Hello, my name is Lisa Clark.

I'm the chair of the Houston Planning Commission, and I'm calling this meeting to order at 2 34 p.m.

on Thursday, May 28th, 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's form before the item is called and turn it into staff near the front door.

Consent and repeat speakers are allowed for one minute.

New speakers are timed for two minutes.

Speaker rules are also 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, and non-applicants and general speakers are allowed two minutes time.

There is not an option for rebuttal.

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

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

Chair Clark is present, Vice Chair Garza.

Present.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Commissioner Ballard.

Commissioner Carroll.

Commissioner Heich.

Commissioner Heinz.

Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Naranjo.

Not present.

Commissioner Pham.

Present.

Commissioner Saram is absent.

Commissioner Shepard.

Present.

Commissioner Sigler.

Present.

Commissioner Sykes.

Present.

Commissioner Montepaka is not here yet.

And our Secretary, Director Von Tran.

Present.

So we do have a quorum of 14.

All right.

I do want to let you know there's been one item that is completely withdrawn.

That's item 109, Rice Boulevard.

So we will not hear anything on this agenda item or nor will we take any action.

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

Director Tran.

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

Good afternoon.

Thank you for joining us today.

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

Welcome.

Our 2026 major thoroughfare and freeway plan amendment process is underway.

Last meeting you heard from staff and the applicants about each of the proposed amendments at the MTFB workshop.

From this point forward, staff will notify affected property owners and continue the review of the applications.

On Wednesday, June the 10th, we will be hosting an open house where the applicants will make a follow-up presentation to the public on their requests.

This will be held in the evening of June 11th.

And uh the meeting is virtual meeting only.

So for information about this, please contact Jeff Butler at 832 393 6528.

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

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

You may visit us online at Houston Planning.com.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Tran.

And I assume you've noted Commissioner Montepaca.

Thank you.

Alright, so I have two meeting minutes that we need to approve.

First, we'll approve the planning commission meeting minutes of our May 14th, 2026 meeting.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Ballard.

Motion Ballard.

Second Matez, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

And now we'll consider the meeting minutes for our major thoroughfare and freeway plan workshop.

May I have a motion?

Motion Sykes.

Second Jones, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

All right.

Number one on our agenda is consideration of the proposed amendments to Chapter 42, Division 7, Parks and Private Parks to comply with local government code.

Director Tran.

Yes.

Staff, do you mind going ahead and pop up the slide of our recommendation?

The summary of proposed changes, slide number 16.

Commissioners, um, we would like to recommend that this commission vote to forward the red line of the proposed changes to our chapter 42, division 7, parts, and private parts.

And just a reminder, uh the summary of the proposed changes in the red line, first and foremost is so that we can comply with the local government code 212, and that is to designate all territories of Houston as suburban, urban or central business district to meet the criteria for setting a fee.

Second, to adopt the low fee option.

Third, to adopt fee only and no dedication of land for multifamily, fourth, collecting fees at issuance of certificate of occupancy for the multi-family, and then finally adding a process for appeal for the multifamily.

Secondly, there are three additional changes that we are requesting in this red line.

It is allowing for a 30% of fees collected to be used in different parts sectors, extending time from three years to five years for paid funds to be obligated, and then finally revising the parks board to parks director, having authority to manage and expend funds.

The red lines were included in this agenda package as well as previous agenda packages packages.

So my request is for the commission to take a motion to forward this to City Council for their consideration.

Thank you, Director Tran.

And we do have a speaker, Councilmember Alcorn.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

It's good to see you again.

Um I'm glad you're considering these changes.

Uh I certainly support these changes, and as I addressed you two weeks ago, I also support an increase to the fee that has not been uh changed since 2007.

Uh I do understand the administration would like to delay that, um, you know, for a couple months at least to have uh ample time for stakeholder engagement to also have this commission receive a full reporting on where these monies have been spent in the past before any fee increase is is taken up by council.

Uh but just want to express my support for this and also urge you to seriously consider a fee increase at the appropriate time, which will be soon, sooner rather than later.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilmember.

We appreciate you coming in.

Okay, now we'll move along to remember numeral two, plating activity.

Oh, yes, we need to make a vote.

Thank you.

Okay, do I have any questions?

If not, I need a motion to forward these changes on to city council.

Motion Ballard.

Okay, second once.

I heard Commissioner Baldwin, I believe, and then Commissioner Ballard.

And I might have missed somebody else, but sorry about that.

Okay, so all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Now we'll move along to planning activity.

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

My name is Maria Toar.

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

Sections A and B are items one through 80.

Section A consent items are numbers one through 31, and section B, report items are numbers 32 through 80.

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 requests the approval of all staff recommendations for consent and report items not requiring notification.

Thank you.

I do have a speaker on item 46, so we'll pull that one out.

And then I know I have some abstentions.

Um Commissioner Motes.

Yes, abstaining from one for 10, 21 through 24.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sykes.

Item 7.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Heisch.

Yes, Madam Chair, items three, four, five, and eleven.

Thank you.

Are there any others?

Yes.

Yes, Commissioner Shepard.

Uh items four, twelve, thirty-seven, and sixty-one.

Okay.

So I need a motion save and accept items one, three, four, five, ten, eleven, twelve, twenty-one through twenty-four, thirty-seven, sixty-one, seventy-three, and forty-six.

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

FAM second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

We'll still set item 46 aside.

And I need a motion for items one, three, four, and five, ten, eleven, twelve, twenty-one through twenty-four, sixty-one and seventy-three.

Do I have a motion?

Motion signaler.

Motion Sigler.

Second Heinz.

Second Heinz.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

And now we'll do a presentation on 46.

Mr.

Butler.

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

My name is Chef Butler.

Item 46 is HEB East End.

The site is on a block bound by a canal, live oak, commerce, and Delano Streets.

The applicant is proposing an unrestricted reserve.

There are no variances associated with this item.

And this plat has been found to meet all of Chapter 42's requirements.

Staff recommends approving the plat for the conditions listed.

Thank you.

Okay, so our speaker is Scott Singleton.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Commission.

Thank you for uh giving me a moment here.

I am uh resident of uh second ward uh actually walking distance from where this is going to be replatted, and I am here to support it because the uh neighborhood has uh needed a store for quite some time, and uh there's a lot of positive energy, a lot of press around this, and um I think that uh in order to just stay ahead of this issue as it moves along, there are a lot of parking implications, a lot of infrastructure implications and a lot of other things that would happen later on in the process.

But uh for the purpose of simply the replat uh the community probably is is unanimously in favor of it.

So thank you for your time.

Absolutely.

Thank you for coming in and sharing your comments.

Do I have anyone else that wants to speak on item 46?

Okay, if not, I need a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Midas.

Second ballard, second ballard, all in favor, aye, opposed, motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to C public hearings, good afternoon, madam chair and members of the Houston Planning Commission.

My name is Devin Critdle.

Item 81 is Asevedo property of the site is located within Houston City limits along Skinner Road between Aldi and Westfield Road and Hardy Toll Road.

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

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

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

Madam Chair, if it pleases the commission, you may open the public hearing for this item at this time, and staff has not received any advanced comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 81.

Is there anyone that wishes to speak?

All right, hearing none, I'll close.

I didn't open the public hearing.

Let me open the public hearing for item 81.

I have no one signed to speak and no one that wishes to.

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

Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second fam, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed, motion carries.

Item 82.

Item 82 is Bridge Stone Mud Lift Station Number 4, Replant number one, and extension.

The site is located in the ETJ of Harris County, east along Gosling Road, just north of FM 2920.

The applicant is proposing one reserve and a request in a bearance from 42-193 to allow a portion of a reserve restricted to recreation and detention to be replatted into a lift station.

The purpose of this replat is to expand an existing lift station facility.

This lift station was originally platted and recorded with the Bridgstone Mud Lift Station Platte in 2003.

Since then, the area has seen an increase in density and development.

To accommodate this growth, the lift station is being expanded an additional 41 feet in depth.

The area being absorbed into the lift station does not include any residential lots and would not disturb any daily activities from the neighborhood.

Overall, this request is to improve public infrastructure, which is a benefit to all parties involved.

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

Staff recommends grant of the requested variance in approving the plat subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

Madam Chair, we have not received any advanced comments.

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

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 Montepark.

Motion Mandapaka.

Second Jones, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 83.

Item 83.

Oh, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm John Phillips Ideal.

Item 83 is Esplanade on Live Oak Replat number one.

You saw the subject site is a 4300 square foot property located in the Houston City limits, north of Navigation Boulevard and east of Jensen Road.

The reason for replat is to create three lots on a shared driveway and alter the building line of the previous plat.

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

This is a full replat of Esplanade on Live Oak, intending to invoke the zero foot building line allowed by Chapter 42.

Those recorded with a five line on the previous plat.

Staff has not received any advanced comments regarding this application and reviewed by legal indicates that there is no violation of restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

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

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 83 is open.

I 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.

Second ballard, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 84.

Item 84 is FMU Kwood Collection.

The subject site is an over 10,000 square foot property located in the Houston City limits, east of Antoine Drive and north of Westview Drive.

The reason for replat is create four lots on a shared driveway.

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

This is a replat of lot one block three of Pine Terrace Section 3.

Staff has received advanced comments regarding concerns over deed restrictions on the property.

Review by legal indicates the proposed plat does violate restrictions separately filed regarding building lines and lot size.

Staff recommendation is to defer the plat for two weeks per applicant request to allow the applicant to coordinate with legal and to potentially come in compliance with those regulations.

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 84 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Second Hines.

Second Hines, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 85.

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

My name is Ken and Calhoun.

Item 85 is Garden Acres Plaza.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits at the northeast intersection of East Burris and Barrett Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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 85 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there any wishes to?

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

Motion Sykes.

Second Mattes.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 86.

Item 86 is Houston's skyscraper shadow Section 2, partial replat number seven.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits, north along Holiday Lane between Wingtip Drive and Monroe Road.

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

Staff recommendation is to approve the plat subject to 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 86 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.

Oh, second.

Okay.

Motion Shepard.

Second.

Garza, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 87.

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

My name is Dorianne Poe Flem.

Item 87 is mid lane reserve.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits, west along Mid Lane Street, north of West Alabama Street.

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

There are no variants requested with this item.

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

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

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

Staff did receive an email this morning from the next door neighbor concerning if the new houses will meet the separately filed deed restrictions.

Legal review indicates that this plat would not violate restrictions.

Approval of the proposed structures are not part of our review.

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

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 87 is open.

I have a speaker, Mr.

Dan, and I'm gonna mess this up and I'm sorry in advance.

Dimitrichevich.

I know I I'm sorry.

I'm just sorry I did that to your poor name.

I'll fix that in a minute.

Thank you.

Sobodan Dmitrievich.

Uh, I'm a resident next door to the proposed our construction.

And one of the things that we're the several things we're concerned about, the elevation of that plot with respect to ours, and particularly because there's a swimming pool about four feet away from the fence, and so uh unless the drainage is sufficient, we're likely to be impacted by uh runoff during heavy rains.

So um we'd like to know how this is proposed to be uh solved, the other thing is shifting of the soil might also impact our swimming pool.

That's all I have to say.

Okay, so what I'll say this this commission only deals with just plating for the very very beginning stage.

Okay, these issues will be looked at when they proceed on with their construction plans and go to public works, and we have a gentleman in the back.

John, would you stand up?

Mr.

John Brown back there in the back.

He'll walk out with you and talk to you in the corridor and tell you how you can follow this.

Thank you very much as it goes through the process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate you coming in.

I have no one out signed to speak on item 87.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

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

Motion Baldwin.

Second Heich.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 88.

Item 88 is Parkhurst Cove.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits, east along Park Parkhurst Drive, west of North Wayside Drive.

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

There are no variants requested with this item.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

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

Staff's recommendation is to approve the plat for the 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 88 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 Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Jones, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 89.

Item 89 is Y Cliff Estates Replat Number One.

The site is a Houston corporate limits along east along Wycliffe Street, north of Interstate Highway 10.

The reason for replat is to reduce the side building lines to five feet.

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.

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 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.

Okay.

Motion Ballin.

Second Mattes.

All in favor.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to D subdivision platz with variance requests.

Item number 90.

Item 90 is by development.

The subject site is a 10.7 acre property located in the Harris County extraterritorial jurisdiction west along major thoroughfare Stokes Road, south of Castle Road.

The applicant is proposing a single unrestricted reserve and is requesting a variance of now providing East West Street through the site.

Staff is in support of the request.

There are areas to the north of the site and south of the cemetery that could potentially provide a more viable connection for an east-west right-of-way.

Harris County Engineering has no objection to the variance.

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

Thank you.

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

Motion.

Motion Montepaca.

Second Shepherd, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 91.

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

My name is Tammy Williamson.

Item 91 is Embry States.

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

The applicant is proposing two single-family residential lots, and at the previous planning commission meeting was requesting two variances, not to extend nor terminate in a cul-de-sac Embry Street, and to allow not lot two not to have any frontage on a street or shared driveway.

During the deferral period, staff coordinated with the applicant and with Houston Public Works to find a safe solution that would address the access issue from Embry Street.

So now the variance requests are slightly different in that the applicant is proposing a public right-of-way turnaround extension to the stub end of Embry Street, but in a form that does not meet ordinance requirements.

The variance is being requested are to allow the dedication of a substandard turnaround and for lot two to have frontage on a substandard public street.

Staff is in support of the requests.

There is an existing home to remain on the portion of the lot fronting on Everett Street.

The subject site is one platted lot from the Jerusalem 2 and 38th acre track subdivision recorded in 1913.

The properties to the west are not within a recorded subdivision plat, and Embry Street was dedicated as a 40 foot ride-of-way by separate instrument.

Embry Street is approximately 295 feet long from North Main Street to the stub end.

There are 10 properties that utilize Embry for access, including the adjacent property to the south, which is also part of the Drochure subdivision.

Providing a dedicated right-of-way turnaround, not just for lot two, but also for the neighbors, improves access and will benefit the area.

Requiring a 50-foot cul-de-sac bulb dedication would be a significant imposition on the subject tract and would only be partially constructable within the southern tract.

Although the proposed turnaround does not meet minimum requirements for service vehicles, this design is sufficient for personal vehicles to safely maneuver.

Houston Public Works has voiced no objection to the request, and specifically the traffic division supports the alternate turnaround design.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variances 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 Garza, Second Jones.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to item 92.

Item 92 is family ties.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in northeastern Harris County, located west of Ramsey Road, north of Hare Cook Road, and south of East Stroker Road.

The applicant is proposing two lots and requesting two variances.

One to allow the two lots not to have frontage on a street, but instead to take access from a recorded access easement, and two to exceed intersection spacing by not providing a north-south street.

Staff is in support of the requests.

The 30-foot wide private access easement was recorded in 1994 and provides access to Ramsey Road for four tracks.

The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing tract with one residence into two lots.

Although the ordinance requires lots to have frontage on a street, the recorded access easement meets the intent of the ordinance by providing access for these small number of properties that resembles what would be provided by a public street.

Creating one additional lot does not substantially increase the density of the area.

In 2020, the planning commission granted similar variances for property on the north side of the access easement, including not to provide an east-west public street.

The excessive intersection spacing along Ramsey Road does not need to be readdressed with this application.

The request to exceed the 1400 intersection spacing is likewise supportable.

Although the block link is excessive, providing a north-south street through the subject site would not be practical because of its proximity to Ramsey Road.

Crosby Woods, an unrecorded subdivision to the west, which is in green on the screen, has several north-south streets that are not improved that could be dedicated in the future if the need arises.

Harris County Engineering has voiced no objections to the request.

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

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

Thank you.

I do have a speaker, Mr.

Eric Clark.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the commission.

My name is Eric Clark.

I'm here representing the applicant.

I'm just available for questions.

If any members of the commission have anything to say.

Any questions, Commissioners?

Okay.

Thank you for coming in.

Thank you.

Okay, I have no one else signed to speak.

So commissioners, I need a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion.

Motion Montepaca.

Second Garza.

Second Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to 93.

Item 93 is Solinas Estates at Sharon Street.

Uh the site is located within Houston's corporate limit along Waco Street, north of Clinton Drive and south of the East Freeway.

The applicant proposes two single-family lots accessed by a share driveway.

The applicant is requesting two variances.

One to allow a five-foot building line along Waco as opposed to the required twenty-five feet for major thoroughfares, and two to allow for five feet of right-of-way widening along Sharon as opposed to the required twelve and a half feet for a 28 and a half foot local street.

Staff recommends deferral to allow time for the applicant to provide revised materials by noon next Wednesday.

And we've received no advance written comment on the item.

Thank you.

Commissioners, if there are no questions, um need a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Ball one.

Second fam, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 94.

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

My name is Petra Shaw.

Item 94 is Star Windows Business Center.

The site is located within the Houston ETJ, Harris County, west of Homestead Road and north of Mount Houston Road.

The applicant is proposing an unrestricted reserve and is requesting a variance to allow a dual building line ranging from 6.39 feet to 6.79 feet along Magnolia Street.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is an existing commercial property with plans for expansion.

The existing warehouse buildings on the property will remain, however, a portion of one warehouse encroaches into the required 10 foot building line.

As a result, the applicant is requesting a dual building line ranging from 6.39 to 6.79 feet to bring the structure into compliance.

If the existing structure is ever demolished, any future development will be required to comply with the required 10 foot building line.

In addition, Magnolia Street at this location remains unimproved, so allowing the dual building line would not create any impediment to visibility or access along the street.

Harris County has no objections.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

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

Motion one.

Okay, motion psyches, second Jones.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item number 95.

Chair.

Yes, Commissioner.

95, 96, and 97.

Okay.

Please note Commissioner Mones is recusing from 95 through 97.

Item 95 is Westport Court GP, and staff would like to take night items 96 and 97 with the first item.

Yes, thank you.

The site is located within the Houston ETJ, Fort Bend County, south of Bissinet Street, north of West Belfort Street, and west of Westmore Drive.

The applicant is proposing a general plan and is requesting two variances to exceed local intersection spacing requirements along the northern and western boundaries by not providing a stub street to the north and to the west.

Staff is in support of the requests.

Immediately north of the proposed general plan is a detention reserve, part of the Trillium community, which has already been platted and developed.

Additionally, to the west of the proposed plan is an existing detention pond owned by Fort Bend County Mud number 255.

This site has been the subject of numerous intersection spacing variances in the area, which has been cited as the justification for not providing step streets.

These existing physical constraints would prevent the continuation of streets to the north and west if we were to require them.

Fort Bend County has no objections.

Staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variances and approve the general plan in sections subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, if you have no questions, I need a motion to accept staff recommendation for item 95, 96, and 97.

Motion Carroll.

Motion Carroll.

Second sigler, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to item 98.

Item 98 is Wildcat Industrial.

Uh, this site is located within Houston City limits, uh, south along Holmes Road between Haram Clark and Buffalo Speedway.

The applicant is requesting advance to exceed intersection spacing along Holmes Road and along the plat boundary, but not providing a north-south or east-west street through the property.

Madam Chair, your one-liner show a recommendation to grant and approve.

However, we've recently received a request from the council's office uh to defer this application for further study and review in that staff recommendation to defer for the council's office.

Okay.

There may be a representative here.

Yes, we have a representative here.

Thank you.

So I have Miss Perdita Chavez here.

She's the chief of staff for Mayor Pro Tam uh Castic Tatum.

Good afternoon.

It's good to see you.

Good afternoon, madam chair and members of the commission.

Thank you.

For excuse me.

This time I am a Perdita Chavis, chief of Staff for Mayor Pro Tim Cassex Tatum.

And it was just recently brought to Mayor Pro Tem's attention some concerns of the constituents regarding the land of the proposed development.

There was some concerns that the land might be contaminated.

And we want to work with public works.

Did speak with Mr.

John Brown to ensure that a GO technical survey was done to address those concerns.

We do understand the role of the commission, but again, Mayor Pro Tem Cassex Adams would like to defer this request at this at this time.

Great.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Okay.

Commissioners, I have no one else signed to speak, so unless you have questions, would you please uh give me a motion for deferral?

Motion bottom.

Second Heinz.

Second Heinz, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Okay, we have nothing in E.

So we're moving on to F.

Reconsideration of requirement.

Yes, ma'am.

Um reconsideration of Crosby Logistics Center.

Uh this site is located within the ETJ of Harris County, east of Beltway 8 and west of Miller Road.

The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing along highway 90 and to not extend a stub street along the northwest boundary.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a vacant 63 acre tract with frontage along highway 90.

The reserve is stricted to industrial use, and the applicant intends to develop the property for warehouses.

The east side of the plat is occupied with industrial uses and the west side abutts of a recently approved single family development.

This single family development consists of reserves, lots, and a public stub street along the northeast, excuse me, the northwest boundary of the proposed plat.

Strict interpretation requires this street to be extended or terminated with the CODISAC.

The main justification for supporting this request is that the street extension will allow industrial traffic to use the residential streets.

Also, the residential subdivision contains less than 150 lots, meaning no second no second point of access is required.

In addition, there's an existing pipeline located between the residential subdivision and this plat, and any street extension across the pipeline would require further coordination and approval from the pipeline company.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

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

Motion fam.

Second modes, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 100.

Item 100 is Windward Falls GP.

The site is located in the ETJ of Harris County, excuse me, west along Katie Hockley Road, just north of Logan Bar Road.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow minimum intersection spacing of 305 feet instead of the required 600 feet.

Staff recommendation is to defer the plat per Harris County's request.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

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

Motion.

Motion Jones.

Second Montepaca, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to G.

Extension of approval.

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

My name is Akeela Biji.

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

Yes, please.

Sections G, extensions of approval consists of items 101 through 108.

Section H, name changes consists of no items.

Section I certification of compliance consists of no items.

And section G, administrative can also consist of no items.

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

Thank you.

I think I have some abstentions.

Commissioner Heich.

Yes, I'm chair.

I'm going to put your mic on porn for me.

Thank you.

That would help.

Pardon me.

I can hear you, but they can't.

I'm going to abstain from items 102 and 103.

Thank you.

Anyone else have any abstentions?

If not, can I have a motion to accept uh staff recommendation for items G, H, I, and J.

Motion Ballard.

Motion Ballard.

Second fam, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to K.

Item 109 has been withdrawn, so we'll move on to 110.

Item 110 is 7402 Ratone Street.

The site is located east of Wort Road and south along of Long Point Road at the northwest corner of Ratone Street and Antoine Drive.

The applicant is proposing a new single-family residence.

The app is requesting a 10-foot building line in lieu of the required 25-foot building line along Antoine Drive, a major thoroughfare.

Staff is in support of the request.

The requested setback leaves about 20 feet from the closest part of the home to the curb.

Vehicular access is from the local street only, so no visibility and safety concerns are present.

A 10-foot building line is consistent with the previous house at the site, which was built at an approximately 11 and a half foot setback.

The setback is also in line with other structures in the area, several of which predate the 25-foot ordinance building line.

Most of these structures are built on the platted 10-foot building setback in the original subdivision.

Because the 10-foot setback is compatible with the surrounding area and similar to the existing home's footprint, and because safety and visibility concerns are minimal.

Staff recommends approving the request.

And we've received no advanced written comment.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion Sigler.

Second Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving on to remember numeral three.

Establish a public hearing date of June 25, 2026 for the following: Flowerdale Court, Hazard Oaks, Hooper Landing, Partial Replat number one, Johanna Grove, Mason Condo Association, Montrose Heights, McClendon Grove, Shermondale Pedestrian Crossing, Southland Place, Partial Replat number six, and Welch Street Views.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Barza.

Motion cars.

Second Heinz, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to room numeral four.

Establish a public hearing date of June 25th, 2026 for a hotel at Richmond located at 6150 Richmond Avenue.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Shepard.

Second Shepard, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Remember numeral five.

Public hearing consideration of a special minimum building line renewal for the 4600 to 4800 block of Rusk 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 25-foot special minimum building line block for the 4600 to 4800 block of Rusk Street, the north side, between South Lockwood Drive and Dumble Street.

The block is located in the Eastwood neighborhood in Council District I and the Greater Eastwood Superneighborhood.

Staff is requesting that this application be approved and forwarded to City Council.

The application area consists of 22 single family residential lots representing 95% of the lots in the application area and one multifamily lot.

A minimum building line of 25 feet exists on all lots in the application area.

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

This concludes my presentation, and staff recommendation is to for the application to city council for approval.

Thank you.

I do have a speaker, Mr.

Paul O'Sullivan.

Good afternoon.

I'm Paul O'Sullivan.

I am a representative of the Eastwood Civic Association, and I also was a person who submitted the application, so I do recommend the application go forward.

This would maintain the historical integrity and aesthetic character of the neighborhood since its founding in seven in February 1913.

It would maintain the ability of neighbors to look out from their porch and to be able to see other in either direction without having their view blocked.

It would also maintain the sunshine patterns that would otherwise be impeded by impeded by the construction of a zero lot line house.

So again, we've neighbors have had this had the structures in the way that they've had the 25 foot uh setback since 1913, and we would like to maintain that.

I believe there has been one variance, which was I believe 4609 RUSC, which was granted not too long ago.

There's some construction there, which is no one's concerned about that.

It's not um if it is in the 25-foot setback, it's really not impeding anyone, and people are supportive of that applicant doing whatever they're doing.

So that's my stance.

Does anyone have any questions for me?

Okay, thank you, Mr.

O'Sullivan.

We appreciate it.

So commissioners, I need a motion for staff recommendation to move this forward to city council.

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Heinz, all in favor, opposed.

Motion carries.

No action is needed on item six, as Commissioner Carroll and Sigler are here.

Uh Remember numeral seven, public comment.

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make public comment?

Okay.

If not, then I'm adjourning this meeting at 3 21 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.