2026.

My name is Lisa Clark, and I'm the chair of your Houston Planning Commission, and I'm calling this meeting to order at the City Hall Annex at 900 Bagby.

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 one minute, two new speakers or time for two minutes.

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

Council members speaking on an item are not timed.

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

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

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, I'll call the roll.

Chair Clark is present, Vice Chair Garza.

Present.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Commissioner Ballard.

Present.

Commissioner Heisch.

Present.

Commissioner Hines.

Present.

Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Mates.

Commissioner Naranjo.

Present.

Commissioner Pham.

Present.

Commissioner Pierce.

Present.

Commissioner Porce Pertle.

Present.

Commissioner Surim.

Present.

Commissioner Shepard.

Present.

Commissioner Sykes.

Present.

Commissioner Victor.

Commissioner Mondapaca.

Present.

And Secretary Von Tran.

Present.

We have 18 members present, so we do have a quorum.

Okay.

Before we get started, I do want to let you know we've got one withdrawal item 107.

Residences at Snowden, which means we will not hear anything on this or take any action on that item.

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

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

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

Welcome.

I have two announcements today.

The first announcement, the City of Houston Public Works Department will be hosting a live webinar on Microsoft Teams to talk about the IDM changes that released in 2026.

It is available on the Houston Permitting Center web page.

The date of the seminar is Thursday, May 21st from noon until 3 p.m.

You can register at uh training Houston Permitting Center webpage.

Uh please share this information with others.

We are looking forward for a full attendance.

The other announcement is I'm so excited to make this announcement.

The National American Planning Association Conference of 2027 will be held here in Houston on May 15th through 18th next year of 2027.

So in closing, as always, please call the planning department at 832 393 6600 for any questions.

You may also call Planner of the Day at 832-393 6624, and our website is Houston Planning.com.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Tran.

Now we'll consider the meeting minutes of April 30 or April 30th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting that were attached to your agenda.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Modest.

Second.

Victor, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Now we'll move on to Roman numeral one, public hearing and consideration of the proposed amendments to Chapter 42, Division 7, Parks and Private Parks to comply with Local Government 212.201.

Um Director Tran, would you like to give us an overview of what we heard last meeting?

Yes, certainly.

So thank you everyone for your attendance today.

If you recall at the last planning commission, Director Allen, who is in the audience today, and myself presented the proposed changes to the parts and private parts ordinance in order to meet with chapter 212 of the local government code.

Before you on the screen are the proposed changes.

Today's purpose of public hearing is to hear from you on your thoughts about our proposed changes as well as anything else related to the parts and private parts presentation.

So, with that said, I welcome uh Chair Clark to open the public hearing.

Thank you.

The public hearing is open.

I do have some speakers.

Our first speaker is Councilmember Alcorn.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, and thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, Commissioners.

Thank you for your consideration of the changes to the open space ordinance.

This ordinance has been largely unchanged since 2007, and I am grateful for the attention it is being given, as it is a very important source of funding for our Houston parks.

In addition to the updates that you see on the screen, I am here to that that will align us with state law.

I am here to advocate for an increase to the fee.

This fee of $700 a door has not changed since 2007.

Now I can't really name too many things in my life where the cost has not changed in almost 20 years.

This fee has not been changed in spite of the fact that the ordinance calls for an annual analysis of the taxable value of land and an accompanying presentation to the planning commission.

The ordinance further states that the parks and planning directors may recommend an increase to the fee based on increases in appraised values.

Since 2009, Parks and Rec has collected a hundred million dollars in fees.

With this funding, 199 parks, 52% of our 382 city parks have been improved, and 65 acres of parkland have been acquired.

By ordinance, these funds are to be used for the acquisition and improvement of parks, not for park maintenance or city staff overhead expenses.

Five percent is set aside for indirect costs like design.

In recent discussions with the parks director, that's not quite enough of a percentage for design.

He's not able to do the projects that need done without a little more money.

So that's another thing that I think should we should be looking at in when we're opening up this ordinance.

Houston Parks and Rec estimates current unmet needs over the last next about seven years of over 700 million dollars.

This number includes 34 million dollars in critical unmet immediate needs, 105 million dollars for playgrounds, 210 million dollars for community centers, 120 million dollars for aquatic facilities, 90 million dollars for basketball pavilions, nine and the list goes on and on.

These are big numbers.

And that's not to mention the need for requiring additional parkland to accomplish each part's goal of having everyone in Houston live within a 10-minute walk to a park.

Current estimates from the Trust for Public Land show that only 64% of Houstonians meet that standard.

A world-class city needs world-class parks, and not just our signature parks like Memorial and Herman and Emancipation, but how about our neighborhood parks, the ones near people's homes and apartments?

I think the success we've had along the Bayou Greenways and at Herman and Memorial and others kind of masks the true need of our neighborhood parks.

As an at-large council member, I travel all to all corners of this city, and I see that the condition in many of our parks is deplorable.

Broken swing sets, busted lights, rusty playground equipment, damaged basketball pavilions, sports fields and disarray, rundown community centers.

You know, we see we see a whole lot, and it takes a lot of funding to get those things improved.

There is a case definitely to be made for increasing the fee.

The city's costs have certainly gone up over the past 20 years.

Adjusting the fee for inflation would bring it to 1,11.

Based on appraised land value increases, the fees should be $1,470.

Now there's a state state legislation that caps us at 1295.

Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, all charge considerably higher fees.

While our needs are great, I also understand these fees impact the cost of development and will ultimately pass be passed along to Houstonians.

That is not lost on me.

Affordability is a big issue these days, and one we can't ignore.

So I don't I'm not advocating we go to the very top.

I do think it is reasonable to ask to go to the adjusted to CPI of 1,113.

The planning and parks director submitted their report at the last commission meeting, and this report showed our current fee.

You can see up on the screen the fees that were shown.

According to Chapter 2, Section 253C, the report shall include an analysis of changing in the taxable value of land.

It further states the planning commission shall review the report, conduct a public hearing on any recommended increase in the fee, and issue a final report.

So you however this commission wants to handle it.

And I've spoke with Director Tran and Marlene Gafferick and Director Allen.

You know, you can either perhaps delay consideration of all the changes to have more discussion.

We're in the middle of budget season right now.

We're not going to increase a fee right now.

We're but but later in the summer, I think we really ought to take this up and really make sure we hear from all the stakeholders.

Um the five percent in indirect costs.

I think that's worthy of discussion.

So we either, depending on what the administration wants to do, um, pass the pass the the earlier changes that you saw on the screen now and come back to you in a couple months with with the the additional matters, or just put the whole thing off.

That that's not up to me, that's up to you guys.

I'm just here on record to to really talk about uh how we need this fee.

Better and more parks mean safer communities and improve property values and an enhanced quality of life for all Houstonians.

Parks are an essential part of this city.

Parks are public treasures.

Every resident and family in Houston should be able to enjoy a nice safe park nearby.

With additional funding for improvements and new parkland, the city will be in a much better position to make this happen.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you, Councilmember.

We appreciate you coming in.

Our next speaker is Huey German Wilson.

Yes.

Can I get clarity about the five percent?

Is it designated in the ordinance?

Do we have a say there or is that just determined later?

Is the five?

I think the five percent is in the ordinance.

I couldn't find it in that's applied to the um design.

But is that what section is that in?

Okay.

Well, I was looking, I didn't.

I see the 700.

I didn't see the five percent designated by ordinance, but I was just curious if it really was or not.

Let me get the I have it right here.

I'll look it up.

Okay, it is in here somewhere.

Okay, we'll work on that while we go through our next speaker.

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

Um, Mr.

Wilson, not here yet.

Okay.

Ed Pett.

Sorry.

Okay.

Ed Pettit.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Ed Pettit.

I am a resident of Third Ward, Vice President of the Third Ward Super Neighborhood, uh founder of a nonprofit called Friends of Columbia TAP, and I'm also an urban planner.

I am here to support the uh fee increase.

I'm also here to support the 7030 split.

Um I was actually the resident who back in 2021 filed a public information act request to actually get a breakdown of the park dedication funds because they hadn't been presented to the commission or the city council for years and years and years.

And it was from that PIA that I was able to present the data to the City Council, and I'm so grateful that ever since then, uh Sally Elkhorn has been a great advocate and ally uh to the citizens of Houston in rectifying this long-overdue update.

Um I support as Sally Elkorn laid out an increase that's more um uh amenable to the adjusted land value change because it's the parks themselves that have contributed to that increase in property values.

Study after study show that access to quality parks increases property values.

We've done studies on the bio greenways.

You can just look at what's happening around Levy Park, around Emancipation Park, around all of our trails, the MKT trail in the heights.

We owe it to our residents to reinvest back in parks, especially because at the general fund level, you know, we've been seeing cuts year after year.

And so at the very least, this fund, we need to um not only stay up with inflation, but we need to look at uh where we should be in terms of property values in our pure cities.

Um, in terms of the 7030 split, we should not be locking these parks funds into boundaries that were established because of our location of highways.

Our need for park space does not end at the highway, and those highway boundaries were themselves uh placed over historic redlining.

So the 7030 split helps to rectify some of that historic injustice, and I support that fully.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Has Huey come in yet?

Somebody just give me a thumbs up.

I'll hold that name aside.

Uh Cody Miller.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, uh, Chair and Commissioners.

Uh, my name is Cody Miller.

I work for the Greater Houston Builders Association.

We're a trade association of 1,500 members that work in single-family home building across our region.

Um, and our members are the ones that have paid into the fee uh since 2007.

And I'll say that our members are not necessarily against a fee increase, a nominal fee increase.

However, like Ed had just mentioned, the big issue that they have is they've spent thousands and thousands and millions of dollars and don't have any and have not had a and have not seen what that money's been spent on annually, like the ordinance requires.

So I think if there's a promise that's that uh the what the money's been spent on is reported more consistently to the commission and to the council, I think we can be more amenable to um a nominal fee increase.

But like the council member mentioned, um, even though the three hundred dollars or four hundred dollars might not seem like a lot per single-family home, when you add that along with all the other fees to build a single-family home, inspection fees and and plating, um, it adds up over time.

Um, and I like to say it's like it could be like death by a thousand paper cuts.

So um I I hope um that that's taken into consider into consideration.

Um, we're we're not anti-a fee increase.

We just want to be sure that what the fees are being collected are actually being spent to um make our city and our parks great places to be in.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kimberly Phelps.

Nicole.

I'm sure I pronounced that incorrectly, but correct me, please.

Kimberly Phipps Nickel.

And it happens all the time, no worries.

Thank you very much.

Um, so uh I was delighted to to see uh Councilmember Alcorn here.

So I am a Houstonian, I am uh neighbor to Levy Park, which I love, and I am also a design and planning professional and vice president of Friends of Columbia Tap.

And I also am a huge fan of the 70-30 split, uh, because I think more people should have a Levy Park in their backyard.

I absolutely love it, and I don't see why our friends in other neighborhoods who do not uh have natural occurring dollars coming from the higher end developments benefiting the parks.

The parks are the lungs of our cities, they do heavy lifting for the industry that we conduct here, and it's really important that we invest in those.

Definitely a fan of the extension of the three from three to five years on uh use of that.

I love hearing uh industry folks saying that they're okay with a nominal fee increase, uh, because I don't believe that it will make things unaffordable to also have a uh responsible fee increase.

And so I am a fan of whether like uh council member said whether you do it now as an add-on or you revisit it, please.

Um, for those of us working with the small parks, the ones that are actually accessible that you don't have to drive through to and pay to park for our Houstonians.

Uh, please increase this fee.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Ben McFall.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name's Ben McFall.

I'm here representing the Houston Apartment Association.

Uh the Houston Apartment Association is made up of over 1,500 members who represent over 750,000 doors, our units in the Greater Houston region.

And first I'd like to thank you all for allowing me to speak on this proposed change to the open space ordinance.

While it's not in the current proposal, the increase in the park dedication fee raises concerns for HAA members.

Greater development costs, including on projects with hundreds of units, would have an adverse effect on our members' ability to provide affordable housing in the city of Houston at a time when affordable housing is needed the most.

For example, increasing the fee from $700, potentially as high as $1,200 for a project that is currently coming online with 388 units, would add 194,000 in development cost.

This is just one example for one property.

But when applied industry-wide, this would amount to a significant cost to HAA members and substantially impact the ability to deliver affordable housing.

As this commission and city council consider these amendments to the open space ordinance, we ask that you be mindful of the impact these decisions would have on the construction of affordable housing in Houston moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Sylvia Rivas.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Sylvia Rivas, president for the Brays Oak Super Neighborhood Council, representing Super Neighborhood Council 36, representing 39 communities within the super neighborhood boundaries.

The collection of park dedication, parkland dedication fees under Chapter 47, Division 7, has been comparatively limited because Brays Oaks, like many areas throughout the Houston, has not experienced the same level of development as other parts of the city.

Allowing up to 30% of the fees that are collected from public and private park requirements in compliance with the Texas local government code would provide a critical funding source to help support the continued improvements, expansion, and maintenance of community parks in all areas.

This flexibility would help address longstanding disparities in park investments, enhance recreational opportunities, improve quality of life for Houston residents, and ensure that growing communities needs can be met despite lower rates of new development.

It addresses inequity, directing funds to underserved neighborhoods rather than just where the development is occurring.

It's responding to rapid growth by prioritizing critical needs in high density areas that lack sufficient green space.

And the strategic maintenance that's tackling a city's most urgent park repairs, regardless of the location.

Our parks create shared spaces where people of different ages and backgrounds can meet, interact, and build stronger communities.

These areas can help manage stormwater to help reduce flooding that's impacted so many of our communities throughout the Houston area.

Well maintained parks can reduce neglected spaces, improve neighborhoods, appearances that contribute to greater sense of safety and civic pride.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Letitia Grant.

I currently serve as the Super Neighborhood Alliance president chair as well as the Acres Home Super Neighborhood Council President.

And by day, I'm a real estate broker.

I am in favor of the increase or price adjustment of the fee that was proposed by councilwoman Sally Alcorn.

And I also want to thank her for her strong commitment to our communities.

I want to paint a picture for everyone.

Our community is comprised of mostly seniors.

Seniors that had historically been afraid of going to the parks because many of our parks, unlike the parks that are known to the majority of Houstonians, was lacking something as simple as street lights.

Many of our parks go without the grass being cut regularly.

Now we can say that's another issue or handled by a separate department.

But the fact is many of our parks in our low-to-modern income communities have gone overlooked for many, many years.

I am definitely in favor of the 7030 split.

I do believe that it would give us what we need to be able to service our community properly.

I'm also an affordable housing specialist in my career.

And with that being said, prices, sales prices of homes and sales prices of apartments, rental prices are continuously going up, and that fee has remained the same at $750 dollars.

I do not feel that the fee is significantly a significant increase, but I do feel that it is mandatory for our communities to continue to thrive.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

And then the last speaker I have signed is Huey German Wilson.

No, okay.

All right.

Okay.

Yeah, go ahead, Dr.

Director Trans got an answer for Commissioner Baldwin's question.

Yes.

So I believe your question is you did not see the 5% cap on indirect costs in the ordinance.

It is in Section 42-255.

Park and recreation dedication fund.

Um D.

D.

Okay.

So indirect costs reasonably incurred in connection with park acquisition improvement, such as appraisal fees, environmental assessment costs, legal expenses, engineering, and design costs shall be limited to not more than 5% of the total acquisition or improvement costs or fee and loo.

You're welcome.

Okay, I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

Yes, please come forward one at a time.

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

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Director and Commissioners.

I'm Taylor Valley Presley, the parks equity analyst and advocate for the coalition of environment equity and resilience, and also a former historic preservation planner here at the city.

So it's weird being on the other side.

Here in Houston, we love our parks and want to see them continuously grow and flourish from the smallest neighborhood parks to the larger, more well-known parks.

However, we are aware that cuts to the parks and recreation department from this past fiscal year continuing into 2027 budget cycle have made park resources scarce, and we want to explore everything we can to bring resources and equity to our parks.

But we want to see the city raise the developers' fees that go towards the parkland dedication fund.

The city can still raise the fee from the current $700 per dwelling unit while still being considered a low fee option, which was defined as less than 2% of the medium family income as long as is as long as it does not exceed 1,296.26.

The approximate adjusted inflation from $700 in 2007 to 2026 is just a little over eleven hundred dollars, like Council Member Alcorn um specified earlier, and that's still below the 1296-26 quoted in the last presentation.

There has been hesitancy to raise these fees due to the belief that this could further encourage unaffordability by developers raising their pricing based on these higher fees for them.

But even the smallest raise from the current $700 can make a big difference towards our parks through the parkland dedication fund while both staying in compliance and keeping housing within affordable margins.

We believe the inflation and raise in land value from two thousand from 2007 to 2026, nearly 20 years later, warrants a fee raise to benefit our Houston parks.

We think we deserve that.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And I think I had one more speaker that wanted to come forward.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Rita Roblast, and I am from Denver Harbor.

I'm the vice president for the Civic Club, but I also am a climate ambassador with SEER, my colleague there, Coalition for Environmental Equity and Resilience.

So we are in favor of raising the fee.

We are advocating for more funding to go towards the parkland dedication fund by raising the raising the in lieu fees that developers pay, which have never been raised since the inception of the ordinance in 2007.

While we highly support the 70 30 split of the collected funds and the expanded amount of time to oblige the collected funds from developers, we strongly believe that with the inflation and raises in land value that have occurred since 2007, that the current fee of seven hundred dollars per dwelling unit is highly outdated, and a raise is warranted.

The fee can be raised even if even slightly while still being in compliance with the low fee option and not making the prices of homes and apartments to skyrocket while making a difference for the benefit of our parks.

If you would like sorry, sorry.

Thank you.

I hope that you would uh really uh think about this fee.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for coming in.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Okay, one last call for Huey German.

Well sent.

She's walking over.

She was in the wrong building.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I mean, she's our last speaker.

Um can she give us written comments?

She would walk in over.

And even close it and then open it and a little easier said than done.

Yeah, easier said than done.

Sorry.

Okay.

I mean, walking over could be two minutes or ten minutes.

Just I don't know where walking over is, but um, Chair Clark, yes.

Uh we may also receive the comments through written comments, also.

Uh, if that is what the commission would like if you choose to do that.

Because when we do forward this to city council, all the comments, whether they were written or whether they were stated here will be included in that packet that goes to city council.

Five.

Okay.

Okay.

So I'm gonna close the public hearing.

And then um make a someone needs to make a motion to have time to consider what we've heard today and postpone action until such time.

Is that your preference to postpone?

That's my preference, yes.

And how long would you like to postpone it?

At least till the next meeting.

I'll move that we postpone for two weeks to take into account public comments and seek more information about impact of raising the fee and adjusting the five percent to ten percent that I'd like to propose.

Okay, all right.

I almost second that motion.

But yeah, I'll second that motion.

Okay.

So we have a motion by Commissioner Ball, want a second by Commissioner Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries, yes, Commissioner Baldwin.

Could we see the economic impact of raising the fee to 1,000?

What additional money would we raise by making it 1,000 dollars, which is still below the inflationary rate?

I just would like a number associated with $1,000, which is a $300 increase.

Is that possible easily?

I don't want to cause a lot of problems.

When you say economic impact, are you the additional money that if we what would $300 more look like?

Bring in Oh, okay, in terms of revenues.

Yes, if we raise the fee to $1,000 versus $700.

I think we can do a really quick analysis by next commission.

Certainly.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Okay.

Moving along to the so you all thought you caught me this time, but I am on game today.

Um enumeral two plating activity.

Um, subdivision and development plots.

Yeah, it was that.

Good afternoon, madam chair, members of the planning commission.

My name is Adissa Jadis Yoju.

Section 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 98.

Section A consent items are numbers 1 through 49, and section B replot items or numbers 50 through 98.

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 for these items, the planning and development department request the approval of all staff recommendations for consent and replied items not requiring notification.

Thank you.

So I know I have recusals, so I'm just going to call on the commissioners that I know of.

If I miss anybody, then let me know at the end.

Commissioner Heich.

Yes, Madam Chair.

I'm going to abstain from items eight through 11, 16, 17, 18, 25 through 28, 43, and 64.

Thank you.

Commissioner Matez.

Yes, I will change from item four and thirty-eight.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sykes.

Thank you.

Commissioner Shepard.

8 through 11.

And Commissioner Pierce.

Item 16, 17, and 83.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

So I need a motion, save and accept items four, eight through eleven, sixteen through eighteen, twenty-five through twenty-eight, thirty-eight, forty-three, and sixty-four.

Do I have a motion?

Do I say did I skip fifty-eight?

I did skip fifty-eight.

Fifty-eight and sixty-four.

Do I have a motion?

Motion.

Motion fam, second, garza, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Now I need a motion for items four, eight through eleven, sixteen through eighteen, twenty-five through twenty-eight, thirty-eight, forty-three, fifty-eight, and sixty-four.

Motion parce perdle.

Motion pours purple.

Second.

Naranjo, second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to replats requiring public hearings.

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

My name is Araceli Rodriguez.

Item 99 is Adams 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 Wii Plat is to create one unrestricted reserve and a shared drive with development of four lot.

And remove an assistant warehouse that sit on lot four, which is a single family residential lot.

The applicant is requesting a variant to not provide right away dedication along North Adams Street to prevent the unrestricted reserve to be less than 5,000 square feet.

Staff support the request.

I mean the project.

However, there is a warehouse on the site that has been in play at least since 1970s and sit on the property line and predate the ordinance.

Providing the required widerway dedication at this time would cost the building to encroach into the public right away.

And would also reduce the resure below the minimum loss size requirement, making it non-compliant.

Therefore, staff recommend that the required waterway dedication to be applied at the conditional widening to become effective only after the building encroachment into the right-way is demolished, and support the variant to allow the resure to be left in 5,000 square feet.

Review by legal indicate 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 event.

Then that recommendation is to grant the variant to allow a conditional right-away dedication.

Allow the resure to be less than 5,000 square feet, and approve the plus subject to the CPC 101 form condition.

Madam Chair is the pleasure to the commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 99 is continued.

I do have the applicant here.

Commissioners, if you have any questions, okay.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on item 99?

Okay.

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

Motion Jones.

Second Baldwin.

Second Baldwin.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 100.

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

My name is Ken Calhoun.

Item 100 is a SUSE Villas.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits, north along Madeira between Trumpet and Thorn Street.

The purpose of the replay is to create two SQL family front loading lots.

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.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 100 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 seconds.

Motion psych, second hinds.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 101.

Item 101 is Aslan places.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits, north along Madeira, between Trumpet and Thorn Street.

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

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

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

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

Statute recommendation is to approve the plat for the CPC 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 101 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 fam.

Motion fam.

Second, sir.

Second serum.

All in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 102.

Item 102, CARER at mid lane.

The site is located in Houston City Limit, South of West Timer Road and east of I 610.

The purpose of the Wii Plat is to create six single family lot and one parkour insurance and to modify the building line.

There are no variants requested with this item.

The applicant has met all the notification requirement.

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

Staff did receive public comment in advance voicing concern regarding to traffic and pedestrian safety.

And the applicant has also addressed this public comment.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 102 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.

Second high.

Motion Victor, second high.

Shawl in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 103.

Item 103, Quitman branch, replat number one.

The slot is located in Houston City Limit, North of Hyman Drive, and east of Antoine Drive.

The purpose of the Wii Plat is to create 54 single family residential lot and nine reserves.

There are no variances requested with this item.

The applicant has met all the notification requirements.

Review by legal indicates that the plot does not violate restriction on the base of the plot or those files separately.

STAP received public comment in advance voicing concern about high identity and parking.

Staff recommendation is to approve the plot subject to the CPC 101 form condition.

Madam Chair, is it pleased with the commission?

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 103 is open.

I do have a speaker, Stephen McGuire.

Good afternoon.

Afternoon.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

You've had a lot of eminent people that have come up here and I'm just a normal member of the public.

So 103 is a application to add 56 or so new units to the street.

And I know that you don't live there, so you don't know that the water just barely trickles out of the water faucet.

You can't hardly clean yourself off when you take a shower because the water just wants to dribble.

Okay.

So the plumbing provided by the city is already inadequate.

Okay, to supply the water.

And when it rains hard, the cleanouts on the sewer line blow up out of the ground, and you'll find them 20 or 30 feet away because the back pressure in the sewer lines on Pine Mont and everything just runs right back up the sewer and blows things up.

So I'm not opposed to developing additional places.

I'm just saying that if your current utilities are already marginal, substandard.

You you know, you've got leaking pipes that have probably been in there for 50 years, and uh they're getting ready to go down that road and tear up Antoine.

You know, wouldn't it be nice if instead of putting the new road in and then tearing it up again two years from now to put in bigger pipes if they thought it threw up front and put bigger pipes in when they're gonna tear up the street anyways?

I I know that sounds unreasonable, but you know, I'm an engineer and and I've watched for years.

You know, they'll come in and put a new street in, and then the water company will tear it up, and then when they're done, the gas company will tear it up, and then the sewer company will tear it up.

And before you're done, it's worse than it started.

And thank you.

Thank you.

We appreciate you coming in.

Mr.

Brown, would you mind catching up with Mr.

McGuire and talking to him about his issues, please?

Appreciate it.

And just Mr.

McGuire, so you know Mr.

Brown represents public works, and so he's the gentleman in the back, and he'll come and talk to you.

There you go.

Maybe y'all can go outside after we're done here.

Thank you, thank you.

Okay, I have no one else signed to speak on item one oh three.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

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

Motion fam.

Motion fam.

Second Jones, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed, motion carries.

Item 104.

Item 104, Jacqueline Glow.

The site is located in Houston City Limit, South of West Hammer Road, and east of North of Westview Drive and west of Einchon Drive.

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 has met all the notification requirements, and review by legal indicates 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.

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

Madam Chair, it's a pleasure to the commission, you may open the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 104 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 for motion towards purple.

Second serem.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 105.

Item 105.

Live on home at Alston.

The site is located in Houston City Limit west of Jail Street and stattle west 11th Street.

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

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

Review by legal indicates that the plot does not violate restriction on the face of the plot, although file separately.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 105 is open.

I do have a speaker.

Laura Vergadamo.

Great.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for having us here today.

I'm a little shorter.

I'm going to speak to the history of the Houston Heights because this property I understand is located within our realm.

And the importance of that history to the city of Houston.

You might recognize the name, Dr.

Denton Cooley, whose grandfather was the treasurer for the Omaha and South Texas Land Company that developed the Houston Heights.

I won't go into all those, right?

So it's really a character.

I got to have dinner with him a lot in the heights.

Yarrow Pharmacy, Mildred Depree was quite possibly the first woman pharmacist in the state of Texas.

There's a lot of very rich history in the Houston Heights.

That house, but the father of the owner was one of the first structural engineers for the city of Houston.

Our home is protected because we are a landmark house.

Many of the homes are smaller and they're not protected by that designation.

It's very difficult to get that designation now.

Also, there's so many good comments that have been made, and a lot of the historic buildings, and in this new development, it's huge.

It's a huge tax burden to the people that own smaller homes.

They're not insignificant homes.

They're beautiful homes.

They're historic homes, and they're very important to the history of the city of Houston, too.

Um it was incorporated in 1890.

Well, it was developed in 1891.

It was incorporated as a city of Houston Heights in 18 in 1908.

I'm sorry, in 1896, and in 1908 it was incorporated into the city of Houston.

A grave mistake, in my opinion, from what I see happening now.

So I would appreciate it if you take that into consideration that there are all income levels in the heights and Mitchell.

You remember Mitchell, the developer in Galveston and in the woodlands said if you want to have a healthy community, you need to have all income levels.

This huge building deletes the middle class and the lower classes in any development.

So think about that.

Nobody's gonna drive from Katy or Liberty to come clean your house.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

We appreciate you coming in.

The applicant is here as well.

If you'd like to speak, Salim O'Baide.

I'm I'm I'm sure I'm messing that up, please.

Are you the applicant?

Would you like to speak?

Do you have any questions?

Commissioners, any questions?

No.

Okay, thank you.

I have no one outside to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

All right.

Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing for item 105 and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Garza.

Second Motes, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 106.

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

My name is Dorian Paul Flow.

Item 106 is Madero Suites.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits at the Southeast Intersection of Bayou Park View Drive and Mac Alpine Streets.

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

There are no variants requested with this item.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

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

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

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.

Okay, thank you.

We'll open the public hearing for item 106.

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 Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second ballard, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 107 is withdrawn.

Item 108.

Item 108 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 Road.

The reason for replat is to create one unrestricted reserve.

The plat was deferred at the last planning commission.

Per council member Mayor Pro Tem Martha Catics Tatum's request.

There are no variants requested with this item.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

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

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

And there are safety concerns with uh so many warehouses in the neighborhood and also drainage concerns.

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 108 is continued.

Commissioners, I do have the applicants here if you have questions.

Yes, Commissioner Garza.

So actually, Ms.

Fulflem.

So this is going to be warehousing backing up to a neighborhood.

So ordinance will require that they have fencing and lights have to be shielded from the neighborhood.

Is all that going to be standard or do we need to, you know, do we need to go further or ask for that?

No, it'll be standard.

Okay, so all that shielded from the neighborhood, fencing.

So the neighborhood has some buffer, so to speak, between the two.

But it's not a variant, so we can't ask for it.

Anything?

No, she asks was it in the county.

It's in the city in Fort Bend.

It is okay.

But it's not a variant, so we can't ask for extra, but but again, the neighborhood will be protected to the degree the ordinance allows.

Yes.

Thank you.

And um, Joseph Thail and Jerry Thail.

Did you want to say anything or just here for questions?

Okay, all right, thank you.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

All right.

I'll close the public hearing for item 108 and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Garza.

Second for it.

Um, Ronho, sorry.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 109.

Item 109 is Vista ICAR.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits at the northeast intersection of Little York Road and Meadow York Street.

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

There are no variants requested with this item.

The reason for replot.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

The reason for replot is to um create one unrestricted reserve and to abandon a utility easement.

I totally apologize.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

Staff has not received any advanced comments for this item.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the plat per the CBC 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 109 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 Sykes.

Motion Sykes.

Second motto's all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 110.

Item 110 is Walker Storage Yards.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits, south along Fuqua Street, east of Cullen Boulevard.

The reason for replat is to create one unrestricted reserve.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

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

Staff has not received any advanced comments for this item.

There are no variants requested with this item.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item one ten is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Yep.

Sorry.

Please come forward.

And if you wouldn't mind stating your name for the record, please.

My name is Matthew Davis.

I'm the pastor New Beginning Church and President of Turning Hearts Ministries.

We just don't know what's going to be put there, and that's why we're we're here.

Okay.

Is the applicant here?

Miss Poflam, do you know if the applicant's here?

Apparently not.

Miss Poflam can get you contact information for the applicant and the owner so that you can speak to them and they can help you out.

Thank you.

Okay.

So now I'm closing the public hearing and seeking a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion or motion pours purdle.

Second muddess.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item one eleven.

Item 111 is Western Oaks Pars replat number one.

The size of Houston Corporate Limits, West along Durango Drive, south of Long Point Road.

The reason for replat is to create one single family residential lot.

There are no variants requested with this item.

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

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the plat for the CBC 101 forum conditions.

Staff received an advanced comment concerning deed restricted building lines.

We consulted uh with the applicant, and he provided the revised drawing that is before you on the at the uh here at the planning commission showing a 25 feet front building line and five foot side building lines.

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 111 is open.

I have a couple of speakers.

Our first speaker is Kay Vincent.

She's deferring.

Oh the fur.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Um I had signed up not knowing that there'd been a change today with the deferment to the 25 feet.

So I don't need to say anything.

That was the big concern.

Okay.

A lot of us.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Martha Johnson.

Same concern, different concern.

It was kind of scratch, they were guessing.

So obviously, you are not Martha.

If you would say if you would just state your name for the record.

Matthew Johnson, and I've been called work.

So thank you very much.

Uh no, again, I'm here to uh speak out in approval of the new of the revised plot for the lot.

Great.

Thank you so much.

All right, thank you so much.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Anybody else that wishes to?

Yes.

Well, you can come forward.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

I'm raining and I am I live in Western.

I'm sorry.

Yeah.

You have to speak in the mic for me, please.

I'm Pam Ray.

I live in Western Oaks.

I have quite a few of my neighbors here also from Western Oaks.

And I want to thank the Commission and also the planning staff and Amy Peck's office for y'all's diligent efforts and also especially Ms.

Dorian Powell Flynn for y'all's attention to the requested changes we made.

Uh that just needed to be revised for the setback information so that you wouldn't adopt a setback information that allowed people to build in the ditch in front of the house.

And so I just want to thank everybody and ask you, please make sure you're voting on the revised plat that's I think submitted this morning.

It's the revised plat we're asking for you to do.

Yes, ma'am.

And it is as Ms.

Poflam submitted it and recommended to us.

It's the revised one.

Thank you so much.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

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

Motion ballard.

Seconds.

I heard three there.

Motion Jones, second, Ballard and Hines.

You'll have to wait till next time.

The words.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to D subdivision platz with variance requests.

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

My name is Petra Shaw.

Item 112 is Almida Mall South.

The site is located within the Houston City limits, Harris County, east of Cleckley Drive, north of Kings Point Road, and southwest of Interstate Highway 45.

The applicant is proposing three unrestricted reserves and is requesting two variances to exceed local intersection spacing requirements along Cleckley Drive and Kings Point Road by not providing an east-west street and a north-south street through the property.

Staff is in support of the request.

The subject site is located at Almeda Mall.

Portions of the mall are currently being redeveloped while other areas are planned for future development and expansion.

However, the main mall structure itself will remain in place.

Additionally, the site is constrained by existing developments in Interstate Highway 45, which is a controlled access freeway.

As a result, requiring both a north-south street and an east-west street through the subject site would be infeasible given the existing site conditions and surrounding development.

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

Staff has received public comments ahead of time, citing traffic concerns.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Do I have a motion?

Motion Matas.

Second and Ranjo.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 113.

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

My name is Tammy Williamson.

Item 113 is Arc at Ion.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limits in Harris County, located on the block bounded by Main Street, Wheeler Street, Fannon Street, and Eagle Street within the midtown walkwill place area.

The applicant is proposing one unrestricted reserve and requesting a variance to allow reduction in the size and height of the visibility triangles located at Main Street and Eagle Street and Fannon Street and Eagle Street.

In the draft agenda packet, the applicant was also requesting additional variances for reduced building lines along Main, Fannon, Eagle, but these are no longer being requested.

Staff is in support of the request.

The property is a replat of the 2019 plat application, Ion, which had variances granted for dual building lines for the existing structure, new additions and footprint and floors, and new canopies.

Now the applicant is proposing a new building on the north portion of the same site along Eagle Street and requesting a variance related to this scope of work.

The applicant is requesting a reduction in the height requirement of the visibility triangles located at the intersections of Main Street and Eagle Street and Fannon Street and Eagle Street from 20 feet to 17 feet nine inches.

Walkle Place and transit oriented development streets are required to maintain a minimum pedestrian realm height of at least 10 feet, which this proposal meets.

Additionally, the ordinance permits a reduction in the visibility triangle height to 10 feet for lots and multi-unit residential properties when complying with reduced building line performance standards.

The reduced height being proposed of 17 feet nine inches meets the intent of the ordinance requirements for allowing clear and safe site lines for all road users.

The applicant is also requesting a reduction in the ordinance required visibility triangle size at the same intersections as the height reduction.

The ordinance requires the minimum visibility triangle size of 15 feet by 15 feet.

To avoid a column encroachment at each corner at Main Street and Eagle Street, the request is for 13 feet by 13 feet, and at Fannon Street and Eagle Street is for seven and a half feet by seven and a half feet.

These requested reductions in the visibility triangles are in keeping with the intent of the ordinance.

The visibility along Fannon Street is not impacted by the proposed structure due to the one-way traffic coming north.

The visibility at Main Street is sufficient despite the reduction by two feet because all road users are able to view both ahead of the column and between the column and the building, which is set back further from the property line.

Houston Public Works has voiced no objection to the request.

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

Second hinds, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to item 114.

Item 114 is Imbrie States.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limits in Harris County, north of Boundary Street and east of North Main Street in the near north side.

The applicant is proposing two single family residential lots and requesting two variances.

One, not to extend or terminate in a cul-de-sac, Embry Street, and two to allow lot two not to have any frontage on a street or shared driveway.

Staff recommends to defer the application for two weeks to allow for continued coordination with the applicant and Houston Public Works for alternative options for access for lot two.

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 of deferral.

Motion balling second motors.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 115.

Item 115 is Garfam Industries Industrial Park.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Harris County, located along the west side of West Hardy Road and south of Aldine Bender Road.

The applicant is proposing two unrestricted reserves and requesting a variance to allow a 20-foot public alley to terminate as a dead end.

Staff is in support of the request.

The property is originally part of the Aldean Township recorded in 1907 with public rights of way and alleys.

The property was replatted in 2004 as Cornett Business Park with a variance granted to terminate Holly Street and the two adjacent public alleys as a dead end instead of extending or terminating with a turnaround.

Now the applicant is proposing a replat of all of reserve B, a portion of reserve A, the now abandons 6th Street, and two lots from the original Aldine subdivision.

A variance is required for the termination of the public alley between Sweeney Road and West Hardy Road.

The alley between Sweeney Road and West Hardy Road is not improved and has encroachments within it, so is not utilized for adjacent access.

The applicant will be required to receive approval from Harris County Commissioner's Court for the abandonment of the 20 foot public alley prior to recordation.

Harris County Engineering's office had voiced no objection to the request, therefore, staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variance 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 sides.

Second, motion psych, second Mandapaka.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving to 116.

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

Item 116 is Greenscapes.

The site is located within the Houston ETJ, Harris County, east of Katie Fort Bend Road, north of France Road, west of Porter Road along K-Tex Boulevard.

The applicant is proposing an unrestricted reserve and is requesting a variance to allow the reserve to have frontage and take access from a 60 foot access easement instead of a public street.

Staff is in support of the request.

Part of the ordinance, an unrestricted reserve is required to have frontage and take access from a 60-foot wide public street.

K-TEX Boulevard is a 60-foot wide paved access easement that provides perpetual, non-exclusive access to the subject site and properties along it.

Staff finds the proposed access consistent with the intent of the ordinance.

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, Commissioners.

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

Motion Shepard.

Second Montepaca.

Okay.

Who was the first one?

Okay.

Motion Shepherd, second Montepaca.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to 117.

Item 117 is Sheldon Desavala Industrial GP.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in eastern Harris County, located along the east side of South Sheldon Road, south of Market Street and Interstate Highway 10, and west of the San Jacento River.

The applicant is proposing a general plan of approximately 200 acres intended for commercial use and is requesting a variant to exceed intersection spacing along South Sheldon Road, a major thoroughfare, and Dezavala Road, a local street, by not providing any public rights of way through the site.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is currently used as a pipe yard.

The applicant proposes to redevelop the site as a distribution and logistics facility with vehicular access from Sheldon Road and Dezabala Road.

The intent of the intersection spacing requirements is to ensure adequate connectivity and contiguous street network to accommodate the traffic generated by this development and the adjacent properties.

Although the intersection spacing along both South Sheldon Road and Desavala Road is excessive with no public streets in the area, the site is encumbered by Carpenter's Bayou to its south, which is wide and deep enough to be used for barred shipping traffic.

Likewise, the tracks south of Dezavala Road and between Beltway 8 and the San Jacena River are primarily developed as large acreage commercial industrial uses.

This land use pattern requires less public street connections than an urban environment would.

Harris County Engineering has voiced no objection to the request.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variants and approve the general plan 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 Mondepaca.

Motion Montepaca.

Second Mata is all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Nothing under EF reconsideration of requirement.

Item 118 is Corville Commercial Park.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Harris County, located along the east side of Huffsmith Corville Road, south of the Grand Parkway, and north of North Point Boulevard.

The applicant is proposing one unrestricted reserve and requesting a reconsideration of requirement with a variant to exceed intersection spacing along Huffsmouth Corville Road by not extending nor terminating in a cul-de-sac Seven Sisters Drive.

Staff is in support of the request.

The existing intersection spacing along Huff Smith Corville Road is approximately 2,880 feet.

This represents a 10% deviation from the standard requirement of an intersection along a major thoroughfare, at least every 2,600 feet.

The Northern Point subdivision to the north and east of the subject site has public street connections both to Huffsmith Corville Road and North Point Boulevard.

The applicant is proposing a commercial warehouse development requiring Seven Sisters Drive to extend through the site and intersects with Husmill Corville Road would be impractical.

The existing residential subdivision and the proposed large commercial warehouse are in incompatible uses.

Additionally, the sub stub street, Seven Sisters Drive, is only one lot in depth, approximately 110 feet, and neither lot uses it for access.

Requiring a turnaround is unnecessary because the dead end configuration is clear from Rippling Brook Lane.

Harris County Engineering has voiced no objection to the request.

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

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

Thank you.

Commissioners.

If there's no questions, I'll take a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Jones.

Second Montepaca.

Second Montepaca, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 119.

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

My name is Devin Crittle.

Item 119 is Oates Meadow.

The site is located in Northeast Houston in the city limits, west along Oates Road, just south of Beaumont Highway.

The applicant is requesting a reconsider reconsideration of requirement to not extend or terminate an unimproved stub street with the CODISAC.

Staff is in support of this request.

The property is an existing industrial site in need of permits for further development.

The adjacent subdivision Oak Lane Acres is a small unrecorded residential subdivision first developed in the 1960s.

During that time, a stub street was created but was never improved or developed.

Strict requirements of the ordinance requires the street to be extended or terminated with the CODISAC.

Any extension of this stub street would allow industrial traffic to use this residential street.

The unrecorded subdivision and this proposed industrial site both have access along Major Therapy Oats Road, which is the optimal choice to travel in the north north-south direction.

In addition, multiple properties have been platted, which would prevent a consistent street connection from Beaumont Highway to Wallaceville Road.

Staff has not received any objection to this request.

Therefore, staff recommends granting the requested reconsideration of requirement to not extend the stub street and subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

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

Second ballard, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to G, extension of approval.

Chair.

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

My name is Graylin Cook Jr., and I'm a member of the planning team over at the Houston Permitting Center.

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

There are no items second out of order.

All right.

Sections G, extension of approval consists of items 120 through 126.

Section H.

There are well, there are no items for section H today.

Section I, certificate of compliance, consists of items 127 through 129.

And there won't be any items for Section J today.

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

Thank you.

Commissioner Malays, I believe you have a recusal.

Yes, items 126.

Thank you.

Do I have a motion for staff recommendation to approve G H I and J.

Motion Hines?

Motion Hines.

Second Victor, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to K.

Development Platz with variance requests.

The first DPV is item 130, uh 2015 Alabama Street.

This site is located in the third ward area along Alabama Street near US 59.

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

Staff is not in support of this request.

The site is a portion of two lots from the Holman Outlaw subdivision recorded around the 1890s.

Since then, US 59 was constructed and created a new side building line requirement of 25 feet.

Text dot has provided documentation showing that the previous property owner conveyed the rights to use this driveway along Alabama Street.

In short, the applicant cannot propose a driveway along Alabama.

Once the applicant was made aware of this situation, they've attempted to find an alternative access to the site, but could not get approval from any of the adjacent property owners to provide access easement.

Since the applicant does not have an alternative solution for proper access to the site, this leaves staff with no option but to deny the current design that shows access from Alabama Street.

Staffs recommends denying the requests, and this concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

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

Commissioner Garza.

Mr.

Crittle, you know, I am not in the position of redesigning flats at all.

But you know, looking at this, and since he doesn't have access, could this owner, and again, this is off the cuff, do a parking pad just in front to the to the east of the overhead power lines?

Like in other words, on the eastern border, they could do a driveway/slash parking pad and still have access to their property.

The it I think would be difficult um when you provide the parking pad, you're essentially how do you get to the parking pad?

Right, and it would require some type of vehicular access.

So they couldn't access a parking pad from Alabama Street on the easternmost, in other words, on the southern border, the southeastern border of their property.

Yeah, so the really their only option um they could either acquire the property that's directly in the rear or they could work with the property owner to get access easement from the rear, but uh it wouldn't be appropriate from Alabama Street.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

I just wanted to, you know, I just hate this idea, but it is what it is.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

If not, I seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Fam second.

FAM second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 131.

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

My name is Ramon Jaime Leon.

Item 131, 1420 Oxford Street.

The site is uh the site is east of High Heights Boulevard and north of 14th Street at the southeast corner of Oxford Street and Algreg Street.

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

The staff recommendation is to disapprove the request.

The review by legal indicates that this development plat will violate separately followed restrictions.

The applicant has requested a 30-day extension in writing and is present today.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Okay, I have a couple of speakers.

Our first one is Steve Furlong.

I mean, he didn't sign up, I don't think.

Good afternoon.

My name is Steve Furlong.

I am a resident of Houston Heights and also a member of the Houston Heights Association Land Use Committee.

And we submitted a letter with some objections to this one, so I thought I would just summarize those really quickly and we'll move on from there.

Um as mentioned, um there was a deed restriction that was filed.

We found that, and I think that the staff also found that.

So that was that was good that that was um kind of discovered.

Um the main thing outside of what's already been discussed by um staff is that there the plan does not allow for a sidewalk at all.

And this is within a block of Houston Heights, um, the the Heights High School there.

So we can't, you know, in good conscience as a land use committee, in addition to the other issues with this one, um, support the um lack of sidewalk so close to the high school where kids will be walking each day.

It just doesn't seem safe.

So I appreciate your consideration and thank you.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is John Rogers.

Good afternoon.

Hi, my name is John Rogers.

Uh I live at 605 All Greg across the street from this subject property, and I'm also an uh architect.

Um, this this I also have taught architecture at University of Houston and Texas AM, and I would say if this design were a student project, it would probably fail.

I mean, it's uh I'm you know, I'm sorry to make fun of it, but it's it's particularly boxy and ugly.

Um, the applicant is asking for a reduced three-foot building line.

The previous house that was there did not meet the deed restrictions, yet that owner had signed the deed restrictions, knowing that they would be applied in the future.

The existing house was a little one-story bungalow.

The applicant bought the house, tore that building down.

If that building were left, she could have had that setback that was there and added on and modified the house, didn't do that.

Um that street seems entirely reasonable, and it's typical in our neighborhood, and the house immediately across the street on the north east corner of Oxford and Algreg, uh, actually has a wraparound porch, fronts basically, even though the address is Oxford, it fronts toward Algreg Street, and the has a reasonable large setback, as do the houses immediately to the east of this subject property.

So by allowing it to just have a three-foot setback, it would just completely throw off the block face of all the adjoining houses down that block.

Uh lastly, I wanted to mention my given my comments about that the sidewalk, which I see in this revised drawing.

There is a sidewalk shown there, but I I don't understand why there needs to be a 23-foot deep garage on this property.

I think that there's there's a I'll say one last thing and get a go away.

There is a an elder an assisted living on that same block, and the people currently have to go out into the street to make it around the block.

And if a car is blocking that sidewalk, which will happen if there's a reduced garage setback, they'll still be having to go out into the street.

So I just wanted to make that comment.

Thank you.

Mr.

Baldwin.

John and others.

I I mean, I just want to be clear.

We found those deed restrictions and the 10-foot side setback and the front setback.

We have no ability to grant that variance.

She can't build a house closer than 10 feet to the side.

So I mean that she can ask for a variance for something else.

But she's not gonna get a 10-foot.

I mean, it'll be a 10-foot side setback and it'll be the front, whatever the deed restrictions say.

We can't invalidate the deed restrictions or grant any variants.

Just want to be clear.

I appreciate that.

Okay, the last speaker I have signed is Tracy Bulware.

I'm sure I mispronounced that.

Correct me, please.

If you're here, I'm right here.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry about that.

Last name is Bulware.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, we are asking for a extension, and the reason being is we had a little bit of misinformation about the deed restrictions from the title company.

Um, and we're leading to a redesign, and we're still in need of the development plat variants, but we are in need of an extension to revise a proposal.

Um there is another variance, and I believe it has to do with the garage setback.

Um, but I need to check with the architect.

This all came about this week.

So that's the reason why we are asking for a 30-day extension.

And I've been working with Mr.

Thomas, and he's been out to the site as well, and um, trying to come up with some equitable solutions that we can live with, and then also the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

And we do have that in writing, correct?

The 30-day extension you requested in writing.

Yes.

Um, if you emailed it, that's in writing.

Yes, okay.

All right, great, thank you.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Um, so commissioners.

Thank you.

The recommendation was disapproval, but we've got a written request for a 30-day extension.

Motion Garza for 30 days.

Second hinds.

Second Heinz, all in favor, aye, opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to item 132.

Item 132 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 zero-foot building line for a canopy, stairs, and ramp, and move the ordinance required 10-foot building line along Rice Boulevard.

Staff request to defer this item per the applicant's request.

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

The site is being developed as a high-rise multifamily structure along Rice Boulevard, a designated major collector with an ordinance required building line of 10 feet.

The ordinance permits encroachments into the building line for open stairways and ramps of five feet and cantilevered canopies of 30 inches.

The site has approved permit drawings that meet the ordinance requirements.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a zero-foot building line in the southwest corner of the property for a ramp, entry stairs, and cantilevered canopy in order to improve the functionality and the visual character of the entry feature of the building to engage more directly with the pedestrian realm.

The proposed canopy structure is approximately 22 feet in height from grade and 19 feet from the building's finished floor elevation.

There is an existing protected right-of-way tree intended to remain.

Houston's Urban Forestry has stated that the location of the proposed canopy structure would appear to negatively impact the canopy of the tree.

During the deferral period, staff met with the applicant to discuss our concerns and alternatives.

The applicant is working on revisions to the application.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to defer the application for two weeks per the applicant's request.

Staff has received two public comments in advance, which were the same as the previous commission concerning public safety, visibility, and walkability.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I have a speaker, Mr.

Gibbs.

Um, I know I see that you said you'll defer until next meeting.

If this gets deferred, I can't guarantee it, but that's the recommendation.

You can speak today, and you can also speak for one minute at the next meeting.

Would you like to speak today or just completely defer?

Uh sure, since I'm here.

Come on.

I sat through the whole meeting.

That's right, you sat here this whole time.

It's good to be back.

Uh sorry to darken your door again on this.

Um, so I'll really focus at this time.

I think this variance is unnecessary.

They already have permitted stairs.

The building is topped out.

Uh they're almost done, and if they wanted this grander looking entry, I think they should have thought of that when they're getting their initial permits and actually building it.

So I think it's unnecessary.

I think most users will drive their car into the garage and take the elevator instead of using the stairs anyway.

Um, it's not desirable because it's I think a safety hazard for cars, trucks, everything using my driveway.

Pedestrians coming up and down have trouble seeing the cars.

The cars have trouble seeing the pedestrians, and then finally the small businesses that are my tenants, rely on the visibility of people coming by to see their businesses.

They've already blocked off uh most of the sign and like taking the rest away, I think would be detrimental to their businesses.

So that's why I'm focusing on this.

Thank you.

Okay, great, thank you.

I don't have anyone else signed to speak.

So commissioners, you have a recommendation to defer.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Victor, second Baldwin.

All in favor?

Aye, opposed, motion carries.

We're moving to Roman numeral three.

Establish a public hearing date of June 11th, 2026 for Charles Mont Place, Culver residence, Davenport Manor, Garage, Ultimate Westview, LC Park, Madeira Village, Royal Plaza, and Woodland Acres Partial Replat number five.

Do I have a motion?

Okay, that was a lot at once.

Okay.

Um Sykes and then Pierce, all in favor.

Aye, opposed, motion carries.

Moving to Remy numeral four, consideration of an off-street parking variance.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, Roman numeral four is a parking variance uh located at 235 North Norwood Street.

The site is located within Houston City limits near the second ward area, south along Navigation Boulevard and east of Lockwood Street.

The applicant is requesting a parking reduction from 1,077 spaces to 584 spaces for a commercial retail space.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is the location of a historic Folger's coffee plant built in the 1930s.

The coffee plant has a rich history and its historic landmark on the state and federal level.

The developer intends to renovate the building with an adaptive reuse of retail and commercial use instead of a demolition and a rebuild.

In total, 1,077 spaces are required, and the applicant is requesting to only provide 584.

The developer will renovate a portion of the building to construct a six to seven-story parking garage and will keep the existing surface level parking.

The site will develop in phases, with phase one being the Frank Lou Academy for Music and Art Studio.

Phase one of the development can meet the existing parking requirements.

Phase two will consist of commercial retail use, which triggers the need for the parking variance.

The site does contain physical restraints that limit the ability to provide the necessary parking.

First, the footprint of the existing building makes up the majority of the surface area on the site.

Also, the site is located near Buffalo Bayou, which limits the sub-level parking options.

This segment of navigation near Turkey Bend is made up of mostly industrial uses, and there's no direct access to the residential subdivisions that are south along Canal Street.

The fear for spillover parking should be greatly reduced given this factor.

Being within close proximity of the Harrisburg Rail, high demand bus route along canal and designated bike lanes nearby.

This is a prime location to exercise various modes of transportation.

Allowing the reuse of the building will help keep the cultural and environmental significance of the area in addition to the efforts made by the Buffalo Bayou Partnership.

Council District H, at large councilmember Sally Alcorn, and Alejandro Salinas, along with Buffalo Bayou Partnership, have all provided letters of support for this development.

Staff has seen has received one letter of opposition from the public.

Excuse me.

Madam Chair, staff recommends approving the parking reduction for this development, and this concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

We do have a couple of speakers.

Our first speaker is Adam Williams.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Adam Williams.

I'm a near Northside resident.

I'm also a design director at Lovett Commercial.

Something I love about the work we do is learning about Houston's history from an architecture and urban point of view but also a community point of view.

When we undertook the redevelopment of the Barbara Jordan Post Office just a few blocks away, I realized how important it is to showcase our history while encouraging future growth and not let things stagnate or, as is too frequent in our city, get torn down.

Since then I've been involved in a number of other adaptive reuse projects, including the uh Houston Post Newspaper Building in Edo, and many others.

And let me tell you, these are tricky projects, but they're really worth it.

Um we started looking at kind of the design for the Folgers Coffee Building.

I learned it was the third Folgers plant in the country after San Francisco and Kansas City.

When it opened in 1930s, it coincided with an expansion of the ship channel.

And at the time, coffee was Houston's number one import through the port, which I just found fascinating as an economic driver for the neighborhood and an existing legacy that we have.

So we are very excited to reintroduce this piece of history to the neighborhood and to the city, and um we appreciate your consideration.

Um I've also uh included a few more uh letters of support uh that we have from council members Alcorn, Castillo, and Salinas, as well as the East Dunn District and Buffalo Body Partnership.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You can give those to Mr.

Butler.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dennis Weissock.

Oh, you're not gonna speak?

We don't have any vote.

Okay, okay.

And then uh Nathan Dietrich, you too.

Just here to set through the meeting to the very end, huh?

Very good.

Okay.

So, so commissioners, you have a recommendation in front of you.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Baldwin.

Second, no, no.

Second nine hours all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

All right, yes.

Now moving on to public comment.

I have two speakers.

Taylor Valley Presley.

Madam Chair, those were for the public hearings.

She spoke earlier.

Yeah.

Oh, she did?

Wow.

My shuffler of speakers failed me today.

Okay.

With all of that in mind, um, I guess the second public speaker was Rita Robles, same thing.

Okay.

But we did ask.

No, I did ask.

Yes, I did.

Um, all right.

So we're going to adjourn this meeting at 4 09 p.m.

Thank you so much.

That's all right.

You never fail