My name is Lisa Clark, and I'm the chair of your Houston Planning Commission, and I'm calling this meeting to order at 232 p.m.

on Thursday, April 30th, 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 via HTV.

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

Consent and repeat speakers are allowed one minute and new speakers are timed for two minutes.

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

Council members speaking on an item are not timed.

Applicants have their two minutes time as well as rebuttals.

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

There's not an option for a rebuttal, even if you did not use your full two minutes.

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

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

Chair Clark is present.

Vice Chair Garza.

Present.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Present.

Commissioner Ballard.

Present.

Commissioner Carroll.

Present.

Commissioner Heinz.

Present.

Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Moraes.

Commissioner Naranjo.

Present.

Commissioner Pham.

Present.

Commissioner Pierce.

Commissioner Porce Pertle.

Present.

Commissioner Sarim.

Present.

Commissioner Shepard.

Present.

Commissioner Sigler.

Present.

Commissioner Sykes.

Present.

Commissioner Victor.

Present.

And Secretary Von Tran.

Present.

Seventeen.

Thank you.

We've established a quorum.

We have 17 members in attendance.

So now we'll move along to the Director's Report.

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

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

Welcome.

I have one announcement today.

The 2026 Major Thoroughfare and Freeway Plan Amendments.

Open House is scheduled for 1 p.m.

May the 14th here in this chamber at 900 Bagby.

The open house will feature an introduction by staff, followed by statements from applicants regarding the six proposed major thoroughfare and freeway amendments.

This will be one of the first, or I'm sorry, this will be the first of the five public meetings of the amendment process, which will culminate with Planning Commission taking action in September.

This concludes my report.

In closing, for assistance, please call Planning and Development Department at 832-393-6600.

You can reach the planner of the day at 832-393-6624.

As always, please visit us online at HoustonPlanning.com.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Director Tran.

I do want to make note we have two withdrawals today.

Item 77, Acevedo properties, and item 80, Burkhart Garden Estates.

We will not hear anything on those items and will take no action.

Commissioners, in front of you, you have your agenda, which was attached to your notice.

I need a motion for approval of our April 16th, 2026 meeting minutes.

Motion Motes.

Second Hines.

Second Hines.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now we will have a presentation of the proposed amendments to Chapter 42.

I don't need to read this whole long thing.

They will tell you what this is all about.

It's a presentation by our Parks Department and by Director Tran.

Pierce is welcome.

And yes, please note that Commissioner Pierce has joined us.

Thank you.

Good afternoon again, Chair Clark, Planning Commissioners, and guests.

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

Today, Director Allen and I will be presenting the proposed updates to Chapter 42, Division 7, which is the Parks and Private Parks Ordinance, otherwise known as the Open Space Ordinance.

Please note you have in your package a proposed red line of this ordinance as well.

These amendments are primarily needed to bring our code into compliance with the Texas Local Code, Chapter 212, which took effect on January 1st of 2024 and applies to cities with populations of 800,000, which also includes the City of Houston.

In addition to those changes, the planning department and the parks department are recommending several additional changes that are aimed to improve the enhancement of the administration of the ordinance as well as reducing disparities in the across the park sectors.

So with that said, please move to the next slide.

All right.

On this slide, you will see the topics we will cover today in the presentation.

I will begin with an overview of Chapter 212 and Chapter 42, present an analysis of the fees, and provide recommendation of changes for compliance.

Finally, I will summarize the proposed changes and turn the floor back to Chair Clark for comments, questions, and establishing a public hearing.

Next slide.

Next slide, please.

All right.

This slide compares Chapter 212 and Chapter 42.

Chapter 212 applies to multifamily only.

The city must choose land dedication, fee, or both.

Fees are collected at certificate of occupancy.

There are two fee options.

A higher fee option exceeding 2 percent of the median household income, which requires complex calculations and is more difficult to administer, or a lower fee option capped at under 2 percent of the median household income.

Chapter 42 applies to both multifamily and single family.

It requires parkland dedication or a fee in lieu.

Fees are collected at permit, and the fee is currently $700 per dwelling unit.

Slide five, please.

Okay.

This is the process to create or amend fees.

Chapter 212 requires a public hearing to classify areas of the city as suburban, urban, or central business.

It requires notice to appraisal districts, calculation of average land value, and setting dwelling unit and density factors.

These steps are mandatory to maintain authority to impose fees.

This chart shows an analysis of the fee if adjusted if adjusted to percentage changes in taxable land value, CPI, and percentage of median household income.

Please note the last two lines.

We recommend these changes for multifamily.

First, designating all territory as suburban, urban, or central business district to meet the criteria for setting fee.

Adopting the lower fee, not greater than 2% of the median household income.

Adopting a fee-only approach, collecting fees at issuance of certificate of occupancy, and adding a process for appeal, which is required by Chapter 212.

I now will step aside for Director Allen to present an update on the dedicated or I'm sorry, on the dedication fund and a report on park sector disparity.

Thank you, Director Tran.

It is a pleasure and honor to stand with you, and I appreciate the work that you and your team is doing before we get started.

So I get a few points for that, right?

So I'm Kenneth Allen.

It's a pleasure to serve as a Parks Director of the fourth largest most diverse city in this nation.

So what have we done with these park fees?

Park dedication fees.

Since 2007, the Parks and Recreation Dedication Fund has generated more than 100 million dollars in total revenue.

These funds support land acquisition, park development, facility development, just to keep pace with population growth.

In the City of Houston, we actually maintain 382 parks across the city, and over 199 of the parks as 52 percent have been or targeted or they're targeted to be enhanced through this funding.

The city also acquired 64 acres of new parkland at the tune of 14 million dollars with this fund.

Fiscal year 25 collections totaled 6.7 million, and we have collected $6.6 million so far in FY26.

Looking ahead, $36 million has already been committed to upcoming park improvements and land acquisition efforts.

Next slide, please.

Upcoming priorities for the Park Dedication Fund include Mayor Whitmire's Let's Play Houston initiative, which will improve over 25 neighborhood parks in partnership with Houston Parks Board.

New playgrounds are also needed across this city.

In terms of infrastructure, our playgrounds were built in the 1990 1995.

That's 30 years old.

We are also leveraging dollars to impact and make and make it stronger for us to partner with others in terms of this investment.

Matching funds that require local, state, and federal grants.

We can deliver more by partnering with different agencies.

And then partnership-driven investments are also the goal in dealing with these funds.

Collaborations with tourists, Harris County, management districts, and park conservancies definitely leverage the funds that we have.

For an example, we have an agreement with Gulfgate Redevelopment Authority to improve four city parks within Tourist 8.

And then Capital Re capital Replacement and Lighting Projects are also a priority for this for this fund as far as as far as expending.

Next slide, please.

The Park Dedication Fund has strengthened Houston's park system, no doubt about it.

Investments are distributed across all City Council districts, and our key priorities include renovating a neighborhood and pocket parks, as well as upgrades to neighborhood tennis courts, playgrounds, walking trails, picnic and basketball pavilions.

Overall, the fund actually serves it serves as a vital lifeline in supporting long-term health and vitality of our Houston parks.

Next slide, please.

We have identified structural imbalances across 21 park sectors that affect how funding is generated and distributed.

Here we show five of the 21 park sectors and has generated 53 percent of the total fund revenue.

Sector 14, shown in orange, it leads significantly, contributing 21 million dollars alone.

It ranks second, generating about 11 million, and then three additional sectors each generate about 7 million shown in pink, purple, and blue.

The remaining 16 sectors shown in gray contribute far less, highlighting uneven revenue availability for park projects in those sectors.

Think about Sector 5 in this in this chart.

It only generated $80,500 since inception.

The disparity underscores the need for better balance and revenue across all 21 sectors of our city.

To address this imbalance, we recommend an amendment to Chapter 42 to allow 30 percent of the funds to be allocated citywide.

This creates a key opportunity to redistribute resources and help achieve system-wide balance.

Next slide, please.

This illustrates Houston's parkland relative to the national benchmark of 10 acres per 1,000 residents.

Green areas represent the six park sectors that meet or exceed the standard.

Orange and red areas indicate sectors with the greatest parkland deficiencies, and the yellow areas also reflect significant gaps, you know, driven by population demand and limited access.

This further underscores the need for continued investment.

In conclusion, the park dedication fund is critical to help close the gap by transforming parks into vibrant community spaces, expanding access to health and wellness, and enhancing quality of life for Houstonians.

Thank you.

I will hand it back to Director Trans.

Thank you, Director Allen.

Next slide, please.

All right.

So I hope that you can understand from Director Allen's report the need for allowing 30 percent of the fees collected to be allocated citywide.

I think the maps uh really tells the story.

We recommend two additional changes aimed at enhancing the practical administration of the fee in loo fund, uh, one being extending the time from three years to five years for the funds paid to be obligated.

Uh this is in part because uh Chapter 212 is requiring that the fees be paid at occupancy uh permit versus at uh construction permit.

So that delays some time for us to be able to access those funds.

Uh the second additional revision is uh to revise parks board to parks director having authority to manage and expend the funds.

Next slide.

So in conclusion, this is a summary summary of the changes that we are proposing.

Uh we recommend uh the first five changes on this uh on the top of this list.

I won't need to have to read it again.

You can see it on the screen, and then the three additional changes that are for um uh really uh fixing the disparity of the park sectors and assisting us with uh better uh methods of managing the funds.

So with that said, uh this concludes my presentation.

Next slide.

Madam Chair, you may open the floor for comments or questions and establish a public hearing for May 14, 2026.

We hand it over to you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, and thank you both for that presentation.

A lot of thought has gone into this, and we we really appreciate what you guys are doing.

So I will open the floor.

Is there anyone that wishes to speak?

Or Commissioners, let me start with you first.

Do you have questions?

Yes, Commissioner Baldwin.

This is very similar to how we did the sidewalk fund, right?

I mean, we took the same 30 percent across the others.

It is very similar to what we have been doing recently.

We just hadn't updated this in far too long.

That's correct.

Okay, perfect.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Yes, Commissioner Heinz.

Uh thank you guys for the presentation.

Uh with the reallocation of the 30 percent citywide.

Uh-huh.

What is the strategy behind that real allocation?

Is it uh equally uh distributed, or are there specific projects that are being developed that will be tackled all at once, sequentially?

What is the approach?

It is really complex with all the development.

You know, do you do it all at once, do you do it in packets, but essentially it is where it is needed most.

We have facilities in critical need of repair from uh from a safety and a hazard standpoint, so we will focus on those first.

Uh and then we'll get into uh community outreach.

A lot of the work is done with some community outreach.

Um our basic basic strategy is to go where is needed and then try to equally map this out by council district.

Um, we have some council districts which have maybe 10 parks and others maybe three.

So we want to try to be equitable in terms of how we how we are making these improvements.

So that's basically it.

Thank you.

May I add uh one more point?

Um this allowance of the 30 percent to be spent citywide will allow Director Allen to leverage opportunities.

Um again, there might be opportunities of grants that come up or partnership, and so it will provide him with flexibilities as well.

Thank you.

Commissioner Garza.

Yes, thank you.

And so uh one of the things I wanted to remind you of is I am uh chair of TURS 8, and of course, we are working with the Parks Department uh on improving um parks as well as buying a new park.

But I wanted to emphasize that as Director Trans said, there are many, many opportunities to partner with government entities, get grants, and um you know market districts and TURS, because of course, where you are dedicated to the entire city, we are dedicated to our own zones.

So I I hope that you'll make a note and think about reaching out to those entities first, because we can provide you with the information that you might need, having already done it.

Um so you don't have to spend money doing that.

The TURS is the management districts have already done it and give you that information.

So we hope you'll consider us as a partner.

Thank you.

Definitely, thank you.

We are already in the process of that.

So is the uh the 30 percent that that can be used in different sectors?

Is that a retroactive number of funds already collected or is that funds collected going forward?

Funds collected going forward.

Okay.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Yes, Commissioner Paul.

And we'll get an annual report each year?

Yes.

An annual update.

Update.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience?

Um I believe us, all councilwoman Alcorn, I think.

I'm gonna wait for the hearing.

Okay.

All right.

If there are no more comments, yes, sir.

Do you want to wait for the public hearing?

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, guys.

And let me open the public hearing.

Um I'm going to establish a public hearing date of May 14th, 2026 for this item.

So, yes, sir.

Could you state your name for the record, please?

Hi, yeah, my name is Doug Smith.

And uh I didn't know anything about the park dedication fee until I had uh lunch with a developer, and he was complaining because he pays money into it, and he was having a very hard time figuring out where that money went, and he didn't want to push it because he had to work with the people that he was trying to get information from.

Uh and then I went to a budget and fiscal affairs meeting, and this came up.

So I decided to ask some questions myself.

I go to those meetings regularly.

And uh there is supposedly a fund for 035 parks and recreation dedication fee.

And I'm pretty familiar with the budget, and I could not find that fund in the budget.

It's probably there someplace since it's called for.

But it seems to me like the information that I received was all pretty much similar to what you received.

Lump sum, they recruited they've uh uh gotten the 100 million dollars since the inception, and then I got a listing of where that money was spent, the projects, but it wasn't, it was just a listing of the projects with no uh listing of dollar amounts associated with it.

And I think if there's a fund uh that's supposed to be there, we should see where the money came from by uh district and then where that money went to by the district because there uh is a lot of information that that fund could provide, and right now all I'm getting is lump sum 100 million dollars, and here's 15 or 20 projects that we spent money on.

So if there are any changes made to uh the uh ordinance, there has to be something in there about more detailed information of where the money came from and where it went.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you so much.

Um Director Tran, are we making notes, I guess, and uh Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

Okay.

So we will close the public hearing and see you guys on the 14th.

I'm sorry.

Continue it, excuse me.

Oh, I didn't know.

We need to vote on the public hearing on May 14.

Do we not?

Yes, we do.

Very good catch.

You so move.

Do I have a second?

Garza.

Second, Shepard, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Oh, I wanted to note uh Commissioner Heisch has joined us.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving on to plating activity, roaming numeral two.

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

My name is Akila Bidgee.

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

Section A and B are items one through 76.

Section A, consent items are numbers one through 36, and Section B, replot items are numbers 37 through 76.

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

Thank you.

I believe I have some recusals.

Yes.

Item 16, 17, 18, 25, 28, and 30.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sykes.

34.

Thank you.

Is there any other um Commissioner that has recusals?

Okay.

So I need a motion, save and accept items 16, 17, 18, 25, 28, 30, and 34.

Motion.

Motion Victor, second, Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Now I need a motion for items 16 through 18, 25, 28, 30, and 34.

Motion Sigler.

Motion Sigler.

Second Jones, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to Click hearing.

Public hearings with notification.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

The members of the Planning Commission, my leme Araceli Rodriguez.

Item 78, Adam Landing.

The site is located in the city limit at the intersection of Canal Street and Adams Street.

South of Navigation Boulevard and east of Lockwood Drive.

The purpose of the WIPLA is to create one unrestricted reserve and Australia's driveway development with four lot and one parking reserve.

Also to modify the lot line to be moved an assisting warehouse from the proposed lot for a single family lot.

The applicant requesting a variant to not provide waterway dedication along Adam Street.

The applicant has act for aid deferral to consider other options and to allow time to continue coordinating with the city engineer and joint referral committee.

Review by legal department indicate that the plot 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, it's the pleasure of the commission, you may open the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 78 is open.

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.

Motion Garza.

Second.

Victor, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 79.

Item 79, Vladana estate.

The site is located in Houston City Limit east of Willowick Road and south of San Felipe Street.

The purpose of the Wii Plat is to create one single family residential lot.

There are no variances requested with this item.

The applicant has met all the notification requirement and review by legal indicates that the plot does not violate restriction on the face of the plot or those filed separately.

Staff did not receive any public comment in advance.

Madam Chair is to please the Commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing is open for Baldonna estates.

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 1.

Second Hines.

Second Hines, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 80 is withdrawn, moving on to 81.

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

My name is John Phillips with you.

Item 81 is Ella Greens.

The subject site is a 31-acre property located in both Houston Corporate Limits and the Harris County extraterritorial jurisdiction.

East along Illa Boulevard and north along West Rankin Road.

The reason for the replat is create six reserves, four of which being unrestricted, one drainage and detention reserve and one landscape reserve.

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

This is a full replet of Bill of Green's Section 1, as well as a partial replat of Bio Oaks Town Home Apartments and North Borough Section 3.

Review by legal indicates the PAT does not violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately and status not receiving any advanced comments regarding the application.

Thank you.

The public hearing 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.

Sikes.

Okay.

Okay.

Motion psyches.

Second Jones.

All in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to 82.

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

My name is Devin Crittle.

Item 82 is Espinoza residence.

The site is located within Houston City limits along Stabler Road, just north of Copper Road.

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

There are no variances being requested with this item.

Review by legal indicates that this plat will not violate separately filed deed restrictions, but it is subject to a front 25-foot setback requirement.

Staff recommends approving the plat subject to the CPC one CPC 101 form conditions.

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

Motion Model.

Motion Minus.

Second ballard.

Second ballard.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 83.

Item 83 is Hazard Street Views.

The sites are located within Houston City limits along Hazard Street and north of Fairview Street.

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

There are no advances being requested with this item, and review by legal indicates that this plat will now violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

Madam Chair, we did receive comments about uh ongoing fence uh dispute uh but no opposition to the uh request itself.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 83 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Sigler.

Motion Sigler.

Second Carroll.

Second Carroll, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to 84.

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

My name is Dorian Poeflem.

Item 84 is HCWCID number 36, Marewood lift station.

The site is in Houston Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in Harris County, Texas, at the southwest intersection of Walden Street and Penn City Road.

The reason for replat is to create a lift station and reduce the building line along Walden Street.

The applicant is also seeking the variance to allow a reduced building line of 23 feet instead of the required 25 feet along Walden Street.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is a replat of a carnal lot created with the Merriwood subdivision in 1946.

There is existing lift station on the property.

The property is owned by the Harris County Water Control and Improvement District No.

36.

The district intends to expand the site to meet regulations.

The proposed lift station wet well will be approximately 23 feet from the property line along Walden.

Per Chapter 42-150D, if a reserve is across the street from a single family lot with a platted building line greater than 10 feet, the reserve must mirror the building line up to 25 feet.

The required build line for the reserve would be 25 feet along Walden Street.

However, this is a lift station site.

If the reserve was not across the street from a single family residential lot with a platted building line greater than 10 feet along a local street, the building line requirement would only be 10 feet along Walden.

And the variance would not be required.

The expansion of the lift station site is necessary to update the current facilities without the interruption of current services to the community.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

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

Harris County Engineers Office has no objections to the request.

Staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variance and approve the plat per the 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 84 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Jones.

Motion Jones.

Second ballard.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 85.

Item 85 is Baroner Heights.

Uh this application was deferred at the previous planning commission meeting.

The site is located within Houston City limits along Darling Street, just east of TC Jester.

The purpose of the replat is create one, unrestrict the reserve.

There are no varies being requested with this item.

Madam Chair, when this application was first submitted, there were active single family restrictions, which the plat violated during the 30-day extension.

The applicant was able to amend the deed restrictions and provide updated documentation for legal review.

Legal has determined that this plat no longer violates simplified filed deed restrictions.

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

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

Thank you.

The public hearing is continued for item 85.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Mata.

Motion Mates.

Second fam.

Second fam.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 86.

Item 86 is MEC Alpine Terraces.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits at the southeast intersection of Bayou Park View Drive and Malcapine Street.

The reason for replat is to create 10 single-family residential lots and two parking reserves.

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 plat or those filed separately.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the plat per the 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 item public hearing for item 86 is open.

I do have someone sign to speak.

Zima Ortez.

And if I mispronounced your name, please correct me.

Good afternoon.

Zima Ortiz is correct.

Actually, I'm the school principal of the school that's literally less than a block, maybe five, six hundred feet from where this is being built.

We have over a hundred cars that come through car line Monday through Friday.

We are a Catholic school, you know, very close to where this is being built.

My concern is our car pull, because we have over a hundred cars that come for preschool through eighth grade.

So I just I'm just curious where the entrance and how people are going to be coming, because I mean you're going to have some angry residents because we will be probably blocking the area because the car line comes through Carpool through the Mount Alpine Street and it goes to Ann Street, and then you enter the gates of the school.

So we're just curious.

My pastor and I also there is a church tied to our Lady Guadalupe, and they have also their Sunday masses that have a ton of parishioners that come through for the daily masses on Sunday.

So we're just concerned with the traffic flow of I mean, this is the first time I'm hearing, you know, there's going to be 10 units and you know how that's going to impact.

So I'm just curious.

I'm just here to hear if that's going to impact so that residents are aware that there will be a hundred cars coming through the area Monday through Friday when school is in session.

Thank you, Ms.

Flem.

Do you have any input?

Um I don't know if the applicant is here.

It takes off of Bayou Park V Drive.

Yeah, I I think I can see, yeah.

Takes off of Bayou Park View Drive.

Yeah, there's only two entrances from Bayou Park View Drive.

Okay.

And it's they're proposing 10 lots.

Okay.

That's the information we have right now, Ms.

Ortiz.

Um, but you can get with Ms.

Poe Flam when she's done presenting, and she'll tell you how to stay in touch with this as it progresses through.

That's Ms.

Poe Flam here at the podium.

She'll get with you when she's done.

Okay.

The applicant is.

Oh, the applicant is here.

Okay.

Very good.

Okay.

So I have no one else signed to speak on item 86.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

Okay.

Then I will close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Garza.

Motion, Garza.

Second, sir Am.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 89.

Oh, 87.

I'm just pushing it along, aren't I?

Item 87 is reserved at Westheimer.

The site is located at the southeast corner of Westheimer Road and Woodhead Street within the city of Houston's corporate limits.

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

The applicant is also requesting a variance from the requirement to dedicate five feet of right-of-way along Westheimer Road.

Staff is not in support of this request.

West Timer Road at this location is classified as a major therapy with a planned right-of-way width of 70 feet.

A five-foot dedication along Westheimer Road is required for the proposed development.

The applicant proposes to construct a two-story office addition to an existing garage as part of an existing auto repair facility.

The addition will be placed at the rear of the property.

The proposed parking spaces at the front of the site are located at approximately 2.5 feet from the property line.

These spaces can be shifted back, an additional 2.5 feet to accommodate the five-foot dedication while still maintaining a minimum 20-foot drive aisle meeting parking requirements.

There is sufficient room on the site to provide the required dedication and to resign and to redesign the site to meet all applicable standards.

The applicant has not demonstrated hardship.

At the previous plan and commission meeting, the plat was deferred for the applicant to provide a revised site plan showing existing and proposed sidewalks, building dimensions, landscape buffers, street trees, parking lot trees, and all landscaping and through up requirements per Chapter 33.

The applicant has not submitted updated drawings, a revised site plan, or an updated variance request during the deferral period.

This segment of West Timer Road is particularly important as it is directly across from Woodhead Street, a connection that links Lanyer Middle School west of the site.

The five-foot dedication is necessary to support future street widening and to provide a minimum six-foot sidewalk with a four to six-foot safety buffer, ensuring a safe and walkable pedestrian environment for students and the community.

Further, recent planning activity along Westheimer Road between Woodhead Street and Mandel Streets demonstrates that other properties have dedicated the required five feet of right-away widening.

Houston Public Works does not support the request.

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

Staff's recommendation is to deny the requested variance and approve the plat with the required five-foot dedication for the widening of Westheimer Road.

Staff has received advanced comments opposing the variance requests.

Comments were expressed concerning pedestrian safety and walkability.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 87 is continued.

I do have a few speakers.

Our first speaker is Harrison Rusk.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Commissioners.

I'm Harrison Rusk, the second generation small business owner of RMS Auto Care, which occupies this site.

While we completely understand the community concern about the sidewalks, the current condition of the sidewalk is worse than what we have also submitted.

Document camera.

Oh, I'm sorry.

That's okay.

The lower image, um, this is our proposal for widening of the sidewalk.

We understand that there is pedestrian uh traffic along here.

My family has been operating this site for 46 years, uh serving our community, and we're very sensitive to the pedestrians and all of the students at Lanier.

Um this is our proposal to widen the current sidewalk.

The sidewalk currently appears like this.

Right here, the edge of the sidewalk is one foot ten inches, whereas our proposal would add significant landscape landscaping and a four-foot uh barrier from the sidewalk to the curb on Westheimer.

Um while it may not seem that the two and a half feet or the five-foot variants for our site uh wouldn't would be something that we can't achieve.

It would have extremely large impacts to our ability to do business.

It would reduce the site plan to where our entire property becomes a one-way flow.

If we're concerned about pedestrian traffic, that one-way flow is either going to put more cars coming onto Woodhead, which is adjacent to Lanier Middle School.

So we're either going to have Go ahead and wrap up.

Okay.

We're either going to have more cars coming onto our property via Woodhead or more cars exiting our property onto Woodhead towards the school.

Right now, based off of our business operations, we have around a hundred to uh a hundred and fifty cars traversing our property every day.

I'd ask your consideration for the feasibility of the variants.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

I have a question.

Yes, Commissioner Garza.

Sir, you're proposing your new sidewalk.

Your your plan shows a sidewalk that is how wide?

Um, six feet.

Okay.

So it's uh there's a four-foot buffer, right?

Yes, you said four foot buffer, then six feet, then another two feet, it looks like maybe three.

Then they would bring it up to our property line, of which we're proposing to fence the property for security reasons.

Yes.

I've had about three to four break-ins every year for the past three years at this property and to secure our customers' vehicles.

That that line.

That line would be annotated, that line would be annotated right here.

And we would also landscape the inside of our fence and be planting trees on the inside of the fence on our property as well to beautify the stretch of West Timer.

Okay.

So uh to make sure I understand.

Currently, these cars are are in the right-of-way, are they not, Ms.

Vauflang?

They're parked into the right-of-way today.

They can be if we pull them, if they get pulled all the way back to the road.

They will absolutely not be in the right-of-way.

We will have a fence barrier to block that ever happening.

But you have not submitted any of this to the department?

These changes.

I'd have to def we have submitted this, and I'd I'd like to defer to my builder to assist me with that.

Thank you.

That's fine.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Our next speaker is Neil Nesmith.

Hi everybody.

Good afternoon.

Afternoon.

I think the difference in this is we do actually already have a variance for the sidewalk that approved what we were just looking at, and we had previously spitted that.

The difference is the five-foot right-of-way taking shows that two and a half feet farther back into his current property.

And so what we were trying to show was look, I realize that two and a half feet seems minimal.

It does actually really disrupt the way that uh daily operations uh happen here.

It's not a retail business, it's not typical parking class.

This cars moving back and forth every day, so it's important.

So we are very cognizant of trying to improve the sidewalk that meets the beautification factor, the widened sidewalks, and it would actually line up with everything from our corner at Woodhead and West Timer back down east on West Timer to some of the other properties that were referenced previously.

So we'll we're going to be matching that.

The only difference is rather is that two and a half feet of uh property line is actually moved back, so that allows a true 25-foot drive access through his site.

The replat was we didn't request it, it came about because we were actually trying to add the new office building and remodel the space.

Obviously, our location, that's what brought it up.

Um we're not trying to build anything closer to West Timer, as you can see, our we're trying to build you know all the way in the back corner from it.

So I know that some of the you know the residents had voiced concerns.

We want to just address everybody because it doesn't show up when you have the posting there.

We agree that the sidewalk is unsafe.

We didn't make it that way.

We are trying to improve that, and we think what we have offered is kind of meets everybody's goals.

So long-term safety beautification, better sidewalk while still improving the property that's there.

If if we can't do the property improvements, then obviously the project won't go forward and we're not gonna we won't proceed with the variance request.

So we're we're not trying to encroach on the building lot lines or anything of that nature.

We're staying back off all that.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Any questions?

Okay.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Margot Fendrich.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Margot Fendrick, and I'm here to oppose the right-of-way variants requested for item 87.

I am here to oppose the right-of-way variants requested for item 87.

I'm a former vice president of Windlow Place Civic Club, which the spot is located in, and I spent five years living on the block directly behind this property.

The city zone code requires five-foot right-of-way for sidewalks for good reason.

And this stretch of land actually needs more given the volume of pedestrians that transverse this route.

Lanier Mill School is one block away, and hundreds of children walk and bike this corridor every single day.

Weaving sidewalk requirements eliminates the city's ability to build the safe pedestrian infrastructure this block desperately needs.

Other parts of Montrose are getting safe routes to school upgrades, but that's not possible if this variance was approved.

And let me be specific about what they are proposing instead.

A fence for parking.

Rather than dedicating the five feet to the public right of way as requested, the applicant wants to use the space for a parking lot.

This is out of step with how the rest of this neighborhood is developing, and frankly, it's a wrong use of a prime pedestrian corridor.

Granting this variance would set a dangerous precedent for other property owners nearby to see this as a green light to request the same exception.

Each waiver compounds the last.

You can't build a safe walkable corridor, one carve out at a time.

Windlow Place residents support responsible development.

We have no objection to the RMS building a new office building.

But the right-of-way dedication is not optional.

It's what the city's code requires, and it's what our kids' safety demands.

Please deny this variance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay, thank you.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

Okay.

Yes, Commissioner Garza.

Mr.

O'Flam, so the drawing that the applicant showed, you have not seen that before, or have you?

Okay.

And it sounds as though that drawing is based on not giving up the five feet of ride of way.

Okay.

Just wanted to be clear.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yes, Commissioner.

Just for discussion.

It's just don't necessarily have a problem in general with the presentation by the applicant, but what we need to keep in mind is any job the city needs to do, whether it's five, ten, fifteen years from now with uneven right-of-way through there, whether it's road, storm through, or waterline, utilities, they'll end up having to go to that property owner and acquiring a right-of-way parcel anyway and paying for it at that time.

So I'm I'm personally not in favor of the variance request due to that reason.

Uh the city needs consistent and even right-of-way throughout its corridors, period.

Very well said.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Hines, did you have something?

I see you're you know geared up and ready to go there.

No.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Yes, Commissioner Siegler.

Along um Westheimer, do we know if we take in the five feet from adjacent property owners?

Do we have a map that shows that?

All of those starred ones were recent submetals, yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yes, Commissioner Hines.

So I will tell my little story.

Uh 2010, I I moved from Chicago to Houston in Upper Kirby area, and I was walking on the sidewalk in front of this business.

Approaching me was a gentleman in a wheelchair, older gentleman.

He stopped me and I felt accosted.

Um he told me I was responsible for the condition of the sidewalk, the width of the sidewalk, and it's my responsibility to fix it.

I've been in Houston two days.

Right.

So when it comes to especially this Montrose area, um, understanding uh sort of the pedestrian use uh in that community.

It's it's important that we we listen to the residents, listen to community about the importance of the width of the right-of-way.

So I just wanted to note that.

I appreciate that.

Okay.

Anyone else?

All right.

Did I close the public hearing?

I think I did.

Okay.

I'm gonna close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation, which is to deny the requested variants and approve the plat.

Motion ball one.

Second guard.

Second Matas, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to item 88.

Item 88 is South Post Oak Commercial Reserve.

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

The reason for replied is to create one unrestricted reserve.

There are no variants requested with this item.

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

Councilmember Mayor Pro Tem Malta Castic Statum has requested that this item be deferred for a second time to allow the community to continue to review the impacts of this replat.

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

Staff has received advanced comments opposing the plat because the intent of the site is to build a warehouse in the office building, and there are safety concerns with so many warehouses being built in the area.

There are also concerns about detention and drainage in the area.

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

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 88 is continued.

I I just want to understand.

I'm sorry, I was writing something and I didn't pay attention.

This is a shall approved.

Yes, it is a call approved.

Thank you.

Okay.

Ms.

Chavez, would you like to come forward?

Good afternoon.

Always good to see you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Directors of the Commission.

Thank you.

I am Perdita Chavis, the Chief of Staff for Mayor Pro Tim, Martha Castex Tatum, the Councilmember of District K.

Again, she asked for a deferral to honor the request of the constituents in District K of their concerns and understanding, you know, the status of the plant, but again, she wants to honor that and allow them time.

I do uh would like to say to encourage the developer to reach out to the community and then also to request that um Houston Public Works Permit work closely with the council offices to ensure that some concerns are addressed in the development.

But thank you.

Thank you so much.

We always appreciate when you come in.

Okay.

I have no one else signed to speak on item 88.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

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

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Ballard, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 89.

Item 89 is West Main Grove.

The site is a Houston corporate limits, north of uh north of West Main Street, east of Shepherd Drive.

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

There are no variants requested with this item.

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

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

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 commission, you may open the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 89 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.

Second serum.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to D, subdivision platz with variance requests.

The first variance is uh item 90, East Text Industrial GP.

The site is located within Houston City limits in northeast Houston, uh west along U.S.

59 and just north of Beltway 8.

The applicant is requesting the variance to exceed intersection spacing by not extending multiple stub streets through the tract.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a vacant 126-acre property along U.S.

59.

The site is bisected by multiple pipelines and the Reinhard Bayou.

Along the western boundary is the Green Lee Place subdivision first recorded in 1952.

At that time, the stub streets were created to further extend the subdivision when compatible uses were developed.

The proposed property is intended for light industrial use, requiring large commercial trucks as transport.

If these stubstreets were to be extended, it will introduce commercial traffic into the residential neighborhood.

Also, extending the streets would not greatly improve overall traffic circulation.

U.S.

59 at this location is a controlled access highway, meaning vehicular traffic from this site must travel south to the nearest four-way intersection before continuing east.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

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

Motion.

Motion Victor, second Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving on to 91.

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

My name is Petra Shaw.

Item 91 is Falky Goalie Muni Municipal Utility District Water Plant No.

3.

The site is located within the Houston ETJ Harris County, south of Spring Cypress Road, east of Grant Road, north of Lueto Road along Cathy Lane.

The applicant is proposing a reserve restricted to water production and is requesting a variance to terminate the stub street of Penn Oak Glen Lane without a cul-de-sac.

Staff is in support of the request.

The proposed plot is being submitted as the previous owner sold the tract to the MUD under the pretense that this tract would be used for water plant purposes.

The subject site is currently used for residential purposes with a small portion to the north containing an existing water well that takes access from the stub street of Pin Oak Glen Lane.

The MUD does not plan on developing the property for the next five to ten years.

Access to the existing water plant water well site will be taken from Pin Oak Glen Lane for utility maintenance until the property is developed, at which point the site will take sole access from Cathy Lane.

Harris County has no objections.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Motion signed.

Motion Sykes.

Second Carroll.

Second Carroll, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to number 92.

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

My name is Tammy Williamson.

Item 92 is her Tatoo Estate.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in eastern Harris County, south of North Lake Houston Parkway, and east of an east of East Sam Houston Tollway North.

The applicant is proposing one lot and requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not requiring a north-south or east-west public street.

Staff is in support of the request.

The intersection spacing along Aqueduct Road between North Lake Houston Parkway and Garrett Road is approximately 6,700 feet.

Strict application of the ordinance requires a public street intersection along a local street at least every 1,400 feet.

Requiring an east-west public street at this location will not improve traffic circulation, as the land in this area is currently utilized as large acreage tracks of single family residential utilizing access easements or flag lot types narrow lot staffs, providing access to aqueduct road.

If an east-west public street is intended in the future is needed in the future, there are other parcels and or locations that could provide the right-of-way.

For the other part of the variance request of not providing a north-south street, although the length of the site is approximately 1,600 feet, there is a proposed major thoroughfare that will intersect both North Lake Houston Parkway and Garrett Road, 2,000 feet from Aqueduct Road.

The applicant is plotting in order to permit a septic tank for their residents.

Due to the low density use of the site, requiring either a north-south or east-west public street dedication would not be proportional to the intended use.

Likewise, the street network established by North Lake Houston Parkway to the north, Aqueduct Road to the west, Garrett Road to the south, and the proposed major thoroughfare to the east will be adequate to provide for traffic circulation needs in this area under the current development pattern.

If the density or land use intensity were to increase, additional local street connections could be provided.

Harris County Engineering has voiced no objection to the request.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variant 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.

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

Motion Garza.

Motion fam, second Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving to 93.

Thank you.

Item 93 is Willow Partners Development.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Harris County, fronting on both the Grand Parkway, State Highway 99, and Boudreau Road, between Telgi Road and State Highway 249.

The applicant is proposing two reserves and is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing along major a major thoroughfare by not requiring a north-south street.

Staff is in support of the request.

Although the intersection spacing along both the Grand Parkway and Boudreau Road is more than 9,000 feet.

Requiring a connecting north-south public street at this location is impractical.

This segment of the Grand Parkway is a controlled access highway with access denied from the subject site.

Therefore, no connecting street would be permitted.

Harris County Engineering has voiced no objection to the request.

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

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

Thank you.

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

Can you make a motion?

Okay.

Motion by Naranho.

Second.

Second Garza, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

94.

Item 94 is Winwood Falls General Plan.

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

The applicant is proposing a single family development along with large detention reserves and is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not providing a northern step through the general plan.

Staff is in support of the request along the northern boundary.

This item is mostly within the 100-year floodplain and is placed within the major thoroughfare grid, where the variants granted the intersection spacing along the northern boundary would be 3,725 feet between Katie Hockley and the proposed alignment of West Road.

Their property to the west is of a single ownership and spanning from Lagomba to West Road and would better serve to provide in North South Street should that be required.

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

The site faces heavy drainage and detention impact in this area and is proposing the shown moat style detention system to offset the heavy sheet flow from the northwest that comes from Cypress Creek and the Coastal Prairie Conservancy.

There is already existing detention in the northern portion of the general plan that would be expanded and improved upon.

Harris County Engineering Department is in support of the variants.

Staff recommendation is to grant the variance and approve the general plan subject to CPC 101 form conditions.

Madam Chair, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you, Commissioners.

If you have no questions, I will seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Shepherd, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

We have nothing under E.

Moving on to F.

Reconsideration of requirement.

Item 95 is Shell FCU Full Share Branch.

The subject site is a nearly 1.2 acre property located in the Fort Bank County extraterritorial jurisdiction, north along FM 1093 West Park and east of FM 1463.

The applicant is proposing an unrestricted reserve and is requesting a reconsideration of requirement to provide the reserve to the north 60 feet of frontage along the right-of-way.

Staff is in agreement with the reconsideration.

The reserve for the North did originally have a 60-foot-wide shaft that provided sufficient frontage along FM 1093, but a portion of that staff was sold to the subject site, which is now being replatted to incorporate that purchased property.

The subject site is the eastern half of Reserve J of the crossing of Katie Full Sheared Subdivision recorded in 2015.

The original plat did include access easements shown in pink to give access to reserves that did not have sufficient access at the time.

In 2018, the site extended those access easements network easement network to uh also in Create Ring Road, which is dedicated to and maintained by the Fort Bank County Improvement District.

This access was utilized to develop the site, the reserve north to the north, creating a movie theater in 2019.

As Ring Road is maintained by Fort Bain County and is considered to function as a public street, which gives the reserve for the north access required by the ordinance.

The staff portion of the former reserve being absorbed by the subject site continues to function as part of the storm sewer and drainage system, feeding the drainage channel along the eastern boundary.

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

Thank you, Commissioners.

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

Motion FAM.

Second Sykes, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to G, extensions of approval.

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

My name is Odiso Jadesyoju.

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

Yes, please.

Thank you.

Sections G, extensions of approval consists of items 96 to 104.

Section H name changes consists of no items.

Section I certification of compliance consists of items 105 to 107, and Section J administrative consists of no items.

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

Thank you.

Commissioners, do I have a motion?

Motion Victor.

Second ballard, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to K development plates.

Yes, meeting.

103.

Sorry.

Okay, please note.

Commissioner Shepard's abstention.

Item 108 is 2015 Alabama Street.

This item was deferred at the previous Planning Commission meeting.

The site is located within Houston City limits in the third ward area along Alabama Street near U.S.

59 highway.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduced building line of 16 feet instead of the required 25 feet.

Staff's recommendation is to defer the application for two weeks per the applic applicant's request to provide an alternative solution to gain access to the site.

So uh this current property owner was not aware, and they're um exploring other options to get access to this site.

So that's what we're dealing with now.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Commissioners, do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion to defer Garza.

Motion to defer Garza.

Second ballot, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Commissioner Martis, did you have questions?

You had that look on your face.

It is odd.

Um when I looked at this, I thought the same thing.

Thank you.

Moving on to 109.

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

My name is Ed Buckley.

Item 109 is 1104 Gargan Street.

The site is north of Hogan Street and south of Quitman Street, at the southeast corner of Fulton Street and Gargan Street.

The applicant is proposing a new accessory dwelling and is requesting three variances to not dedicate five feet of right-away on Gargan Street, to not dedicate five feet of right-of-way on Fulton Street, and to use a five-foot building line in lieu of 25 feet on Fulton Street, a major thoroughfare.

Gargan Street's right of way is 40 feet wide and needs to be expanded to 50 feet to meet ordinance requirements.

However, the street is a two-block local street that does not provide a useful connection, so right-of-way dedication would be of minimal public benefit.

On Fulton Street, the existing 60-foot right-of-way is required to be expanded to 70 feet based on the major thoroughfare and freeway plan.

However, five feet of right-of-way dedication would cause the existing house to croach into the right-of-way.

Because the proposed scope of work is an accessory dwelling, the right-of-way dedication would be somewhat disproportionate at this time, with the understanding that dedication would be appropriate when the existing house is redeveloped in the future.

The requested five-foot building line along Fulton Street for the proposed ADU allows space for future right-of-way dedication and would leave approximately 25 21 feet to the street curve.

The setback is consistent with other structures in the area, constructed before city ordinance building lines.

Enforcing a 25-foot setback on the 37.5 foot wide lot would leave very little bo little buildable space.

The habitable area encroaching the 25-foot building line is primarily on the second floor.

So visibility and safety concerns are limited.

The applicant has agreed to take vehicular access solely from Gargan Street, which eliminates potential conflict with an existing metro bus stop.

Because Gargan Street is a two-block dead-end local street with little need for additional right-of-way, because right-of-way dedication on Fulton Street would cause the existing house to encroach into the public property.

And because the requested five-foot building line is compatible with the surrounding area and not a concern for public safety.

Staff recommendation is to approve the variance as requested.

Thank you.

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

Yes, do we implicitly put a note saying that if it ever got um you know torn down and replatted for a new home that they would have to dedicate?

I mean, I I get why we're not requesting the dedication in this right with the existing structure, but I just I want to make sure we kind of cover I how do we cover ourselves in the future with that?

Mr.

Buckley.

So I I think the easiest way to assume that we will be able to get right away in the future is that the lot is 37 and a half feet wide.

Any structure that would be built on that lot would need to either somehow comply with the 25-foot building line or request another variance.

At the time they request the variance, it would trigger a discussion of right away again.

So they would either have to once again get a variance approved to not dedicate right away, or they would have to dedicate the five-feeder right away.

Director Trein.

Maybe we can say this in another way.

So if this lot were to be redeveloped and the house is torn down, they will need to come back to us.

So when it gets it to the permit, what is the mechanism for the permitted team to say this is a brand new build?

Can you explain that to us?

Yeah.

And let me clarify.

I I know that we know that.

Yeah.

Right?

We are asking.

But we see time and time again where somebody builds a new structure and they say, oh, well, I am just putting it where the old structure was, right?

We we see that.

But the 25-foot build line on the major thoroughfare would show up.

That's how they are going to catch them.

Okay.

Right.

That's how they are going to catch them.

But there is there anything that can be added to this plat, I guess, like any note that said implicitly like.

Every major thoroughfare is due to a Bisonette, Buffalo Speedway.

They all have the same issue.

Well, the variance only applies to this applicant.

It doesn't apply to it doesn't go forward if the property is sold.

Again, we know that.

Commissioner Baldwin is trying to say is that permit.

They have to apply for that building permit, and the permit group is going to look at that site plan and that the area and go, oh, it requires a 25-foot building setback line.

We would require new variants.

Right.

That's how we get them.

Right.

The triggers built in.

Right.

Yeah.

It would also come up if they were ever to reply the site.

And still not satisfied, but okay.

Any other questions?

Yes, Commissioner Heich.

So has has public works looked at this?

Because I mean I I get specifically looking at Gargan.

I understand it is limited, right?

By a couple of blocks, and so you probably don't need the right-of-way for road purposes.

But you know, Commissioner Morris, you brought this up earlier.

It could be needed for utilities.

And so without the right-of-way, now you're you're and if you dependent on what the improvements are, you may have to read an easement.

So I'm just curious to has public works looked at this?

There was a discussion with um the Office of the City Engineer, and they had no objection.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well, because they are not taking right of way, right?

They're just not doing a 25-foot building line, correct?

Well, right.

They are requesting to the case.

And not dedicating right-away.

Okay.

I see that now.

Okay.

That's where my question was coming from, like not dedicating and make sure that we know in the future that somebody has to dedicate that.

Or no.

But those same triggers are still in play.

Okay.

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

Motion one.

Motion ball one second.

Cars are all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to 110.

Item 110 is 7802 Gulf Freeway.

The site is along the southbound frontage road of I-45, north of Park Place Boulevard, and west of Broadway Street.

The applicant is proposing a new bank building and is requesting a 14-foot building line in lieu of the ordinance required 25-foot setback along the freeway.

The requested 14-foot building line is for a decorative structural element wrapping around the building, but the walls of the structure will be set back 17 feet from the property line, which leaves about 30 feet of clearance to the vehicle lanes.

The buildable area is constrained by 25-foot deed restricted building lines along the site's other two street front edges.

There are several other structures built to a zero-foot setback along this part of the Gulf Freeway frontage road, including the previous building on the site, which has now been demolished.

Landscaping and widened sidewalks will improve the space between the building line and the travel lanes.

Sorry, between the building and the travel lanes.

Because the 14-foot setback would leave a substantial difference distance from the building to the frontage road as and is in line with other structures in the area, as well as due to proposed improvements to the public realm.

Staff recommendation is to approve the requested variants.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Any questions?

If not, I will seek a motion for nope, nope, I got a speaker.

But only for questions.

Ms.

Kristen Stapper, did you have anything you wanted to say or just here for commit comments?

Okay.

All right.

Do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion signer.

Motion Sigler.

Second, not at all.

Second.

Carol, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 111.

Item 111 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 proposes a new single family residence and requests 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.

The requested 13-foot garage building line leaves approximately 19 feet between the garage door and the sidewalk.

Windows and an entry feature face all Greg Street, which is the street requesting a reduced building line.

The requested building line is in line with the previous house at this site, which has been demolished, and would leave approximately 30 feet from the edge of the street to the building.

Legal review determined that the requested variants may violate separately filed deed restrictions.

The applicant has requested a deferral to allow time to coordinate with legal.

Staff recommendation is to defer at the applicant's request.

Thank you.

I do have one speaker signed to speak.

Tracy Bull Bulware.

I am sure I mispronounced that.

Good afternoon.

Hi, thank you for having me.

I just wanted to make a quick comment.

We had neighbors that were concerned about uh deed restrictions associated with the lot.

And upon further review with the title company.

Those deed restrictions were indeed formed in the 1920s, and apparently in the 1980s, uh they were eliminated, and uh then homeowners or property owners could opt in to the restrictions or opt out.

This particular property had the homeowners opt out.

And that is reflected in the title report, title commitment, excuse me, and the survey.

And so I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the committee.

Um I believe we might be deferred till for two weeks.

Um, and I believe that would be the only point of contention.

We are asking for a three-foot build line, very similar to what the home that was there prior had.

Right.

Do you have information that we didn't have that Larry Legal didn't have?

I think so.

Um I think legal looked up just if that deed restriction existed.

Yes.

But didn't follow the chain of the daisy chain is what I call it.

But anyway, up until today.

And um I relied on the title commitment, the title company that did do the search.

Right.

And um reviewed the prior deed from the owner that I purchased the property from there are no deed restrictions in that as well.

Okay.

If you have something different to submit, submit it to staff so we can get it to legal.

Any questions, Commissioners?

I have a question.

Yes, Commissioner Garza.

Um you may or may not have the answer to this.

Um but you know, I was reading the comments when people wrote in.

Yeah.

And it they basically said that several large old pecan trees that were in the right of way were cut down.

Do you know anything about that?

That's not true.

Um, there is a big beautiful oak tree on the corner.

You can probably see that right there.

And um our main goal is to preserve that.

Good, thank you.

Yes.

Um, there um and there's another large tree to the uh east on the back side that we saved.

The rest of them were within the within the property.

Yes.

Great.

All right.

Thank you so much for that clarification.

Yes.

I thought yes, Commissioner Motes.

Um is there anything on the lot now currently, or was it all demoed?

It was demoed.

Okay, it was it was blight.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Anyone else?

Okay.

The motion uh the recommendation before you is a deferral.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

I heard somebody over here.

Second ball one.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 112.

Item 112 is 4742 Park Drive.

The site is located within Houston City limits at the southwest intersection of Park Drive and Dumble Drive east of Lockwood Street.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a five-foot building line in place of the 10-foot setback and to allow a 10-foot garage building line for a carport instead of the required 20-foot setback.

Staff is in support of both requests.

The site is a residential lot containing an existing home and a garage apartment.

The purpose of the variance is to replace an existing front porch and to build a second garage and to relocate a staircase.

The home was first constructed in the late 1930s prior to the building line requirement.

The porch was built at a five-foot setback, and the owner wishes to make improvements to the porch by raising the frame of the porch and adding handrails along the exterior.

The footprint of the existing porch will remain in the same location.

Staff finds this to be a reasonable request.

And the second variance is to allow a new carport to be built at the 10-foot building line, excuse me, at the 10-foot garage building line instead of the 20-foot required garage building line.

The existing garage uh the existing garage apartment was built in the late 40s and predates the ordinance building line requirement.

The one car garage was built at the 10-foot setback along Dumble Street, and the plan is to build a second one-car garage at the same setback distance as the existing garage.

Also, the applicant is removing an existing staircase that encroached into the neighboring property and is being relocated.

The distance from the back of your turn excuse me.

The distance from the back of the curb to the garage is over 30 feet, and the distance from the garage to the sidewalk is over 20 feet.

The main justification for both requests is that the remodel and the garage addition will not extend any further than the existing structures.

During our site visit, we noticed that there is an existing metal fence in the public right-of-way along Dumble Street.

Condition of approval will be to remove this fence at the time of permitting.

We've also received comments related to the same request regarding the existing fence.

Thank you.

I do have a couple speakers.

Chris Gibbs.

Oh jumping ahead, thank you.

Okay, I have no one signed to speak for this.

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

Motion Hines.

Motion Hines.

Second Pierce.

Second Pierce.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

One, thank you.

113.

Item 113 is 2360 Rice Boulevard.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limits in Harris County, along the north side of Rice Boulevard between Kirby Drive and Greenbrier Drive.

The applicant is proposing a new high-rise multifamily structure and is requesting a variance to allow a zero-foot building line for a canopy, stairs, and ramp in lieu of the ordinance required 10-foot building line along Rice Boulevard.

Staff request to defer this item for notice.

The pictures of the on-site notice sign were received late, and to meet with the applicant who has requested a meeting with staff.

Staff has received two public comments in advance, primarily concerning public safety, visibility, and walkability.

This concludes my presentation.

And there are speakers.

Thank you.

Yes, I have speakers.

Mr.

Gibbs, hello, thanks for having me.

My name is Chris Gibbs.

I own and operate the neighboring shopping center.

Uh one of my tenants is here today as well.

I oppose this variance for uh the following reasons.

Number one, it unduly obscures our tenants' businesses and their signs.

Uh they rely on walk-in traffic and visibility, and so this variance would materially harm their businesses.

Number two, it's adjacent to our driveway, exiting our shopping center.

We have delivery trucks, garbage trucks, cars and trucks from tenants, customers, employees, and this would further obscure the traffic, pedestrian and cars coming by, uh, which would to me create a hazard.

And number three, I believe this building is already outside of the build minim, excuse me, minimum building setbacks.

Their plans are based on a fraudulent survey that claims my property is their own.

We were forced to file a lawsuit to defend our property against their claims.

They have since admitted that the boundary line is where we said it was all along, but nevertheless, their plans are based on their erroneous survey.

So in the context of this lawsuit, I examined their building plans through a public records request.

I saw that they have minimum setbacks five feet on the side, but that's measured to their erroneous property line.

Excuse me.

In real life, their setback on the side is less than five feet.

Similarly, uh complexity on the rear side is an abandoned alleyway between the 2360 Rice property and the residential houses behind.

That property, the alley has been divided.

The fence is in the middle, the residential lots have claimed the north half.

They measured their 30-foot minimum setback in the rear from the north side, in other words, in the residence property.

So that setback is again below the minimum.

Finally, you can see on their plans there's a marking that says sign to be removed.

That's my sign, and it's not going anywhere anywhere.

The Chaucer told me it's in the way of their dedicated fire access.

Uh further building there might be an additional fire hazard.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Commissioners, any questions?

Yes, Commissioner Garza.

Ms.

Williamson, you took copious notes.

Because I will have I'll be asking all those questions again in our next meeting if this is deferred.

Thank you.

Specifically the survey lines, because that's going to be the most important part.

If they're showing if this is based on uh an illegitimate survey, I think we need to know that before we move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Garza.

Anyone else?

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Gibbs.

Okay, I'm happy to discuss any of this further.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Did you have anything?

Just for Ms.

Williamson.

Can we staff?

Yes.

Is that alley abandoned?

I mean, everyone tells me alleys are abandoned and they're rarely abandoned.

It is still a public alley.

It is not improved.

Um for high-rise structures, the residential buffering standards along a collector street requires that there's a 30-foot buffer area, but it's to the property line of the residence, which is the 30 feet.

So the buffer area can include the alley by ordinance.

But it's still there.

I mean, it is still an alley.

Just make sure that it's absolutely okay.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Guy Street Street Field.

Mom is what you write?

Almost got it.

Gave it a good effort.

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Madam Chairman and Commissioners.

My name is Guy Stretfield, and I am and have been for the last 32 years co-owner and general manager of British Isles, which is one of Chris's tenants next to this building on Rice Boulevard.

And I stand to because uh I believe that giving a variance for this project that is so out of compliance with other restrictions, uh seems to me to be at best problematic.

And I think if you the old adage, if you give an inch, they'll take a mile.

And I I I did write very early on, because when we just the project started to our uh council person, and I'll just read a paragraph for this from that letter I said to her.

Frankly, we never thought that the project would get permission to go ahead.

So we were slow in raising objections.

It's for a 12-story condominium on a 17,000 square foot lot.

It's now 15 stories, by the way, for which they had to tear down the historic building occupied for many years by the Roman Catholic Marional fathers, not to mention three beautiful oak trees next to the sidewalk.

And I say it might it be possible at this stage to put a stop to this project, do you think?

Or at the very least, put it on pause so uh to see if some of the worst and most damaging actions can be brought to the city's attention and maybe a mid um and maybe ameliorated.

So that's where we come from.

And um the project seems to have had a lot of money thrown at it.

They bought the 17,000 square foot for a lot of money.

They've used the uh church's parking lot uh for their uh for the contract for the contraction uh contractors uh um the all that equipment, etc.

Uh for which they obviously paid the church a lot of money.

They paid next door to uh Hungary's, which is the restaurant uh further east uh for their sales office, again paid a lot of money.

And um, and then obviously they've got a lot of uh uh uh help from the city, three lanes of traffic, uh two one lane of traffic and one lane of on the sidewalk allocated to them, and Chaucer Street is also banned.

So we have a lot of objections and we would like some pause before uh before they go ahead.

Thank you for this continuing.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay, thank you so much.

The applicant is here for questions.

Commissioners, do you have questions of the applicant?

No, none.

Unless you have you have comments, Mr.

Cadenhead, that you'd like to share.

Uh yes, sure.

Thank you for having me.

Hi, I'm John Cadenhead.

I'm the applicant.

Uh I'm here on behalf of the owner of the property.

Um I just want to be clear that the building is permanent, it is under construction, it will be topping out soon.

So it does currently meet all requirements of the code and of the uh and of the ordinance as well.

What we are asking for is is is uh a further encroachment into the building line uh with a stair and with a canopy.

Uh you you may wonder what's permitted and what is under construction right now.

So currently that is the code minimum requirement for a stair, uh which comes out from the building five feet, hits a landing and immediately makes a 90-degree turn, steps down, and then you're able to get to the public realm that way.

So in other words, the side wall of the stair is what presents itself to the public realm.

Uh due to the elevation of the building, the building is indeed in a 500-year floodplain.

It must be elevated um significantly, so that does indeed trigger a stair.

What we would like to do is build a stair that presents itself to the public realm, uh, enhances public access, safety, and site functionality, just general site functionality.

Uh the canopy would certainly provide weather protection.

It has zero vertical columns, no vertical obstructions.

It is 20 feet above the any near uh ground plane elevation.

Uh so no interference to pedestrian movement, vehicular access or utility infrastructure.

Uh it's there for weather protection and also to provide character to the building.

Uh the stair uh as designed uh is code compliant.

Uh we feel that presenting itself to the public realm, it is fully within its property.

Uh we're simply asking for a little bit more of an encroachment into what is allowed by the the uh by the ordinance.

So with no adverse effect of public health safety or welfare, we feel it's consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 42.

So I'm here for any questions.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that else?

Well, wait a minute.

Yep, no one else.

Is there anyone else that wishes to our right?

Commissioners, you have a recommendation of deferral, right?

I'll move to defer.

Could we be clear what they're asking for?

Again, I got the canopies 20 feet up in the air.

Staircases how far into the build line?

Zero feet.

Zero feet.

And just those two things, is that all they're asking?

And the ramp.

The room the accessibility ramp.

How far is that into the building?

Zero feet.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

So it's just on the great for the clarification.

Yes, Commissioner Garson.

Uh Ms.

Williamson, and looking at this drawing that we have in this packet, it doesn't show the trees and the landscape in the pedestrian realm.

Could we could we get that for the next meeting so we can see how this actually is going to look from the street?

That would be very helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

No.

Okay.

Second?

Carson.

Okay.

Who d who made the motion?

Baldwin made the motion.

Gars made the second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to Roman numeral three, establish a public hearing date of May 28, 2026 for the following.

Uh Cervedo property, bridgestone mud lift station number four, replat number one, and extension, S Planade on Live Oak, replat number one, FMU, Kwood Collection, Garden Acres Plaza, Houston's skyscraper shadows, Section 2, partial replat number seven, mid lane reserve, Parkhurst Cove, and Y Cliff Estates replot number one.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Second ballot.

Motion Garza, second ballard, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to room numeral four.

Public hearing and consideration of a special minimum lot size renewal for the 2400 to 2500 block of Oakdale Strait Street.

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

My name is Jacqueline Brown.

The planning and development department has received an application for the renewal of a 7,000 200 square foot special minimum lot size block for the 2400 to 2500 block of Oakdale Street, the north and south sides, between Emancipation Avenue and Live Oak Street.

The block is located in the Riverside Terrace neighborhood in Council District D and the McGregor Super Neighborhood.

Notification was mailed to all property owners in the application area, and one timely written protest from a property owner was received by staff.

The application area consists of 29 single family residential lots representing 91% of the lots and one commercial lot.

A minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet exists on 21 lots in the application area.

The application is with is within the Riverside Terrace Section 3 subdivision, platted in 1925, and several of the homes are initially built in the 1940s.

This concludes my presentation.

Staff's recommendation is to forward the application to City Council for approval.

Thank you.

Commissioners, if you have no questions, I've got a couple of speakers.

Just that they've had this designation for 20 years, and the new one is for 40.

Is that how that works?

It's in another 20.

Another 20.

And no, because it's the renewal, the limitation of the use of the land is in the no.

No.

No, it's not because of the renewal.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Our first speaker is Lewis D.

Santos.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you very much for having me.

I am a resident of uh Oakdale Street.

I live in 2520, right in the middle of the street.

And I'm here to express my strong uh support for the preservation of the current minimum lot size requirement.

These standards are not arbitrary restrictions.

They are really foundational elements that sustain the character, the stability and long-term value of our neighborhood.

Maintaining the minimum lot size is essential for protecting property values.

Neighborhoods defined by consistent load dimensions and thoughtful space between homes tend to retain their disability over time.

Buyers are drawn to areas where density is controlled, privacy is preserved, and visual coherence of the streetscape is maintained.

Equally important is the impact on family life.

Traffic and infrastructure restraints are also critical concerns.

Increasing residential density in a neighborhood not designed to accommodate it leads to higher traffic volumes, parking shortages, and increased wear or roads and utilities.

The current lot size regulations act as a natural control, ensuring that growth remains aligned with the capacity of the existing infrastructure.

Ignoring these limits risk creating avoidable congestion and safety hazards.

For all these reasons, and protection of property values, preservation of family oriented living conditions, mitigation of traffic and infrastructure, I strongly urge that you uphold the current minimum load size requirement in the 2400 to 2500 blocks of Oakdale for another 25 years.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Any questions?

All right, thank you.

Our next speaker is Elizabeth Eicher Iker.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

I'm Elizabeth Iker.

I live at 21 uh 2421 Oakdale Street, which is the lot next to the two empty lots that I believe are uh someone a developer is interested in.

I am just here to lend volume to the support for maintaining this uh ordinance.

Um I don't have anything more eloquent than what he just said to add to that.

Uh but I just want to sort of be here and say like this is something the neighborhood generally speaking quite wants, and if it goes to City Council, I will go to City Council too.

Very good.

Thank you for coming in today.

I have no one else signed to speak for this item.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Commissioners, you have a recommendation to move this along to City Council.

Do I have a motion?

Motion ball, one second.

Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

So I have no one signed for public comment.

Is there anyone here that wants to make public comment?

Okay.

Hearing none, I'll adjourn this meeting at 4 15 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.