

Motion high sh?

Second.

Second saram.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving on to G, extension of approval.

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

My name is Akilah Bidgey.

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

Yes, ma'am, that would be great.

Sections G.

Extensions of approval consists of items 91 through 99.

Section H name changes consists of no items.

Section I, certification of compliance consists of no items.

Section G, 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.

I believe we have some recusals.

Uh Commissioner Heisch.

Yes, Madam Chair.

I'm going to abstain from items 92, 93, 94, and 96.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

All right.

So you have a recommendation of approval for items in G, H, I, and J.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Carroll.

Second Carroll.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to K, development placks with variance requests.

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

My name is Ed Buckley.

Item 100 is 507 Cordell Street.

The site is located west of Interstate 45 and north of North Main Street along Cordell Street between Gardner and Fugate Streets.

The applicant is proposing a residential remodel in addition and is requesting a 4.5 foot building line for a front porch in lieu of the ordinance required 10-foot building line along a local local street.

The proposed front porch replaces an existing one at the same setback but with a slightly wider footprint to align with a widened front porch of the house that does not encroach, sorry, widened front portion of the house house that does not encroach the building line.

The requested 4.5 foot setback is comparable to other homes in the area, including a front porch addition at the adjacent property to the north with a variance approved in January.

The proposal is consistent with entry feature requirements in Chapter 42 and would be an allowable encroachment by right if the house shared vehicular access with other lots.

Because the site is along a local street with open ditches, proximity to the street is not a safety or visibility concern.

Staff recommendation is to approve their the request.

Thank you, Mr.

Buckley.

I have someone signed to speak.

Genevieve Rowland.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

How are you?

I signed up to speak because we had a couple of neighbors.

I am the owner of 507 Cordell, and I just wanted to clarify really all we're doing is widening the front porch by about three feet.

And so you're standing at the same existing setback.

You're just going a little bit wider.

Correct.

We're just widening it.

And then when I mentioned that to a couple of neighbors that were here, they said, oh, I don't know.

The city just told us to come and show up.

So I was just here to explain to them we're widening it three feet.

That's all we are doing.

I saw you talking to a few people.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that wishes to speak?

Okay.

So I'm looking for a motion for staff recommendation of approval.

Motion ballard.

Motion ballard.

Second Garza.

Second Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 101.

Item 101 is 6515 Lockwood Drive.

The site is north of North Loop East, North 610 Loop East, and east of Interstate 69, along the west side of Lockwood Drive between Shreveport Boulevard and Baton Rouge Street.

The applicant is proposing a new single family home and is requesting a 17.5 foot garage building line in lieu of the ordinance required 25-foot building line along a major thoroughfare.

This is a substantially completed house that was permitted with a 25-foot building line but was inadvertently constructed at a reduced setback.

When an inspection revealed the discrepancy, the applicant requested this variance.

The property is located at a fork in Lockwood Drive, where the road continues southeast as a major thoroughfare and becomes a local street approximately 150 feet to the southwest.

The requested setback is consistent with or greater than several other structures in the area and leaves more than 40 feet between the building and the edge of the street at the narrowest point.

A 17.5 foot garage setback would not cause vehicular conflict with sidewalks in the area.

And all habitable portions of the structure are located roughly 15 feet behind the 25-foot building line.

Staff is in support of the request.

Thank you, Mr.

Buckley.

I just wanted one clarification where the road breaks off from Lockwood.

It does it end at the railroad track, so there's not a thoroughfare on that yellow street.

Yes.

So that's the street that the House is on, correct?

Yes.

So it it becomes effectively a local street right in front of their site.

It's just continuing as a major thoroughfare on paper only at that point.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay.

So I have a couple of speakers.

Ms.

Owens is the applicant and here for questions.

And then I have Gregory McAfee.

Mr.

McAfee?

Would you like to speak?

All right.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

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

Please state your name.

My name is Gregory McAfee.

Thank you.

I had a I own my family owns the property adjacent to where the house is built.

My problem is maybe with understanding.

The variance requests was made after the house was built.

So I'm saying in my mind, while I have a various requests with a public hearing after the building that is there, and if I had some concerns, I am not sure how that would affect the property that this next to it, how would that affect any buildings that we would put on that property?

So is it like things were done backwards that I didn't understand why it was done like this.

So if somebody can enlighten me as to how this even got to this point to request that I have no point of reference.

So to say it went from 17.5 to 25, I know I do not know what that means, looking being on site at the property, how that would affect the property that we own.

So somebody could help me with that.

Absolutely.

So if you see the uh on the screen, the 20 the required 25-foot building line is the red line that goes down.

You see that?

Yes.

They are asking for a variance for 17 and a half feet, which is the blue line.

That's the effect of on this lot.

It won't affect you.

It only affects this lot.

And how did we get to this point?

Mistakes happen in the field sometimes.

This got poured and construction began, and they they probably got red tagged.

Is that correct, Mr.

Buckley?

I see you shaking your head.

So they got red tagged, and which means they have to stop what they are doing and come in and take care of it and take care of it is they have to request a variance to change their setback.

So they went from a they are going from a 25-foot required setback, they are reducing it by five, seven and a half feet down to 17 and a half feet.

Does that make sense?

So the front of the house is seven and a half feet closer to the roadway than it should have been.

Yes, Commissioner Garden.

So the whole idea is they made a mistake.

And that's why they started building, they thought everything was cool, and then the city said, you are in violation of the ordinance, and you need to come into compliance.

And the only way to come into compliance with the ordinance is to ask for a variance.

So for all practical purposes, they colored outside the lines, unbeknownst to them, and now they have to move the line.

So it has nothing to do with your property, everything else will stay the same.

If they were coming in today to build it, they would have to build on the 25-foot setback on the building line, the red line that the Chair showed you.

But because they poured it too far forward by mistake, they have to come into compliance and they had to come here, spend money, do these drawings to get permission so that everything is okay, they don't continue to get red tagged.

Does that make sense?

It does.

My other question would be would they want to put another building on that same lot?

I don't want them to have accidentally done something on purpose.

Well, yeah.

We don't like that either.

We really don't.

We can't really judge that.

Um, I am just saying, is it permitted?

I mean, uh if you understand what I'm saying, they would have to come back and do the same thing.

Um if you did it by accident, you'd have to come in and do the same thing.

We don't like accidents, but they do happen, and so we are just trying to to clear the record up.

And I see our applicant raising her hand.

Ms.

Owens, would you like to come up?

Director Tran, did you have a comment you wanted to state before she speaks?

Okay.

Thank you.

Hi, Ms.

Owens.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Joyce Owens, and I represent Mayberry Holmes, who is the builder.

This particular lot or house is part of the City of Houston home repair program, so it is only going to be one house that is there.

There are no additional structures that are proposed.

And you are absolutely correct.

There was a an error in the field.

But the 17-foot building line and help me out add is the garage.

The house still sits back a little bit further.

But there is there's only going to be just this one structure.

And I will share my phone number with this gentleman here.

That would be great.

He may have some additional questions along the way that he'd like to ask.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Yes, Director Tran?

I don't know if this will make anybody feels better, but in this specific case, had it not been a mistake and the lot wasn't as deep.

But if it came to us prior to construction asking for a variance, the reason why for the 25-foot building setback line is because Lockwood Drive is a major thoroughfare requiring 20-feet setback for safety buffer.

But when in this specific instance, Lockwood veer off, and the branch of Lockwood is really not major thoroughfare, so that makes it easier for us.

So even if this came to us ahead of time, asking for a 17 point five-foot setback, I think this commission would approve.

Not that it will make it better that they made that mistake ahead of time, but that helps a little bit with us agreeing to the variance.

And I would just like Yes, Commissioner Hines.

I would just like to add, again, you mentioned Director, this lot is 285 feet deep.

And I think it is reasonable to assume this was a mistake because they have so much real estate to properly set this to build on.

Right.

Did you have something?

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments, Commissioner?

Did that help you understand?

It did.

It did.

It just backwards.

And you can understand my concerns.

Absolutely.

A public hearing after a building is already there.

So that's why I want to come down and watch my concerns.

Thank you for the understanding of the process.

Absolutely.

And we don't like to do things after the fact either, but um just occasionally there will be a mistake, and we're just trying to set the record straight.

Appreciate it.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And Ms.

Owens is very good.

You have any questions?

She's right back there.

She will give you her contact info.

She will help you out with anything you need.

Thank you, Commissioner.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

We have not voted on that yet.

No, we have not.

Ms.

Owens, you already came up and spoke, so I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

All right.

So, Commissioners, you have a recommendation for approval.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Hines.

Motion Hines.

Second, second, sir M.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 102.

Item 102 is 609 Oxford Street.

The site is east of Heights Boulevard and north of White Oak Drive, along the west side of Oxford Street, south of East 7th Street.

The applicant is proposing a mid-rise multifamily building and is requesting not to provide a 15-foot buffer between the building and the property line of a lot to the north of the site that is restricted to single-family residential use and is under the same ownership.

Chapter 42 defines a mid-rise building as taller than 65 feet, but with a finished floor of the highest habitable floor, less than 75 feet tall.

Midrise structures next to properties in use for or restricted to single family residential use require a 15-foot buffer between the building and the abutting property line.

In this case, a special minimum lot size area with single-family restrictions means that a buffer is required for the abutting property and does not allow the lot line to be shifted via replat.

Staff recommendation is to defer the request for further study and review.

Thank you.

Commissioners, I've got a couple of speakers.

Do you have any questions before I call them?

Okay.

Our first speaker is Rick Grothis.

To the end, okay.

Kirk Gerrard.

No, he's not here.

Okay.

So we're at the end.

You're up.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

Planning Commissioners.

My name is Rick Groth Hughes.

I represent uh the owner of the development.

Just here, uh I understand it's referral, so just here for questions.

Great.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

Yes, Commissioner Garson.

So I am really confused.

I I realize that there is a 50-foot setback, and you own that lot.

I guess it's on the north side.

Yes, sir.

So are there any plans at this point in time on what you are going to do with that lot?

No, it's quite up in the air.

Okay.

One of the thoughts is to leave it as an open space for the use of the midrise.

Okay.

Because you are kind of between a rock and a hard place with everything else.

Okay, good enough.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anyone else?

All right.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay.

So Commissioners, we have a recommendation to defer.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza?

Second, Marus, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 103.

Item 103 is 5434 Petty Street.

The site is north of Interstate 10 and west of TC Jester Boulevard at the northeast corner of Petty and Radcliffe Streets.

The applicant is proposing a residential carport and is requesting an 11-foot building line in lieu of the ordinance required 20-foot garage building line.

Many other structures in the area are built to a 10-foot building line.

The carport replaces the approximate footprint of a garage, which was demolished as part of a GLO reconstruction.

But due to the open nature of a carport compared to a garage, it represents an improvement in terms of visibility as well as pedestrian and vehicular safety.

The requested setback leaves enough room between the carport and the sidewalk so that cars port parked under the carport will not block pedestrian access.

The carport was built without permits.

However, staff received several letters of support from neighbors.

Staff is in support of the request and recommends approval.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on this item.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

All right.

Commissioners, if there are no questions, you have a recommendation to approve.

May I have a motion?

Motion Sigler.

Motion Sigler.

Second Ballard, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to Roman numeral two.

Establish a public hearing date of April 16th, 2026 for Balboa Estates, Development on North Shepherd, Esther Acres, Partial Replat number one, Go Forth Plaza, Grand Prairie Highlands Reserve No.

Section 13, Partial Replat number 1 and Extension.

High Line Enclave Replat number 1, Magnolia Point, Reserve at Westheimer, South Post Oak Commercial Reserve, and Woodland Plaza.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Heich?

Second Garza.

Second Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Remember number three, public comment.

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

Okay.

Hearing none, I will adjourn this meeting at 4.08 p.m.

Thank you so much, everyone.