Welcome to the Houston Planning Commission meeting.

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

on Thursday, April 16th, 2026.

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

You may also monitor the meeting by viewing HTV.

Speakers, if you wish to address the Commission on an item, please fill out the speaker's 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.

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

Council members speaking on an item are not timed.

Applicants have their allotted two minutes as well as rebuttals.

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

And there is not an option for rebuttal, even if you do 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, I'll call the roll.

Chair Clark is present.

Commissioner Baldwin?

Present.

Commissioner Ballard.

Present.

Commissioner Carroll.

Present.

Commissioner Heich.

Commissioner Hines.

Present.

Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Naranjo.

Present.

Commissioner Matez.

Present.

Commissioner Pham.

Present.

Commissioner Pierce.

Not here.

Commissioner Poris Pertle.

Present.

Commissioner Sarim.

Present.

Commissioner Shepard.

Present.

Commissioner Sigler.

Present.

Commissioner Sykes.

No one from the County.

And Secretary Von Tran.

Present.

Okay.

It's one, two, three, four, five, six, eight, nine, ten, eleven, and thirty-one.

Okay, so we have sixteen members present.

Sorry for the delay.

My vice chair is not here, and he usually helps me out there.

All right.

I do want to let everyone know that we do have one withdrawal.

And what that means is we won't hear anything on this item and we'll make take no action.

So it's item 92, which is 609 and 617, Oxford Street.

Commissioners, in your packet for the meetings for the prior meeting of April 2nd, 2026.

Do I have a motion for approval?

Second Ballard.

Second Ballard, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

And now we'll turn it over to the Director Tran for her report.

Thank you, Chair Clark.

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

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

Welcome.

I have just one announcement this time.

The MTFP amendment workshop is scheduled for May the 14th at 1 p.m.

here at this location.

We look forward to sharing our findings with you.

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.

We'll move on to plating activity, but I know that we have uh some abstentions, but let's go ahead and have staff come up for A and B.

There we go.

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

My name is Akeelah Bidgee.

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

Sections A and B are items one through 64.

Section A consent items are numbers one through 28, and Section B replot items are numbers 29 through 64.

If it pleases the Commission, staff would like to move consent item number nine, Harris County MUD 566 Utility Reserve Section 1 with item 77, Becker track GP in the variant section.

There are no items that 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 development department requests the approval of all staff recommendations for consent and rebut items not requiring notification, see even accept item number nine.

Okay, thank you.

I have no one signed to speak either.

I do have some abstentions.

Commissioner Heich.

Yes, Madam Chair, I'm going to abstain from items three and fifteen.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mates.

Yes, I abstain from items 13 and 20.

Okay.

Commissioner Sykes.

Item 26.

Okay.

Commissioner Shepard.

Item 3.

Okay.

Are there any others?

Okay.

So I need a motion, save and accept items 3, 9, 13, 15, 20, and 26.

Motion Heinz.

Motion Heinz.

Second, not on ho.

Second.

Nanho.

Any excuse me, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Okay.

So now we'll do the all the others except for item 9.

Um, so now I need a motion for items three, 15, 13, 15, 20, and 26.

Who is that?

Motion Porce Pertle.

Second, Jones.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to C replatts requiring public hearings with notification.

Item 65.

Chair Clark, can we recognize Mandapaka attend?

Oh, yes, I'm sorry.

I didn't see you.

Yes.

Thank you for noticing that.

And welcome, Commissioner Montepaco.

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

My name is Ken Calhoun.

Item 65 is Balbo Estates.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits, with along Balbo Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 65 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Commissioners, I do have the applicant here, Miss Monica Fontenot Pointexter, if you all have questions.

If not, I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Sykes.

Motion Sykes.

Second Motes, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 66.

Item 66 is development on North Shepherd.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits at the intersection of North Shepherd and Highway 610.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 66 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Jones, second, or Naranjo, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 67.

Thank you.

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

My name is Araceli Rodriguez.

Item 67 Esther Acres Parts of Replat number one.

The site is located in the city limit at the intersection of West Montgomery Road and Extra Drive north of South Victory Drive.

The purpose of the replat is to create two single-family residential lots and two open space landscape reserves.

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

Review by legal indicate that the replat does not violate restriction on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

Staff did not receive any public comment in advance.

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 67 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion.

Motion Shepherd.

Second.

Ballard.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 68.

Item 68.

Go Forth Plaza.

The site is located in the city limit east of Kuleb Boulevard, south of Jellystone Boulevard, and north of I 610.

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

There are no variants that requested with this item.

The applicant hath met all the notification requirements.

Review by legal indicate that the plot does not violate restriction on the face of the plot or those filed separately.

That did not receive any public comment in advance.

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 68 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion hinds.

Second Sigler, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 69.

Item 69.

Grand Prairie Highlands Reserve No.

1.

The site is located in Houston ETJ in Harris County, south of Bedka Road and west of Kickapoo Road.

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

The applicant requesting a variant to allow the proposed reserve to have access via an asset easement instead of the required 60-foot public street frontage.

Staff is in support of the request.

The proposed reserve is intended for to accommodate telecommunication infrastructure that will serve the surrounding community.

The site is being re-plotted out of an assisting plated unrestricted reserve.

And Chapter 42 allows subdivision of the platted unrestrictive reserve by meat and bounds.

However, the applicant has chosen to subdivide the property or the platter reserve by plot.

So granting the variant will still meet the intent of the ordinance.

The recorded 50 feet wide non-inclusive active easement connect to Bedcoat Road, which is a major thoroughfare, providing adequate access to the subset site.

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

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

So that recommendation is to grant the requested variant and approve the plat subject to the CPC 101 form condition.

Madam Chair, is it pleased to the Commission?

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

Thank you.

I do want to note that Commissioner Mates is abstaining.

So the public hearing for item 69 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 ball.

Motion ball one.

Second money.

Second Carroll, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 70.

And please note that uh Commissioner Mars is abstaining from this one as well.

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

My name is John Phillips with you.

Item 70 is Grand Prairie Highlands Section 13, partial replat number one and extension.

The subject site is a nearly 7.3 acre property located in the Harris County extraterritorial jurisdiction west along the alignment of Kickapoo Road just north of proposed Baith Road.

The applicant is proposing 41 single family lots and three reserves and is requesting a variance from 42193 to allow lots reserves and reserves restricted to landscape and open space to change to lots, landscape and open space, and compensating open space.

Staff is in support of the request.

Staff has not received any advanced comments regarding the application, and the applicant has met all notice requirements.

This is a partial replat of Grand Prairie Highlands Section 13, being lots 1 through 12, reserve D and a portion of Reserve E, and extends to include acreage to the east.

That acreage was initially intended for a school site in the general plan.

The developer is creating a compensating open space to comply with Chapter 42 requirements while continuing the intended use of lots and landscape and open space reserves.

The creation of the extension of Section 13 require the reconfiguration of reserves and reconfiguration of the original layout, which converted some portions of reserve of landscape reserves to lots, and vice versa.

Had this layout been presented as part of the original plat, there would not be a variance required.

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

Harris County Engineering has no objection to the variance.

Thank you.

Please note that Commissioner Pierce has joined us.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 70 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.

Motion Mondopaca.

Second Carroll.

Second Carroll, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 71.

Item 71 is High Line Enclave Replat number one.

The subject site is a 5,000 square foot property located in the city limits at the northeast intersection of Schuler Street and Roy Street, north of Central Street and west of Durham Drive.

The applicant is proposing to change the two dwelling units for the two lots to three dwelling units for the two lots.

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

This is a full replat of high line enclave with the dwelling unit count being the only change to the plat.

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

Staff has received uh advanced comments regarding drainage and detention and access, stating that the development is too large 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 71 is open.

I have uh no one signed to speak other than the applicant.

If there's questions, Commissioners, any questions?

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

Did I close a public hearing?

I think I closed it.

Well, I'm closing it.

And seeking a motion.

And it was Commissioner Jones.

Motion Jones.

Second Carol.

Second, Carol, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 72.

Item 72 is Magnolia Point.

Actually, uh the subject site is a 30-acre property located in the Houston City limits, spanning between Magnolia Point Drive and Shadow Shore Shadows Drive west of Huffman Cleveland Road.

The applicant is proposing 112 single family lots and six reserves.

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

This is a full replat of ranch at Magnolia Point.

The original 24 lots average 0.9 acres in size, while the proposed development has an average lot size of 5,400 square feet per lot.

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

Staff has received advanced comments regarding the decreased property value and increased criminal presence that the uh development would incur.

And I have received current or uh just recent uh concerns from the community about uh potential EPA concerns.

Um staff has staff's 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.

I will open the public hearing for item 72.

I do have the applicant here for questions.

And I have two speakers.

Our first speaker is Johnny Zevert.

And if I mispronounce that, please correct me.

Good afternoon.

If you wouldn't mind stating your name for the name is Johnny Lee Zevert.

And we have been in the head neck for over 60 years.

And the main thing of the roads in there are already been since 2010, only got repaid.

Used to just be shell roads in there.

And if they are going to try to make a road in there, they need to redo the roadways in there and develop it.

And the main thing is about the flooding that goes in there.

It's over a hundred-year floodplain in there.

We want to know the road of the water coming out of this subdivision.

The lakes are right behind to us on our property when we are on the top view of the lake.

And well, we ain't going to flood the people in the subdivision out.

Or what they're going to develop in there.

Because they don't got no sewer drainage in there.

In 2010, they had to put new sewerage in the subdivision because it was going into the Lake Houston and redo this one on hidden equalane.

They finally redid the tank up there.

That's the main concern I'm worried about.

So these people do not get flooded out there.

And you're going to have when we're at, it's in a flood zone already.

You've got to get uh flood elevation to build a house in there.

So that's the main cure is where these people are going to build this over here is how the water is going to come to these people and hit Neck Lane.

That's all I have to say, ma'am.

Great.

We appreciate you coming in and making comments.

And like I said, we do have the applicant here, so we will get you guys together at the end of the meeting.

Okay.

Our next speaker is Calvin Zievert.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Calvin Ziebert.

And as my brother, he's younger than me.

I have been out there 62 years.

Uh when the subdivision of hidden echoes actually started.

It's the drainage end.

Uh it's going to be coming down a piece of uh a tail of becoming at the end.

How is it going to get into the lake?

Just through a ditch.

You're going to drain 30 plus acres through one ditch.

I mean, uh, I don't see where else it can go.

Um it's gonna impact uh the neighborhood also with the traffic.

I mean, uh he's going with 116 versus, you know, I think it was 26 lots before.

So I mean it's gonna be four and five times the amount of traffic.

Um you're looking at two or three uh cars per household.

Um the little roads in there, you have to pull over onto the shoulder to let somebody pass.

Um there wasn't even roads back in there until 2010, as my brother had stated.

Um so it's impacting the neighborhood.

It's mostly a retirement community.

Most of the people are uh I'm 66.

So most of them are I'm one of the youngest, if not uh other than my brother.

So, you know, it's uh mostly people that are retired.

Um there's already a high crime rate in there.

It's at 163 percent of the average, uh mostly thefts.

So with another 116 houses, I mean, I don't see it going down.

Uh the noise, the traffic, uh pollution coming uh from driveways and oil and gasoline going into that retention pond, and then uh, you know, we gonna we're gonna be fishing three hundred feet from where that is, and it's gonna have to drain right into the lake.

How are they gonna stop all that?

Uh another question when they clear it, we have somewhere every every night, but somewhere between Go ahead and wrap it up, yes.

Okay.

Two to three uh dozen uh deer on our property every night.

They come out of those woods.

Where is the wildlife gonna go?

I mean, uh that's a question also that I have because I'm concerned about it.

But it's the water and what it's gonna be doing.

I mean, it's not gonna happen overnight, but in five years when all those houses are built, you know, what do we do then?

How do we come back and correct it?

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Thank you all.

So I've got um is it Cameron?

The EHRA representative, the applicant.

I'm sorry, I can't I can't read your name, so please if you say it for the record.

Good afternoon.

My name is Ashley Wagner.

I'm also the applicant as well as Carmen.

And um I can help answer any questions.

Yeah, well, you you heard the questions.

And if you could answer some of those quickly, and then what I'll do is I'll get you and um I don't see Mr.

Brown today.

Here he is.

I'd like for you and Mr.

Brown with Public Works to go outside and speak to the Calverts and help them understand what you're doing and how it's gonna proceed and try to answer their questions.

Absolutely.

Um so in terms of uh some of the drainage concerns that were mentioned, uh we will be performing a drainage analysis that's required for uh the development process and ensuring that there will be no negative impacts on uh anyone living in the surrounding area.

And uh I can also make sure we can get with our engineers to kind of get in contact with them uh to try to ease any of those concerns for sure.

And then uh the other question was about uh traffic, so we also are required to do a traffic impact analysis whenever we're doing these sort of developments, uh so we can provide uh that sort of documentation to them as well and ensure that there won't be any negative impacts.

We typically in these scenarios have to improve the uh local roads in order to uh install these developments.

So I can I can help ensure answer any questions after this meeting for sure.

That would be great if you get with them um outside.

Um I think Mr.

Sidio is probably done.

I don't have any other speakers, but if you could do that and explain to them what a TIA is and what a DIA is and you know, just get get them comfortable with uh the roadways and the drainage, and then you can answer the other questions they have.

Absolutely great.

Thank you so much.

Commissioners, you have any questions?

Okay, thank you.

Okay I have no one outside to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

Okay, hearing none.

I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation of approval of the plates to the CPC 101.

Motion, fam.

Second modes, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

I abstain.

I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that.

So Commissioner Sykes had abstained.

So we had a motion.

Anyone against?

Anyone opposed?

All right.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to 73.

Yeah, no action needed.

I guess I can't read.

If you can't tell, I have a really bad head gold.

So I can't read or think today.

So nothing on 73.

Um 74.

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

My name is Dorian Paul Flem.

Item 74 is reserve at West Timer.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits at the southeast intersection of West Hammer Road and Woodhead Street.

The reason for replat is to create one unrestricted reserve.

Reason for replat is to create an unrestricted reserve.

The applicant is seeking the variance to not dedicate five feet of right-of-way along West Hymer Road.

Legal review indicates that this plat will not violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

Staff's recommendation is defer the plat for additional information.

Staff has not risked staff has received advanced comments opposing the variance request.

Comments were expressed concerning pedestrian safety and walkability.

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 74 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Ballard.

Motion Ballard.

Second Jones, all in favor?

Aye.

Did you have a question?

No, not a question.

But when we come back, you know how when we do San Felipe, we have a little map and it showed all the right-of-way that we've taken over the last 10 years or so.

I mean, it's a very tight area, there's no doubt.

But are we ever going to get any more right-of-way, you know, in that area?

So can we have a little map of things that have been dedicated in the last decade or so?

Is that possible?

Yes.

Okay.

We have that now.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Be nice just to see.

Yeah, no, I agree.

It's very helpful.

Okay, I have no one opposed for the vote.

All right.

Motion carries.

Moving on to item 75.

Item 75 is South Post Oak Commercial Reserve.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits in Fort Bend County, east along South Post Oak Road, south of Court Street.

The reason for replat is to create one unrestricted reserve.

There are no variants requested with this item.

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

Councilmember Mayor Pro Tim Maltha Castic Statum has requested that this item be deferred to allow time for the community to review the to continue to review the plat.

Staff's recommendations to defer the plat per the council members' requests.

Staff has received advanced comments opposing the plat because the intent of the site is to build a warehouse and an office building.

And there are safety concerns with so many warehouses already built in this area.

Staff's recommendation is a defer the plat for the council members' request.

And also noted that uh council member um the council members representative is here, Miss Perdita Chavez.

Her signed up.

So I'll open the public hearing for item 75.

And uh Ms.

Chavez, if you'd like to come forward.

It's good to see you again.

Hi Christmas.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Commission.

I'm Perdita Chavis, Chief of Staff for Mayor Pro Tem.

Martha Castex Tatum, she is a council member of District K.

And as the planner Flem stated that um Mayor Pro Tem has requested this uh application be deferred due to concerns brought forth by the community.

Um there was mention of the influx of um industrial um development close to the neighborhood.

There are also concerns brought forth to her about the proximity of the development being by Sims by you, and the community members are concerned about the long-term impact, potential impact that the development could have environmentally and also uh infrastructurally.

Um we do appreciate the recommendation and thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate it.

Okay, I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

All right.

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

First staff recommendation.

Motion bowling.

Motion balling.

Second ballard, all in favor?

Aye opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 76 is Woodland Plaza.

The site is in Newson Corporate Limits, not along Woodland Road, east of east of Living Street and Mesa Drive.

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

There are no variants requested with this item.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

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

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

Staff has not received any advanced comments for this item.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 76 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Second Modest.

Motion Jones, second MODES.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to item D, subdivision platz with variance requests.

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

My name is Petra Shaw.

Item 77 is Becker Road Track GP, and item 9 is Harris County Mud 566, Utility Reserve Section 1.

The sites, the site is located within the Houston ETJ in Harris County, south of Highway 290 and west of Becker Road.

The applicant is proposing a general plan encompassing approximately 1,100 acres of land and is requesting of variants to allow a center line radius of 1,750 feet along the major thoroughfares of Baith Road and Mound Road, and a special exception to allow an intersection spacing of 460 feet along Becker Road, a major thoroughfare, between the existing Glenn Mills Reach Drive and a proposed future street.

Staff is in support of both requests.

Through coordination between the applicant and Harris County Engineering Department, the proposed alignment was developed with the minimum achievable deviation resulting in a 1,750-foot curve radius at the Baith and Mound Road intersection in order to maintain a 90-degree intersection at Mound Road and meet the curvature requirements for the Baith Road alignment as identified on the major thoroughfare and freeway plan.

The applicant is also requesting a special exception to allow an intersection spacing of approximately 460 feet along the major thoroughfare of Becker Road between the existing Glenn Mills Reach Drive to the east and a proposed street to the west.

Between these two streets on the west side of Becker Road is an existing Harris County detention pond that is not part of the GP boundary.

Therefore, the applicant is proposing the future public street to run along the southern boundary of this out tract to avoid creating narrow strips of land between the proposed street and the out tract.

Harris County has no objections.

Staff's recommendation is to approve grant the requested variance and special exception and approve the GP and also the plot subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

All right.

If not, I will seek a motion for item 9 and 77.

Motion Mondabaka.

Motion Mondopaca.

Second Sigler.

Second Sigler.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 78.

Item 78 is Green's Edge.

The subject side is a 35, 30 33.5 acre property located in the Harris County extraterritorial jurisdiction, east along Major Collector Ella Boulevard, south of Rushmore Creek.

The applicant is proposing two large unrestricted reserves and is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing along Illa Boulevard by not extending nor terminating with the Cold Sac Forest Edge Drive.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is intended for commercial use, including warehouse and distribution, and must address the pipeline that diagonally bisects the site showing yellow.

Both reserves will have direct access to Boulevard.

The site itself is surrounded by multifamily development to the north and the east, which all have direct access to North Borough Drive and Major Collector.

The site is bordered to the south and west by Greens Bayou and tributaries, while may only being 534 feet from the intersection of Rush Creek Drive and Ella Boulevard, and would not normally be burdened with intersection spacing requirements, say for the 4300 foot spacing caused by Green Bayou's natural barrier.

The granting of the variants would deny multifamily the developments direct access to Ella Boulevard, but those developments do have access to the major collector of Northboro and can access Ella Boulevard to the west and I-45 to the east through Northborough via Rush Creek and West Greens Road.

Harris County Harris County Engineering has no objection to the variants.

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

Madam Chair, this concludes Staff's presentation.

Thank you.

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

Motion Sykes.

Motion Sykes.

Second, Sir Ram.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 79.

Item 79 is Windward Falls General Plan.

The general plan is 145-acre property located in the Harris County extraterritorial jurisdiction at the northwest intersection of major thoroughfares Katie Hockley Road and Loganbaugh.

The applicant is proposing single family development along with large detention reserves and is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not extending a stub street through the northern boundary.

The site is mostly within the 100-year floodplain and is placed within the major thoroughfare grid.

The applicant is requesting the variance as a means to leave the large detention reserves unimpeded by the additional right-of-way.

Madam Chair, this concludes Staff's presentation.

Thank you, Commissioners.

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

Motion Mata's.

Second Mondapaca, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I will recuse myself.

Oh, yeah.

So we will skip E because there is nothing under it.

We will move to a reconsideration of requirements.

And Commissioner Mataz, you are recusing from item 80.

Thank you.

I will be recruiting for 81.

Do I need to say that?

Okay, I'll say that in just a second.

Okay.

Okay.

Thanks.

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

My name is Devin Critdle.

Item 80 is Allison Point.

The site is located in Southeast Houston, north along Fuquay Street, and east of Cottingham Street.

The applicant is requesting a variance from 42-188 to allow narrow front loading lots along a public right-of-way for tracks larger than 15,000 square feet.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a vacant 12-acre tract intended for 92 single-family residential homes.

The lots in the subdivision are 33 feet in width with 12-foot driveways along the public right-of-way.

Strict interpretation of the ordinance requires tracks over 15,000 square feet to provide rear access or shared access when proposing front loading lots less than 44 feet in width.

The recent livable places ordinance changes were established in 2023.

The intent of these narrow lot regulations was to require larger infield developments to provide an alternative access such as share driveways, private streets, and alley access to preserve the continuity of the pedestrian realm along the existing street grid.

This proposed development is a green field that is undeveloped and will be establishing a new public street system.

Additionally, the developer of this site is also the developer of the adjacent GP along the eastern boundary, which was approved in 2021 prior to the Livable Places ordinance changes.

The lots in that general plan range from 34 feet to about 40 feet in width, and the developer is simply extending that development to have a consistent housing product.

Staff's main justification for supporting the variance is the intent of livable places ordinance is for in-field development.

Staff recommends granting the requested variance and approving the plat subject to the CPC 101 form conditions, and that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioners, if you have no questions, I'll seek a motion for staff recommendation.

But to be clear, there are 30 years.

Claire.

I mean, they are 33 feet wide with a 12-foot-wide driveway, so there is still 21-foot of right-of-way frontage, right?

Yeah, I mean that's the.

Right.

Okay.

Just making sure.

Yes, sir.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And Mr.

Critdle's right when livable places was in, it was it wasn't for this kind of the larger development, it was for infill projects.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioners, if there is no other questions, I'll seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion, force.

Motion, Poris Pertle.

Second.

Fam, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 81.

And please note that Commissioner Sykes and Commissioner Shepard are abstaining.

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

My name is Tammy Williamson.

Item 81 is Azela District Section 8.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Montgomery County, west of U.S.

59 and north of FM 1314.

The applicant is proposing a subdivision of 21 lots and is seeking a reconsideration of requirement and requesting a special exception to allow more than 150 lots with one point of access.

Staff is in support of the request.

Sections 6 and 7 were approved as final applications earlier this year, proposing a total of 135 lots.

The inclusion of Section 8 with its 21 lots proposes to have 156 lots with sole access through flowering crab Apple Drive to Azalea Boulevard.

The ordinance permits developments to have a single point of access as long as the lock count does not exceed 150.

Otherwise, an alternative public street must be provided.

The planning commission granted a special exception in December of 2025 to allow a temporary access easement through one lot in Section 6 to connect to Valley Ranch Parkway.

That would provide emergency access until either Section 9 or Section 10 is recorded, at which time a second public street connection would be available for this development and the easement no longer needed.

However, a delay has occurred obtaining approvals from intergy for the access easement to cross their easement.

So the applicant is requesting a reconsideration from the previous condition to allow the 20-foot wide temporary access easement to instead be permitted to follow the future Section 9 public street pattern to connect to Azalea Boulevard.

When Section 9 is recorded, the public street system meeting the ordinance required second point of access will be provided in place of the easement.

Montgomery County Engineering has no objections to the request.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to grant the requested special exception to allow 156 lots with one point of public street access and a temporary access easement for the second point of access 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 either.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

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

Motion Jones.

Second ballot, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 82.

Item 82 is Harris County MUD No.

67 Lift Station.

The site is located in Houston City limits at the northeast intersection of I-45 and Dixie Farm Road, which is also FM 1959.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced building line of 10 feet along a major fairfair instead of the required 25 feet.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a partial replat of a reserve restricted to non-residential use recorded with the Ellington Gulf Breeze Part Subdivision.

This 6,000 square foot track contains a city operated lift station.

In order to better serve the public, the lift station infrastructure is being improved and requires a permit.

The current lift station was originally built meeting a 10-foot setback requirement.

However, over time, the adjacent right-of-way was upgraded to a major therapy, which triggers a 25-foot setback requirement.

Approving this excuse me.

Approving this the 10-foot setback will allow the lift station to meet the new 10-foot building line requirement.

Also, there's roughly 50 feet between the travel lanes of the roadway and the property line, which will help mitigate concerns with the reduced building lines.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioners, if you don't have any questions, I'll seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Mattes.

Second, sir.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

We'll move on to.

Yes.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Moving on to G extensions of approval.

And I know you are going to want to do these all in order.

We'll note that on item 84, Commissioner Shepherd, Mares, and Heish are going to abstain.

Thank you.

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

My name is Akeelah Bidgee.

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

Yes, ma'am.

Sections G, extensions of approval consists of item 83 through 88.

Section H name changes consists of no items.

Section I, certification of compliance consists of no items.

Section G, administrative also 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.

Commissioners, do I have a motion?

Motion high.

Motion aye.

Second, Carroll, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to K, development plates with variance requests.

Item 89 is a development plat variance for a property located at 2015 Alabama Street.

This site is located in Houston City Lits in a third ward area along Alabama Street near U.S.

59.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced 16-foot building line instead of the required 25-feet building line adjacent to Text Dot property.

Staff's recommendation is to defer the application for two weeks to allow time for the applicant to coordinate with Text Dot regarding vehicular access to this site.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

If not, do I have a motion?

Motion Baldwin?

Second Shepherd, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 90.

Item 90 is 7819 Edgeway Drive.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limits in Harris County, along the eastern side of Wart Road, north of Interstate Highway 10, and south of Westview Drive.

The applicant is proposing to remodel the existing residence that encroaches into the ordinance required 25 building line along Wart Road, and in addition to the side and rear of the home that complies with the building line requirements.

Staff is in support of the request.

The property is within the Berker Woods Section 2 recorded subdivision plat with a platted side building line of 10 feet along Wort Road and a 30-foot front building line along Edgeway Drive.

The existing single family residence is constructed at the 10-foot building line along Wart Road as and is intended to remain.

The applicant is proposing to revise the roof framing to replace the hip roof with a single sloped roof and some finestration framing along Wort Road.

A variance is required to be addressed due to the structural changes occurring within the 25-foot building line along Wort Road, even if the wall itself is proposed to remain.

The proposed addition will meet all ordinance and plat requirements.

Because the portion of the existing structure within the ordinance required 25-foot building line is intending to remain with only minor alterations.

Staff finds the request to be reasonable and of sound public policy to allow for remote a minor remodel to a home that when constructed met the rules of the time.

Houston Public Works has voiced no objection to the request.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to approve the request.

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

Thank you.

Commissioners, if you don't have any questions, I'll seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion bald one.

Motion Baldwin.

Second Carroll.

Second Carroll, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 91.

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

My name is Ed Buckley.

Item 91 is 1803 Foxwood Road.

The site is along a cul-de-sac at the end of Foxwood Road, north of West 18th Street, and south of TC Jester Boulevard.

The applicant is proposing a residential addition and is requesting a 24-foot building line in lieu of the ordinance required 25-foot building line along West 18th Street, a major thoroughfare.

The addition is already constructed, but is in line with the existing House and is consistent with many other structures along this part of West 18th.

They were built to a 20-foot platted building line.

A variance for a 20-foot building line was approved two blocks west in October of 2025.

A 24-foot setback gives approximately 34 feet between the structure and the street curve.

A separation that includes fencing and landscaping, so impacts to visibility, public safety, or the streetscape are minimal.

Because the requested variance is a minor change from the ordinance required building line and allows a significant setback from the edge of the street, as well as the fact that the addition is in line with the existing house and other structures in the area.

Staff recommendation is to approve the request.

Thank you.

Commissioners, are there any questions?

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

Motion Ballin.

Second Shepherd, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 92.

Item 92 609 Oxford Street has been withdrawn.

You are right.

It has been withdrawn.

93.

Item 93 is 1420 Oxford Street.

The site is east of Heights Boulevard and north of 14th Street.

At the southeast corner of Oxford Street and All Greg Street.

The applicant is proposing a new single family residence and is requesting a three-foot building line and 13-foot garage building line in lieu of the ordinance required 10-foot building line and 20-foot garage building line.

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

Thank you.

I do have some speakers signed on this item.

Our first speaker is Jules Kennedy.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

I am Jules Kennedy and I own the property next door to this project at 1416 Oxford, and I have owned this property for 49 years.

I am kind of confused about this.

This gentleman is a real estate investor developer.

I know he's bought several properties in the heights.

Now the size of this property before he knew the size of this property before purchasing it and the required minimum setbacks.

Yet he had a house design that doesn't fit within those setbacks.

I had heard it's a 3700 square foot structure on a 39 square 3,900 square foot lot.

And now he wants to rewrite the city required setbacks to maximize his profits.

So there's no undue hardship on this applicant.

He should have considered the ramifications when he bought this tiny lot and decided to build this huge house on it.

That impacts the neighbors.

This house doesn't conform to the neighborhood, and it does not maintain the harmony and character of our neighborhood.

He is an opportunist who bought the lot at a fire sale price due to the owner's passing.

And now he wants to change things to suit his own purpose.

You have all heard that before.

And then on my side, he is asking for three-foot variants, three-foot setback with a six-inch gutter on top of that, which is two and a half feet from me.

So my property will flood each time it rains.

But I guess that's my problem.

So this is not a reasonable use of this land, in my opinion.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is David Level and Suzanne Jennings.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Due to my recent uh vision loss, my wife will be reading our response.

Very good.

Good afternoon.

I'm Suzanne Jennings, and I am going to be reading on behalf of John Rogers and Suzanne Lebarth, who are next-door neighbors, architects, and are in Japan.

To whom it may concern.

My name is John Rogers, and I live at 605 All Greg Street, directly across from the subject property.

As a resident of the Houston Heights since the early 1980s, and an architect with over 40 years of experience in residential and commercial design, including projects within historic districts, I am writing to formally comment on the pending application.

The current proposal appears to utilize stock drawings from 2017 that are ill-suited for a corner lot.

In addition, the applicant seeks to reduce the minimum setback along All Greg Street to three feet.

Neighboring properties, including our own, across the street from the subject property and the houses to the subject properties east, maintain setbacks of at least 10 feet.

Allowing this reduction would enable a structure that protrudes well beyond the established block face, blocking neighbors and drivers' views.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the applicant recently removed a mature con tree from within the City of Houston right-of-way, which would have otherwise impeded this variant's request.

The garage setback.

The applicant is also requesting a reduced setback for the garage.

Reduced garage setbacks often lead to vehicles over overhanging or blocking the sidewalk.

Given the depth of the lot, the applicant can easily comply with standard setbacks to ensure the sidewalk remains accessible for pedestrians and wheelchair users.

To that note, in the plot that we received, there was no setback.

I understand that is under discussion.

I implore you all to make sure that there is, as we have high school students and elderly people who use this pathway all the time.

The block is full of families and very small children and strollers.

I am going to switch over and read from his wife, Suzanne, who uh we're going to start your two minutes now for this one.

Oh, yeah, you get you're speaking on behalf a couple people, so I'm going to be generous and give you two more minutes.

Thank you so much.

Um there is an impact on a mature water oak.

A mature water oak is located near the eastern property line.

The proposed site places the new two-story structure, which requires deep grade beams directly against the tree.

This construction will inevitably sever the root system, eventually killing the tree and creating a significant fall hazard.

It is irresponsible to build this close to the tree without acknowledging the long-term liability and safety risk to future homeowners and the public.

I urge the Commission to consider these impacts on the neighborhood safety, character, and infrastructure, and deny the requested variances.

And he apologizes for being out of town.

Switching over to Suzanne, his wife's notes, and I'll just do a quick summary here.

She says, bottom line is that variances are supposed to be hardships.

This isn't a hardship request.

It is just a lazy and greedy way that the builder can because the builder didn't obtain a design that fits on the restrictions in place.

The number one rule in architecture is to find out what the constraints of the site are and plan the building to fit within them.

This didn't occur here.

He appears to have obtained a stock plan from a company that sells generic plans and didn't pick one that fits the site.

This is not a hardship.

It shows a lack of understanding of how to work within the rules.

Understanding all the parameters is the only proper way to design and build on any site.

And that concludes our remarks.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate you coming in and sharing all the comments.

Mr.

Buckley, could you or Mr.

Brown get with them about their concerns on the trees, please?

Yes.

Thank you.

I have no one else signed to speak.

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

Motion Heinz.

Motion Heinz.

Second Pallard, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving on.

To Roman numeral two, establish a public hearing date of May 14, 2026 for Azusa Villas.

As TLAN places, CARA at Midlane, Creek Mont Branch, Replet No.

Jacqueline Grove, Levant Holmes at Alston, Madeira Suites, Residences at Snowdon, Vista ICARE, Walker Storage Yards, and Western Oaks, Partial Replet No.

1.

Do I have a motion?

Motion high, second Jones, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Roman numeral three.

Consideration of an off street parking variance at 9700 Hillcroft Avenue.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Roman numeral three of 9700 Hillcroft Avenue.

This is a parking variance.

The site is located at 9700 Hillcroft Avenue, south of Brayswood Bayou and West Along Hillcroft Road.

The applicant is requesting a park advance for a Walmart supermarket to reduce the parking requirement from 210 spaces to 193 spaces.

Staff is in support of this request.

This Walmart supermarket was first constructed in 2002 and was later remodeled in 2011.

The applicant has expressed a growing demand for online grocery shopping for pickup.

To address this issue, Walmart is proposing to expand its existing facility to better accommodate grocery pickup services.

The expansion is roughly 2,000 square feet, which requires an additional 10 spaces, put in the parking requirement at 210 total spaces.

The applicant is requesting to provide only 193 spaces, which is a slight 8 percent reduction.

In December of last year, this Commission approved a similar parking reduction of 6 percent for Walmart located along Westview Drive, based on the same exact justification.

Also, the parking analysis provided to staff indicates that 20 parking spaces will be allocated from general parking to online pickup only.

Overall, staff has not received any objection to this request.

Staff recommends approving this requested variance, and Madam Chair, this concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

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

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

Okay.

I only heard a little bit of that.

Who made the motion?

Yeah, I have a second.

Okay.

Motion Aranho, second Sigler, all in favor?

Motion carries.

Arroman number four we don't need because commit the both commissioners are here.

Item five, public comment.

Is there anyone that would like to make a public comment?

All right.

If not, I'm adjourning this meeting at 3 33 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.

And Ms.

Jennings, Mr.

Brown came in and he can help you with the concerns on the trees and things like that.

So he is right there in the back and he'll get with you guys, okay?

Thank you.