Good afternoon.

My name is Lisa Clark and I'm the chair of your Houston Planning Commission.

And I'm calling this meeting to order at 2 33 p.m.

on Thursday, June 25th, 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, and speaker rules are found on the top portion of the speaker sign-in form attached to your 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's not an option for rebuttal, even if you did not use your full two minutes, and you will not be allowed to speak again, nor allot your time to another speaker.

To establish a quorum of eleven, I'll call the roll.

Chair Clark is present.

Vice Chair Garza.

Present.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Commissioner Ballard.

Commissioner Carroll.

Commissioner Heich.

Present.

Commissioner Heinz.

Hines present.

Sorry, getting to the next one where I have some.

Commissioner Naranjo.

Present.

Commissioner Pham.

He's absent.

Is absent.

I was looking.

I thought I saw.

Okay.

Commissioner Pierce.

Present.

Commissioner Siram.

Present.

Commissioner Shepard.

Present.

Commissioner Sigler is not here.

Commissioner Sykes.

Present.

Commissioner Victor.

Commissioner Jones.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mondapaka.

Present.

And uh our Secretary Von Tran.

Present.

We have 16, so we've met our quorum of 11.

And now I will call for.

Oh, wait a minute.

Let me tell you, we've got two withdrawals.

The first one is number 83, which is FMU Kwood Collection, and number 92, Southland Place, partial replat number six.

Both of those have been withdrawn, so we'll not hear any presentations or take any action on these items.

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

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

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

Welcome.

I have one announcement today.

A public hearing on the proposed amendment to Chapter 42, Division 7, Parks and Open Spaces, will be held on July the 8th, 2026 at 9 a.m.

at City Council Chambers.

The address is 901 Bagby Street, second floor.

To reserve your speaking time before council, please contact the Office of Secretary by 3 p.m.

on July 7th, 2026.

You may call 832 393 110.

Email speakers at Houston TX.gov or register online or visit City Hall NX 900 Bagby Street room P101.

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

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

You may visit us online at Houston Planning.com.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Yes.

Secondly, actually, I have a uh something exciting to do.

We do this uh the beginning of every summer.

We have many interns that have joined the planning department as well as public works.

Uh we have um I don't even know how many are in the audience, but at this moment uh I would love for our interns to please stand up so we can acknowledge you and welcome you officially to the planning uh commission.

Thank you.

Hope you'll learn a lot today.

Yes, welcome you guys.

Okay, now I need to uh have everyone someone make a motion to approve our minutes of our last meeting, June 11th, 2026.

Motion psyches, motion psyches, second ballard.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed, motion carries.

Now we'll move on to item A.

Plating activity.

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

My name is Adissa Jadis Yoju.

Sections A and B are presented as one group, which includes consent and replat items now requiring notification.

Sections A and B are items one through eighty.

Sections A consent items are numbers one through 42, and section B replet items are numbers 43 through 80.

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

Madam Chair, if there are no individuals signed up to speak on these items, the planning and development department may request the approval of all staff recommendations for consents and replied items not requiring notification.

Thank you.

I do have a speaker on item 31, so we'll pull that out of uh this motion.

And I know I have some abstentions.

Commissioner Heich.

Yes, madam chair.

I'm gonna abstain from items one, two, three, and fifty-two.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sykes.

Thank you.

Commissioner Shepard?

Two, four, and sixty-five.

Thank you.

Are there any others?

Okay, so I need a motion for items A and B, save and accept items one, two, three, ten, four, thirty-one, and fifty-two and sixty-five.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Victor, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Presentation mode, please.

Okay, I'm gonna take a motion for the save and accept items.

So I need a motion now to approve items one, two, three, four, ten, fifty-two, and sixty-five.

Motion Jones.

Motion Jones.

Second, not on ho.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

And now if you'll do a presentation on item 31.

The mic on for me.

Please get the mic on.

Thank you, Ms.

Poole.

That's okay.

No worries.

I know better a lot times too when I mess up, so don't worry about it.

Well, I've had a little experience.

I'm Jennifer Poole.

I'm rising in support of item 31.

I just wanted to be available to answer any questions.

I uh the I've dealt with uh staff, every they are in support of this, and I hope y'all are too.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And I guess the question to staff is I believe this is a shall approve.

Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Do we want to do a small presentation?

Yes.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Subitabandi, planning department.

Um this project is proposing an unrestricted reserve.

It's a class three final plat, uh located along Richmond Avenue, and it's a shall approve item.

Staff recommendation is to approve.

Thank you.

So we have item 31 in front of us.

Do I have a motion for approval?

Motion Boblin.

Second, Victor, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to C replatts requiring public hearings.

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

My name is Araceli Rodriguez.

Item 81 and cover residents.

The subject site is located in the city limit west of Scott Street and south of Reed Road.

The purpose of the Wii Plat is to create one multi-unit residential MUR reserve.

The applicant is requesting a variant to section 193 to change one single family lot into one MUR reserve.

Staff is in support of the request.

The applicant proposes to redevelop the lot with a triple or four-plex as a small-scale residential infield project.

The site is located at the corner of Culver Street and Tangering Street in an area with a combination of residential, commercial, religious, and institutional uses.

Although the media neighborhood is mainly single family, the proposed MUR development maintained a compatible residential scale.

Also, a letter of support from the adjoining neighbor has been provided to staff.

So review by legal indicates the plat would not violate restriction on the face of the plot or those filed separately.

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

That recommendation is to grant the requested variant and approve the plot subject to the CPC 101 form condition.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 81 is continued.

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 82.

Item 82.

Flower there court.

The site is located in the city limit.

Um east of Writ Road and south of Long Point Road.

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

No variances are being requested with this item.

The applicant has met all the notification requirements.

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

Staff did not receive any public comment in advance.

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

Madam Chair, if you appreciate 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 Victor.

Second, Carol, all in favor.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

And I failed to make note that Commissioner Porsperdle.

Okay, thank you.

Moving on to item 83.

Oh, yeah, withdrawn.

84.

Item 84, Hazard Oaks.

The site is located in the city limit north of West Timer Drive and east of Shepherd Drive.

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

The applicant requested a variant to not provide a five-foot right-way dedication along Hazard Street, and that is in support of the request.

Hazard Street is a local street platted with a 50-foot right-of-way, and the applicant is required to provide a five-foot dedication to expand the right of way to 60 feet.

However, multiple redevelopments along the block, including one granted variant in 2012, did not provide right away dedication.

Therefore, the assistant right away along this block now ranges between 50 and 55 feet and will not reach the full 60-foot width.

Right-of-way dedication from this single lot will not create a continuous functional right-of-way width.

The property will remain in residential use and Hazard Street, a site to two commercial corner properties at West Timer will continue to function as a residential street.

The review by legal indicates that the plot will not violate restriction on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

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

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

Madam Chair, if the pleasure to the commission, you may open the public hand for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 84 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Jones, second Baldwin, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 85.

Item 85.

Hooper landing replat number one.

The site is located in the city limit south of Anderson Road and north of Beltwood 8.

The purpose of the Wii Plat is to create one landscape and open space reserve.

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

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

That received one public comment in advance, address the concern, and concluded that the issue raised it were not related to the project.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 85 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 pours pardon.

Second Hines, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Can I ask a question?

Yes, you may.

What is the purpose of that?

What can you do on that track of land now?

Can you repeat the question?

What's the purpose to reply it into the landscape reserve?

What can you do on that?

Um they are planning to use it as a small pocket part like a tuyo and a dog park.

Okay, perfect.

Great.

That's typically what they do with those.

Yeah.

And it is nice to have these little dog parks here and there.

Yeah.

Okay.

I took a vote, right?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Moving on to item um 86.

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

My name is Ken Calhoun.

Item 86 is Joanna Grove.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits, East Alone, Joanna Drive between Janik and Flowerdale.

The applicant is proposing to create two single family lots.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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 aye, second victor.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 87.

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

My name is John Phillips of the O.

Item 87 is Madera Village.

The subject site is an over 11,000 square foot property located in the Houston city limits at the southwest intersection of Madeira Road and League Road, north of Tidwell and east of Mesa Drive.

The replat is grade two lots on a shared driveway.

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

This is a replat of lot one sixteen block five of Kenshire Place, Section 1.

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

This item was deferred last cycle due to a computer glitch that caused the items packet to be missing from the full agenda packet, but that full packet has been provided today.

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

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 87 is continued.

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 uh staff recommendation.

Motion Shepard.

Motion Shepherd.

Second Pierce, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 88.

Thank you.

Item 88 is Mason Condo Association.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits at the intersection of Mason and Stratford.

The applicant is proposing to create one understituted reserve.

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

Review by legal indicates that this plan will violate uh separate file deed restrictions.

So SAF's recommendation is to defer to allow legal to further review newly provided information from the applicant.

Madam Chair, but please 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 continue the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Ballard.

Motion Ballard.

Second Garza.

Second Garza, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 89.

Item 89 is McClendon Grove.

The subject site is nearly 7,000 square foot property located in the Houston City limits, south along McClendon Street, east of Kirby Drive, and north of Holcomb Boulevard.

The reason for replat is grade two front loading residential lots.

There are no variances requested with this item.

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

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 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 Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Carroll, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 90.

Item 90 is Montrose Heights.

The subject site is a nearly 20,000 square foot property located in the Houston City limits at the northwest intersection of Fairview Avenue and Commonwealth Avenue.

The reason for replat is to create one unrestricted reserve.

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

This is a replat of reserve A block 1 of Hyde Park partial reply number two, recorded in 2014, and lot five block 19 of the original Hyde Park subdivision.

Residents have provided additional D documentation at the beginning of today's meeting that requires further review.

We have received advanced comments regarding deed restrictions and property maintenance.

Staff is changing the recommendation to defer the plat for two weeks to allow legal further time to review the newly provided deed restriction documents.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 90 is opened, and I do have a few speakers.

Good afternoon.

If you wouldn't mind stating your name for the record, I'm Lori Thompson.

Live at 1515 Maryland Street, and I agree with the waiting two weeks for the legal department to be able to look over the documents.

I've lived at this property with my husband since 2009.

And my greatest concern, well, I have more than one concern, is my foundation.

I think this property, six floors or seven floors up, is gonna jeopardize my property and put me at risk.

So I'm concerned that all of this is gonna be disrupted.

That's Alabaker Montessori School.

Um my third is uh the crime is gonna come and parking.

This is a highly congested area anyway.

We have no parking on our street, none.

It's just really really bad with the school, then the townhomes across the street.

So I don't know where these residents are gonna park.

I haven't seen any of these conditions that they've listed that need to be brought to our attention.

Thank you very much.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Okay.

Our next speaker is Catherine Simpson.

There she goes.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Okay.

Hi, um, my husband's son and I live in Hyde Park at 1509 B Fairview, directly across the street from 1506 Fairview.

We are concerned about the developers' plan to ignore deed restrictions in order to attempt another large multi-unit dwelling that will negatively affect the neighborhood.

There is a history of failed attempts to combine this property in order to build high-rise apartments on a small lot overlooking the small intersection of Commonwealth and Fairview.

Two different developers attempted to build luxury apartments with no success.

We have lived in our house since 2014.

The lot that the current developers want to combine with 1506 Fairview was vacant then.

And after an attempt to build a high-rise luxury apartment building, the home of the original owner was occupied by vagrants, including a known sex offender with an outstanding warrant.

This was a block from Baker Elementary where many students walk in the carpool lane is located.

Not long after that, the home burned to the ground.

Two developers have tried and failed to build high-rise multi-unit luxury apartments.

Not enough people want to commit to high-end luxury apartments on a street with much more modest dwellings.

People who can afford units like this are choosing to live on Montrose Boulevard in buildings like the Column Dor or Hanover.

After I spoke at the last city hearing about the second failed attempt, we had a lot overgrown with weeds, bushes, and fire ants.

It has been a homeless encampment and illegal dumping ground.

Children walk to Baker Elementary School in the street, past the unsafe, overgrown sidewalks and giant anthills.

My husband and other neighbors have made multiple contacts to the various owners and city of Houston and have led to only a handful of mowings.

Okay.

You can wrap up really quick if you have one more sentence to say.

Go ahead.

Okay, this is my last thing.

We would love to see single family homes that fit the neighborhood and comply with the deed restrictions.

We need for the city to honor the deed restrictions and take into account what yet another failed project will do to damage the neighborhood, neighborhood's homes, and endanger children.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

We appreciate it.

Our next speaker is Sarah Frazier.

Good afternoon, if you wouldn't mind stating your name, please.

Hi, good afternoon.

I'm Sarah Frazier.

I'm the president of Hyde Park Civic Association, where these lots are.

You've already heard from two residents, and we have several more to come.

Um gives you a uh feel for just how strongly people feel about their deed restrictions in Hyde Park and um about the fact that that we do not know what would be built here, and that this is an application for an unrestricted reserve, which could be a gas station, which could be a tower.

People are guessing when they're telling you, and that is part of the problem.

We do have a deed restriction on on this property at 1506 Fairview.

Um can we see it?

Okay, it's not up yet.

Um, and I will show it to you in a moment.

Uh I I can't anticipate exactly why it hasn't come up before, but we have um defended it successfully before, as you heard allusions earlier.

Um, as I said, their deed restrictions are very important to Hyde Park, which is quite an assailed um neighborhood at this time.

Um folks are feeling very much in danger of being built on top of, and that is a very real thing for many of us.

Our land is in very high demand.

Um, the particular property owner since 2023 has been difficult for us to deal with.

We have had um consistent problems with um overgrowth, with dumping, with uh people just all in there and leaving their garbage everywhere, and we have tried successfully many, many times to deal with this owner and to have effective maintenance of this property.

So um this has been this is this causes us to have a limited good faith towards them and again to be concerned about what's about to be built there.

Um, if unrestricted so unrestricted access, is it up?

I need you to speak into the mic and your time is up, but come up and make your your point on your document there.

Um with that mic, I can do that.

Yes, okay.

Yeah, long as you're speaking in a mic, thank you.

Thank you.

This is our deed restriction.

Um, as kept by the the Hyde Park Civic Association and various adjacent neighbors who are under the same deed restriction.

Um it is limited to residential and more or less to single family.

And if I go to the end, whoo my fingers.

There's 1506 Fairview, that's the property addition.

It makes sense that Commonwealth was not restricted, it's sort of more of a thoroughfare, but Fairview is a quiet side street uh on this block, and there is just a very there's sort of an almost Victorian bungalow right next to it on the western side.

Um so it's a big deal for it to be pulled into a commercial development, for instance.

Okay.

We appreciate you coming in and sharing that with us.

So thank you for deferring, and we look forward to talking to you about this more.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is David Taylor.

We turn to presentation, please.

Good afternoon.

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

Good afternoon.

My name is David Taylor.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you, Planning Commission.

I live at 1511, Maryland.

I share a property line with 1506 Fairview.

So I am as directly impacted on your plat.

I am the north, well, that vanished.

I am just north there.

I share my entire 62 and a half feet with 1506.

I am bound by deed restrictions.

1506 is bound by deed restrictions.

I want the city to do everything they can to help us maintain those deed restrictions.

My view is the replat is just an attempt to get those deed restrictions buried in a plaque that has two other properties that are not deed restricted.

And I think the damage to me and to my neighbors will be huge.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you so much.

And our legal will be looking at those during the deferment.

Our next speaker, who I appreciate very much, is Rocky Neaton.

Thank you for spelling that out so I didn't tear you up there.

I've seen you before, and I think I messed you up last time, so thank you.

Document camera.

Is this hot already?

Yes, sir.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm Rocky Neaton.

I'm a 30-year homeowner in the Hyde Park subdivision of Montrose, and I'm also on the board directors of our civic association.

I'm here today to urge the commission not to approve this proposed replat.

The lot known as 1506 Fairview is protected by our duly recorded deed restrictions and is limited to one single family dwelling.

I also want to point out that the ownership has been a poor custodian of the land at the expense of the safety and aesthetics of our neighborhood.

They have been cited by the city of Houston as as neighbors have filed many 311 tickets for code violations.

Neighbors report slow or no response from property ownership.

Let's look at some photo evidence, number one, please.

Document camera, please.

While they work on that, you might want to keep talking because your clock is still ticking.

Okay.

The first photo, this is uh an eyesore of dump furniture in January of last year.

The decaying furniture remained there a long time.

Next one, please.

These lots were cited on September 23rd of last year for violation of high grass over entire property.

I took these photos on November 1st, so weeks had gone by without remedy.

The Fairview Avenue sidewalk.

Next, please, was impassable.

More illegal dumping had occurred on the site as well.

Now, the next one, please.

To January 6th of this year, a homeless encampment popped up and more graffiti, and next one.

More illegal dumping.

In summary, I urge the commission not to approve this replat in order to honor our existing Hyde Park deed restrictions, as well as to protect the safety and integrity of our neighbors' property and the quality of life.

With the ownership's negligence of the law, I can only imagine the problems they would create with a large construction project.

Additionally, this replat could allow any development that is out of scale with the neighborhood and diminish neighboring property values.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate your comments.

You knew I was going to call on you, I'm sure.

But after we've got two more speakers, and would you go out with the group after we're done and talk to them about the high grass and the dumping and the encampments and all of that, please?

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mary Martin.

Return to presentation, please.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

I live at 1513 Maryland Street.

My husband and me, we've been here for over 20 years.

We've watched developments.

We are completely opposed to any five, six, or seven story building because it will impact the whole area.

If it's a commercial property or something that's being built, there are too many people that are homeless that congregate to something like that.

Our street is a brick street.

It's narrow.

Even if they have a garage, they've got two or three cars.

But the problem is the building, the foundations, the uh, you know, the flooding, and we are all opposed to having something major, you know, a house, a single dwelling, which one of the lots is only geared for, a single dwelling, um, or even a small high rise would be better than a five, six, or seven-story building, or something commercial.

So all I can say is we are completely opposed to having this replatted.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We appreciate you coming in today.

Our last speaker is uh Miss Villarreal.

I know you say you're here for questions.

Uh did you have anything you wanted to respond to for us, please?

Thank you for uh Mary Villarreal with the inner field group.

Um, just with help with a little bit of information, um, just so the neighbors are aware of what's uh what they're planning.

Um it's gonna be the development's gonna be an apartment building.

Um it's gonna have a half level down, half level up on the garage, four stories above.

Uh so they don't intend to go six or seven stores.

I'm just trying to clarify that.

Um, they are still in the beginning plans, I mean the beginning stages of the plans, and so uh of taking some notes that I will pass on to the architect.

Um, when the when our client uh, according to his title commitment, when we received it, for some reason this document they've submitted is not listed.

Therefore, we requested a city planning letter, and the city planning letter again did not bring up anything about any kind of civic association.

So um, yes, we were we understand that there has to be a two-week to review the documents because of course we wouldn't want to be in construction and something come up.

Right, yeah, it's the worst time to find out.

Well, I would ask maybe when Mr.

Brown goes out, you go out with the group.

Sure.

And maybe you can give them your contact info.

Um, and probably a meeting with the neighborhood is probably not a bad idea.

Wouldn't mind it.

Okay, great, thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Commissioner Baldwin.

John, can you give us the history of that plat?

I mean, when was it replanted into this current?

I assume at some point it was a bunch of little residential lots or something.

This was a research neighborhood.

I seen on the left-hand side, which was Hyde Park, all residential.

In 2014, the two lots of east, which were six and seven were composed into an unrestricted reserve, and this plot is intending to absorb that lot number five into the property for the full width of that uh unrestricted reserve.

And most likely the two that were on Commonwealth did not have any restrictions.

That would have to be a determination from legal.

Um, that's why we are deferring.

We're not sure if this was part of the documentation that was reviewed or not, but we want to make sure that we cover uh all those aspects.

So we are requesting deferral at this point to allow and make sure the legal does review those documentation to confirm that they are applicable to the site.

Any other questions?

Yes, Commissioner Ballard.

Yeah.

So did it go from residential single family or town armor to apartments?

Is that what's the transition here?

That's the intent at this point.

It's becoming apartments.

Do we know how many?

I do not.

Okay.

If this were a variance, we may go more into the actual count, but this is a public hearing where there's just referencing the legal uh value uh viability of the uh the project.

So we have not do we don't get we don't have a site plan or a uh unit count.

Okay, great.

Any other questions?

All right.

Will you restate what your recommendation is?

This deferral, I believe.

The current recommendation is to defer the plan for two weeks to allow legal more time for review of newly submitted deed restriction documents to confirm the viability of the application.

Great, thank you.

So I'm going to continue the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation of deferral.

Motion Ballard.

Motion Ballard.

Second Baldwin, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you so much.

Item 91.

Madam Chair, I need to recuse myself.

Thank you.

You got that.

Okay, thank you.

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

My name is Dorianne Poe Flem.

Item 91 is Shermondale Pedestrian Crossing.

The site is located at the northeast intersection of Broadway Street, Galveston Road, and Harding Street within city limits.

The reason for REAP plat is to create an unrestricted reserve to construct a pedestrian bridge that will connect pedestrians from Galveston Road across Broadway Street that will provide a safe crossing for students at Millby High School and pedestrians traveling to and from the campus and surrounding areas.

To accommodate the pedestrian bridge, including its structural supports and ADA accessible ramps, portions of the structure will encroach into the building setbacks along Broadway Street, Galveston Road, and Harding Street.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an encroachment area of 1,000.

Sorry, 1,825.70 square feet into the building line along Broadway Street, Galveston Road, and Harding Street for the portion of the bridge that would be built.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a partial replet of Charmondale addition, partially plat number one and extension subdivision created in 2017, the site of Millby High School.

The property is owned by Houston Independent School District.

The intersection of Broadway Street, Galveston Road, and Harding Street is a very busy intersection connecting two major thoroughfares.

The owner proposes to construct a pedestrian bridge spanning the adjacent GH and H railroad tracks to provide a safe crossing for students and pedestrians traveling to and from the campus and surrounding areas.

The site is adjacent to an active railroad tracks and heavily traveled roadways, creating safety concern for pedestrians.

The proposed pedestrian bridge will provide great separated crossing over both the railroad and nearby streets, improving safety and accessibility for students and the surrounding community.

The pedestrian bridge will enhance the ability for pedestrians to cross a very busy intersection, minimize pedestrian and vehicular conflicts, and enhance pedestrian safety in the area.

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

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

Used in public workshop, have no objection to the request.

Staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variants, improve the plat, subject to the conditions listed.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 91 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 porse purple.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

92 is withdrawn.

So we're going to 93.

Item 93 is Welch Street Views.

The size of Houston Corporate Limits, south along Welch Street, east of Don Lady Street.

The reason for replat is to create two lots and two landscape and open space reserves.

Do you read?

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

The applicant has about 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 plat.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 93 is open.

I do have a speaker, Miss Vanita Stamy.

I hope I got that right.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Hello.

Um, good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Benita Stamy, and I live at 1529 Welch Street, the property that I guess is the subject of this application.

Um I understand that the planning commission's role is not to resolve private lease disputes, and I understand that development is a part of how Houston grows.

I'm not here to oppose growth, and I'm not here to ask anyone to stop progress.

I'm here because behind this application is a home, and behind that home is a person or persons.

For the developers and investors involved in this project, this property may be a parcel of land, a lot a lot split, a survey, or a future investment.

For me, it is where I live.

It is where I sleep, where I keep my belongings, and where I have built my daily life.

I signed a lease that runs through December 31st, 2028.

I entered into that agreement in good faith and with the expectation that I would have stability and a place to live for the term of that lease.

Today I find myself in a difficult position.

I have limited financial resources, no significant savings, and no immediate alternative housing arrangement.

The prospect of losing my home is not simply an inconvenience, it is frightening.

I recognize that this commission cannot decide what compensation, if any, should be offered to tenants.

What I respectfully ask is that you consider the human consequences of this project and encourage the applicant to work fairly and responsibly with the people who will be who will be directly affected by these plans.

If this development moves forward, I hope the applicant will commit to meaningful communication, adequate notice, and a fair relocation solution for any tenant whose housing may be impacted.

Development should not come at the expense of people who are simply trying to keep a roof over their heads.

I'm not asking for special treatment.

I'm asking for fairness, dignity, and recognition that real people live in the properties being discussed today.

I think that's it.

Before approving the application, I ask that you at least acknowledge the impact this project may have on existing residents and encourage the applicant to engage with us in good faith.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for coming in.

Ms.

Poflim, do you know if the applicant is here?

I believe so.

Would you mind speaking with the tenant and uh are you at are you one of the uh applicant?

I mean, you're the applicant or owner.

Okay.

I'm a tenant.

Would you like to address?

I'll try?

I don't really know what to say.

But she's my neighbor.

I live upstairs, and I moved there in good faith that I would be able to have my lease.

And one day I come home and there's a sign in the yard.

And it scared me to death.

I wasn't even sure when the house sold.

And honestly, I'm not sure who owns the property.

But none of us are.

And if you need something done, it's not gonna happen.

I mean, I had no electricity.

It was horrible.

They don't get back to you, they don't do anything.

And I am 76 years old, and it's hard on me.

And if I I had to call somebody to come in, the electrical boxes are new, and I had to call someone to come over there.

I thought I was dying.

You can't raise the windows.

And I said, I've lost two of my animals, we're burning to death.

They won't get back to us because we don't know who they are.

And I've even sent a certified registered letter to the address where I send my check.

And again, I don't know who they are.

But uh, we're gonna try to get you all in touch with the ownership.

I need you to state your name, though, because I don't have a sign-in form.

That's okay.

I'm CC Sherry Knight.

And I'm she's at 1529 and I'm at 1531, so I'm upstairs.

And we're we're good friends.

It's our home.

And I have a lease.

They keep saying, we don't have any leases.

We do.

Well, unfortunately, this is not a court of law.

So, yeah.

So we can't help you with the lease, but we can try to help you get in touch with the owner.

And I believe, sir, are you representing ownership?

Yeah.

Okay.

Could you talk to these two uh nice ladies outside after we finish with this and see if you can't get them some help and some answers?

Thank you so much because they don't respond.

Well, this is the person that submitted for the ownership.

So hopefully he can help you out.

I'm sleeping in my car at night.

I'm hot.

We're very sorry to hear that.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

Yes, Commissioner Baldwin.

Could I just recommend maybe Google Lone Star legal aid?

They uh might be able to help in this matter.

Lone Star Lone Star Legal Aid.

I've already called it an advocate.

Okay, good, thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Madam Chair, I just wanted to add uh the applicant is only proposing um two dwelling units, one dwelling unit on each lot.

Okay.

Existing there is one dwelling unit.

Okay.

Yes.

Commissioner Ballard.

Yes.

So you're you're taking a single lot and dividing it to put two homes on it?

Yes.

And is this a lot size correct?

Yes.

It's really small.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

One on one.

Okay.

Anything else, Ms.

Popel?

No.

Okay.

All right.

So we have a recommendation.

We're on 93, right?

Recommendation to approve the plot.

I need to.

Did I close a public hearing?

No.

So I'm closing the public hearing.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the plot subject to the conditions listed.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Jones, all in favor?

Opposed?

Opposed.

Uh please note Commissioner Ballard is opposed.

Okay.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

And I I appreciate you getting with those ladies.

That's always very helpful.

So thank you.

Okay.

Moving along to D subdivision plots with variance requests.

Item 94.

Madam Chair, I'm going to recuse from items 94, 95, and 96.

Thank you.

I'll recruit some 94.

Okay.

Did you get all of that?

Okay.

Thank you.

Who are the recusals?

This is a move to stop before.

Okay.

Okay.

Who are the recusals?

Uh the recusals.

Uh Commissioner Heich is 94, 95, 96, and Shepard is 94.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

My name is Tammy Williamson.

Item 94 is Bridgeland Creekland Village GP.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Northwestern Harris County along the western side of State Highway 99, the Grand Parkway, and the eastern side of Katie Hawkley, north of North Brynton Lake Parkway and bisected by Jack Road and Peak Road.

The applicant is proposing a 2,000 acre general plan and is requesting a variance to allow more than 150 lots to have a single point of access.

Staff request to defer the application for two weeks per Harris County Engineering's request for further coordination with the applicant.

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

Thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

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

Motion Montepaca.

Second serim.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 95.

Items 95 and 96 are Grand Mason General Plan and Grand Mason Detention Reserve A.

I could be taken as one item.

Yes, please.

The detention reserve is uh was granted a 30-day extension last cycle and cannot be acted upon today.

The general plan and detention reserve are 1100 acres and 14 acres respectively, located in Harris County extraterritorial jurisdiction east along Grand Parkway 99 and south of West Road.

The applicant is proposing a general plan intended for single family development along with amenities, drainage and detention.

They are requesting a variance to not extend nor terminate with the cul-de-sac Stock Deck School Road along its western boundary.

The eastern half of the right of way stubs into the general plan boundary, while the western half stubs into privately owned lots shown in pink.

Stockdale School Road currently exists as a dirt trail that gives maintenance access to the pipeline and center point power line corridor that intersect the right-of-way.

The applicant was deferred last cycle per their request to allow the to allow them to look into discrepancies in the legal information regarding the status of the right-of-way and whether it is publicly dedicated in part or in full.

They have requested another deferral as they research the issue.

Staff recommendation is to defer the plat for two weeks per applicant request to allow the applicant to coordinate with Harris County Engineering and confirm right-of-way information.

Madam Chair, this concludes our presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay, hearing none.

Do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion Sykes.

Motion Sykes.

Second Garza, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay, so we're moving along to item 97.

Wait a minute.

I think I skipped.

Um Mr.

Grissom wanted to speak.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry to skip you there.

Okay.

96 is no action, so we're moving to 97.

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

My name is Devin Crudel.

Item 97 is Lofts at Wayfair.

The site is located within Houston city limits west of Black Hawk Boulevard between Fuquay Street and Almeda, Genoa.

The applicant is requesting a variance to not extend a public street nor terminate the public street with the cul de sac.

The applicant has requested a two-week deferral to discuss their options with their clients.

Staff's recommendation is to defer per the applicant's request, and this concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

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

Motion Victor.

Second Garza, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 98.

Item 98 is Lonesome Oak Business Park.

The site is located in the ETJ of Harris County, north along Balkins Road between Becker Road and Roberts Road.

The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not providing a north-south or east-west street through the tract.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a vacant 18-acre tract intended for business use.

The tract is located in the center of the block and is required to address north-south and east-west intersection spacing.

The Brighton GP adjacent to this track was recently approved and is in the process of being developed.

It includes a public street system that helps distribute traffic in a northern and eastern direction within the block.

Due to the close proximity of the adjacent street system, their street dedication will satisfy intersection spacings along the block of Bachins Road between Becker and Roberts.

Staff has worked closely with Harris County regarding the request and has voiced no objections, and staff recommends granting the requested variance and approving the plant subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

Madam Chair, we have not received any uh opposition to this request, and this concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

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

Motion Jones.

Second Shepherd.

Second Shepherd, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thanks.

Item 99.

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

My name is Petra Shaw.

Item 99 is Pound Berry Section 2.

The site is located within Houston city limits, Harris County, south of Holmes Road, and west along Fannon Street.

The applicant is proposing 301 lots and seven reserves restricted to compensating open space and landscape and open space and is requesting a variance to allow select lots to have sold frontage and access from a private alley.

Staff is in support of the request.

The applicant is proposing lots that take vehicular access from 20 foot private alleys, eliminates along the pedestrian realm and enhancing safety and walkability within the community.

This approach is consistent with the city's broader goals of improving public safety, enhancing connectivity, and promoting sound public policy.

Similar development patterns can be found along Fannon Street, including the built Fannon station development located to the east, and a similar variance was granted to Pound Berry Section 1 to the north.

Staff's recommendation is to grant the requested variants and approve the plot 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 ballen.

Second Garza, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 100.

Item 100 is Shekinah Life Center.

The site is located within Houston City limits, Harris County, south along Holman Street, east of Nally Street, west of Tierwester Street, and north of Windburg Street.

The applicant is proposing an unrestricted reserve for a community center and is requesting a variance to allow a five-foot building line along Nally Street in lieu of the required 10-foot building line.

Staff's recommendation is to defer the plot per the applicant's request.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Motion pours purple.

Second ballard, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 101.

Item 101 is Wildcat Industrial.

Madam Chair, this application was deferred at the previous two planning commission meetings and must be acted upon today.

The site is located within Houston City limits south along Holmes Road between Haram Clark and Buffalo Speedway.

The applicant is requested a variance to exceed intersection spacing along home road.

Excuse me.

The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing along Holmes Road by not providing a north-south or east-west street through the property.

Staff is in support of this request.

The applicant is developing a vacant 22-acre property into an industrial site.

The site is bounded by Center Point Energy Corridor to the south and a Harris County flood control ditch to the west and light industrial uses to the north.

These existing conditions make it difficult to make a valuable street connection in either direction.

The transmission corridor does not require any local street crossings per chapter 42, and crossing the drainage ditch requires approval from approval and coordination with Harris County flood control.

In addition, the majority of the undeveloped tracks to the east are under common ownership and has the ability to address intercept intersection spacing in the future if needed.

Staff has received opposition at the previous planning commission meetings, and there's a representative of the council members' office here to make uh to provide comments.

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

Concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Yes, we do have Ms.

Perdidas Chavez.

She's the chief of staff for Mayor Pro Tem Castic Statum.

Good afternoon.

Good to see you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission.

I am Perdita Chavez, Chief of Staff from Mayor Pro Tim, Martha Castix Tatum, Council Member of District K.

Just I am here just to make a correction uh for the record.

Last during the hearing uh at the last planning commission meeting, I referred to the property adjacent to this plan application as a sunset property is actually a superfund site.

So I wanted to make that correction for correction for the record.

And then also to acknowledge the planning and development department staff for working with the residents and getting some answers some answers to some questions that were posed regarding this.

But thank you.

Great.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate that.

Okay, Commissioners.

If you have no questions, I'm seeking a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Baldwin.

Second Hines.

Second Heinz, all in favor.

Opposed, motion carries.

E.

There's nothing under E, so we'll move to F, reconsideration of requirements.

Item 102 is Woodland Lakes Detention Smith South.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limits in northeastern Harris County, west of East Lake Houston Parkway, north of FM 1960, Atasca Seda Road, and east of Lake Houston.

The applicant is proposing four reserves, detention drainage, and lift station, and requesting a reconsideration of requirement with the variance to allow the reserve restricted to lift station to have frontage on a ride-of-way of insufficient width.

Staff is in support of the request.

The variance being requested is to prop to allow the proposed lift station reserve, which is the location of an existing lift station facility that is not currently within a recorded subdivision plat to have its frontage and access from Smith Road, where the existing right-of-way width is approximately 35 feet with pavement within that width.

The ordinance requires frontage along at least a 50 feet wide public street.

The San Jacinto Bay on Lake Houston recorded subdivision dedicated 25 feet for widening entirely along the north side of Smith Road, adding to the existing 35 feet width.

Although the plat has been vacated, the dedication for widening remains making this portion of Smith Road east of the subject site a 60 foot wide right-of-way.

In order to maintain the center line alignment, the remaining dedication for the widening of Smith Road should also come from the north side of the street.

Woodland Lakes detention north Smith North was approved in 2023 but has since expired while the applicant has been coordinating with multiple agencies.

This property north of Smith Road will be required to dedicate the remainder of the right-of-way for an ultimate width of 60 feet.

The ordinance does allow infrastructure related reserves to take temporary access via a minimum 30 feet access easement until the public street is dedicated.

However, technically, the subject site doesn't qualify for this exception because it's already a public right-of-way, and it actually is greater in width than what is required by the exception.

Also, the street is not part of the general plan because it was already a dedicated public right-of-way.

Additionally, this segment of Smith Road is not intended for access for any property except infrastructure related uses.

Houston Public Works 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 you have no questions, I'll look for a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Pierce.

Second Carroll, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

G, extension of approval.

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

My name is uh Matthew Hilburn.

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

Yes, thank you.

Uh Section G, extensions of approval consists of items uh 103 through 116.

Section H consists of name changes, which has no items.

Section I consists of certification of compliance.

Has not has no items.

And section J is administrative, has no items.

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

Thank you.

I think I have a couple of abstentions.

Commissioner uh Shepard.

Yes, items 103 and 108, please.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Heich.

Yes, 103 and 109.

Okay.

Any others?

Okay.

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

Motion bars are.

Seconds.

Second Heinz.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to K development plates with variance requests item 117.

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

My name is Ramon Jaime Leone.

Item 117, 4210 Fulton Street.

The site is located along the North Light Rail at the southeast corner of Fulton Street and Cody Street.

The applicant is requesting not to dedicate five feet for the widening for Cody Street, the current right-of-way width is uh is 50 feet.

The applicant, the applicant proposed proposes a live work development consisting of 460 square feet of spa on the first floor and 620 square feet of residential unit in the second floor.

The project is considered is considered non-single family development, therefore 60 foot of right-of-way is required.

In 2011, the property dedicated right away along Fulton Street for the light rail, which substantially reduced the available buildable area.

A variance request is the variance request is project specific, and any other development will trigger uh right-of-way dedication.

Cody Street is one block long and consists of mostly residential development.

The dedication for the right-of-way will be out of character for the block.

Vehicle access to the development will be provided via Fulton Street only, a designated transit corridor.

And before I conclude my presentation, I would like to respond to a question brought up on previous planning commission uh by Commissioner Baldwin regarding parking.

Uh yes, the site is taking advantage of the transit oriented requirements.

Uh that allows the reduction in parking requirements.

And to iterate uh the planning department recommendation is to support access not via the local street variants specific to this project and one block in length and primary primary residential.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioner Baldwin, did that answer your question?

Okay, great.

Any other questions?

If not, um I'm gonna start with speakers.

Okay, our first speaker is James Fernandez.

Okay.

Okay.

Um Maria Traverse.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission.

My name is Maria Traver, and I am the owner of three lots adjacent to 4210 Fulton Street.

I oppose this variance request.

The requirements under Chapter 42 are not being met.

There is no undue hardship.

The lot dimensions and the right-of-way have been known since 1930s.

Uh, and even it could be found at the time of partures.

The claim hardship is self-created.

The applicant's business and residence development design on a very small lot is why they need a variance.

Their design is self-created, and the business and residents can easily, easily, easily be developed, but both is the problem.

The intent of 42 is to do ordinance.

I'm sorry, the intent is to build buildings that are in line with the neighborhood.

I maintain that this does not.

We are told that the variance is in the interest of public interest.

We maintain that it does not.

The immediate public does not want this development there.

They have signed petitions in that regard.

The proposed development increases traffic and on street parking onto Cody Street, a very narrow adjacent street.

It does not have sufficient parking for residents, employees, customers, even delivery people.

A two-story structure with a five foot overhang towards a very busy corner at Fulton and Cody Street will make it very hard to see traffic coming around that corner.

I go that corner all the time.

Since the building will be sticking out towards the street, it's going to be difficult to see things coming down that narrow street.

And it will also change the character of this quiet neighborhood.

Economic optimization of the site is not a qualifying hardship under the ordinance.

The ordinance are put in place to ensure that developments are in line with the surrounding neighborhoods and the best interest of the public.

This development is not development is not.

There are other questions regarding this map, this particular property development.

My family owned this property since the 1930s.

We sold it to Metro in twenty two thousand and eight.

We know what we sold, and their very their survey is inaccurate.

Please reconsider your recommendation for this variance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jose Vega.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jose Vega.

I am here to respectfully oppose their proposed mixed-use massage therapy parlor and residential development being considered for the property located at 4210 Fourteenth Street.

I am one of the three owners of the adjacent properties at uh 311 Patton Street, the Doctor Laredo restaurant.

We feel that allowing this development to move forward as designed will greatly impact our restaurant.

The proposed two open parking spots is not sufficient for a mixed use establishment.

With our parking lot on the southern line of 4210 Fortin, any parking overflow from the mixed use building will likely come into our parking lot.

We feel that we should not be put in a position of having to monitor our parking lot at all times and inconvenience our customers just because the adjacent property does not have sufficient parking for their residents, customers, employees, visitors, and others.

I respectfully request that the city council deny the proposed mixed use therapy and residential development proposed for this property.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

We appreciate you coming in.

Hello, Commissioner.

Good afternoon.

First, I'd like to thank Bill Baldwin for trying to educate me on this process.

It's very confusing.

The property immediately adjacent to 4210 Fortune Street.

The applicant says release for the right-of-way established by Chapter 42.

Granting the relief facilitates development reducing reducing infrastructure protections intended to benefit the surrounding neighborhood.

As the adjacent owner, every adjacent owner has opposed this.

The restaurant, as well as the property owners, as well as the people across the street, both commercial and residential.

I'll bear the direct impact of the increased traffic, parking pressure, potential safety, reduce residential compatibility.

The variance relates to Cody Street, not Fulton.

It faces Fulton, but the impact is going to be on Cody Street.

It's perfectly fine for being by metro, but it's killing Cody Street, which has something like 10 houses on it.

My concern is not merely speculative property value loss.

My concern is what's called external obsolescence, loss in value and marketability caused by external conditions imposed by neighboring properties.

That is this property, the variance you're talking about.

Without that five feet, they're not going to be able to do this.

They're going to have to re-imagine what they wanted.

It's impacting everybody on the street.

We do have a petition that everybody on the street opposes it.

Not only the abutting properties, but everybody on the street, because there's not going to be any parking.

You park in front of our house, you're not going to be able to get out of the driveway.

Trucks are allowed to park in the street for deliveries.

They have to leave 10 feet.

Well, coming out of a driveway backing out, how are you going to back around and turn in 10 feet?

The hardship is self-created.

The commission must find the circumstances supporting this variance as a result of what they're trying to put on this property, not the result of what the existing variances were.

Please don't allow this variance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Fernandez, I know you're here as the applicant.

Did you want to respond to any of these questions or concerns?

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Okay.

So we have a recommendation in front of us.

Of approval.

Do I have a motion?

I have a question.

Yes.

Yes.

So again, it's for a five-foot right-of-way, correct?

They're not going to dedicate it.

Not to dedicate, correct.

Okay.

That's what we're talking about.

Yes.

So my question is, and for the people who are here speaking to this, if we say no to this, they'll redraw and build anyway.

Option one would be to redraw.

Option two would be to request a variance to reduce the building setback.

It's 460 square feet.

How many people are gonna visit?

This is that's kind of where I'm going.

Just to clarify, this is only uh roughly around 1080 square feet.

And it technically it is a um, it's not mixed use, it's technically a live work.

So you can submit an application at the city of Houston to do live work, usually live work situations are somebody that is a hairstylist or tax uh office, and they have the your your l your commercial can't exceed more than 50 percent of your habitable, so it is yep.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions?

Yes, Commissioner Sykes?

How did we determine it's not a self-imposed hardship?

Sorry, how did you determine it was not a self-imposed hardship?

Oh, uh, the recommendation from the department was due to the right-of-way taken in from the Metro, which substantially reduced the building setback, uh, which uh project is invisible due to the existing and unusual uh physical characteristics of uh that affect the property in question.

So that's based on this existing plan that was submitted.

Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

I mean, yeah, that's the site plan that was submitted was designed based on the restrictions that they were imposed.

Okay, Director Tran, would you like to weigh in here?

Sure.

Yes, Commissioner Sykes.

Your question is how did staff determine that this is not self-imposed?

And it the condition of the site being narrow rendered it not feasible to develop it in any other way.

Really, there are not too many options to develop this, render it unbuildable.

And so this is the best that the landowner can build.

Did I do okay stuff?

Did that answer your question, Commissioner Sykes?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Just one more question.

Yes.

So the variance being requested is having that setback from five feet to two three feet.

Okay.

It's one block long and it only takes 120 owners.

There's no benefits in taking the five feet, we're never gonna use this.

That's all I'm doing.

It wasn't quite clear on the drawing.

I just wanted to look at it.

The property only fronts eighteen feet on Cody Street, so now the other properties.

No.

Do you want to ask that question?

Well, let's ask that question.

The other properties on Cody Street.

They have not dedicated this right-of-way, no, because they're residential, they meet the requirement of 50 feet.

Okay.

Okay, is that clear?

Any other questions?

Okay.

You have a recommendation of approval in front of you.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second, sir.

Second serum.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 118.

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

My name is Malcolm Oliver.

Item 118 is 2600 Pemberton Drive.

The site is located south of University Boulevard at the northwest corner of the Kirby Drive and Pemberton Drive intersection.

Kirby Drive is a city of Houston owned right-of-way.

But the lot itself lies within the West University Place city limits.

Because the subdivision is at the border between the two jurisdictions, a new home is permitted on the lot through West University Place.

After the home is approved and construction began, a project was submitted to the city of Houston for a new driveway along Kirby Drive.

This project was rejected for trying to take access from a major thoroughfare.

The home was approved by West University Place to take access from the major thoroughfare and is currently under construction.

The applicant's request is to match the approved plans and take driveway access from Kirby Drive rather than taking from the local street as would be required under Chapter 42.

The strict application would require the home to be redesigned and may result in the removal of the existing oak trees along Pepperton Drive.

The proposed layout also features a vehicle turnaround to prevent cars from backing directly into the major thoroughfare.

The existing home also had driveway access along Kirby and was demolished in preparation for this new project.

The site is located in a mostly residential neighborhood with the commercial shopping center north about two blocks from the subject site along University Boulevard.

There are multiple uh residential lots on both sides of the city limits line that take access from Kirby Drive in this area.

Staff recommendation is to approve the uh the variance request, and this concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

I do have a speaker, Miss Jennifer Poole.

Okay.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay, you have a recommendation to approve in front of you.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Jones.

Second Naranjo, yes, Commissioner Baldwin.

Can we work with the City of West University Place in the future so that this doesn't happen?

I mean, is there a way to coordinate?

We've been trying to eliminate these curb cuts off Kirby for a long period of time on our side.

It's just frustrating that they get that far.

I mean, I'm not I don't want to deny this applicant, but it is frustrating.

I'm sure that the director and staff hear what you're saying and their quest and noted.

Okay, so I had a motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to.

Yes.

Remember numeral two, establish a public hearing date of July 23rd, 2026 for Kwood Park replat number one, East End on the Bayou Trails, Fisher's Point at Waverly, partial replat number one, Fringewood Views, Fringewood Villas, Garage Ultimate Westview, IVA estates at Snowden Street, Laurel Place Reserves, Mansfield Manor Preserve, Martin Development Design, McDaniels Replat number one, Telgi OST development, and Warwick Place present partial replat number two to have a motion.

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second ballard, all in favor.

Opposed, motion carries.

Moving on to Roman numeral three.

Public hearing and consideration of a hotel at Richmond located at 6510 Richmond Avenue.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh the sites located within Houston's city limits.

Excuse me.

The sites located within Houston city limits with frontage along Richmond Avenue and Fairdale Road, just west of Chimney Rock Road.

This is a hotel motel application for 47 room hotel and is requesting three variances.

The first varence is to allow the hotel to take access from a two-lane local street.

Uh the second variances to allow the motel to take access from, excuse me.

The second variances is the lauder Motel to take access.

I'm apologize.

The second variances, the Lauder Motel to be located within a residential area of 88%, and the third variance is the Lauder Motel to be located within 750 feet of multiple protected uses.

Staff is not in support of the request.

Staff has identified three establishments that fall under the protected use category within 750 feet.

The first is the bilingual education institute located just 450 feet away along Fairdale.

The second establishment is a learning center daycare, and the third is the Mariner Monastery School.

All three of these established house young children and kids throughout the majority of the day.

The most important factor is that the motel is designed with an exterior rooms, which reduces the ability to regulate foot traffic from guests and visitors.

Also, staff has suggested that the applicant provide support from these establishments, and staff has not provided has not been provided that just yet.

At this time, staff's recommendation is to deny the requested variants.

Okay.

And I believe we do have one speaker signed up to speak on this item.

This concludes my presentation.

You do have a signed sign in.

Is it Ms.

Poole?

I don't have it, but go ahead and come on up.

Thank you.

Signed in enough.

I'm Jennifer Poole again.

I'm representing the uh applicant at this time.

Uh we were unaware of the information for the denial.

We've asked for a deferral at this time so we can address the questions brought up at this time.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

If not, you've got a request to defer by uh applicant.

Yes, Commissioner Victor.

I mean, I've had concerns about these kind of hotels.

Have we so you are have you had any conversations with the establishments?

Because that's part of the chapter 42 as well, right?

So I'm assuming at this time we haven't had any responses back from them.

And there it has been a discrepancy on the the footage from the various locations, and uh we want to verify the distances.

There were three locations, three schools, learning centers that we were concerned with.

But we at this time to answer your question, we haven't had feedback from them as yet.

We've reached out to them but haven't gotten it yet.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Carroll.

How long ago did you reach out for them and have you given them a chance?

It's about two weeks.

Can she reach out?

I made several phone calls and we uh sent letters.

Uh the only thing we haven't done is physically gone there to meet with someone, but uh one to make the phone call to make an appointment to meet with someone, not just a cold call.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Paul, did you have a question?

Oh, uh I'll just comment.

Uh I have great respect for Ms.

Poole, but I'm not likely to vote for this to you know, deferral or in two weeks from now.

We have this rule, we have these set of rules for a reason, and this is 88% residential.

If these were single family houses, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

We shouldn't treat those in the rental units any less than single family, and the fact that there are four learning institutions, and the fact that it's designed such that it will harbor could harbor ill will in the future.

I I am a firm believer in this ordinance and I'd like to make a motion to deny.

Okay.

Okay, so we have a motion by Baldwin to deny, a second by Victor.

All in favor?

I opposed.

Motion carries.

Okay, moving along to Roman numeral four.

Public hearing and consideration of a special minimum lot size for the 2300 2400 block of Bartlett Street in Greenbrier subdivision.

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

My name is Eric Glenn.

The planning and development department received an application for the establishment of a 5,000 square foot special minimum lot size block for the two 2300 through 2400 block of Bartley Street, north side between Greenbrier Drive and Mellon Streets.

The block is located in the Greenbyer neighborhood in Council District C and University Place Super Neighborhood.

The application area consists of 15 single family residential lots representing 68% of the lots in the application area and seven commercial lots representing 32% of the application area.

A minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet exists on 16 lots in the application area.

The application is within the Greenbrier subdivision, platted in 1938.

The earliest house was constructed in 1939.

The applicant provided evidence of support from owners of 11 of the 22 lots representing 39% of the total area.

Notification was mailed to all property owners in the application area, and no written protests from property owners was received by staff.

This concludes my presentation.

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

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on this item.

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

Motion balls.

Second Hines, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

And please note that Commissioner Victor left the meeting.

Thank you.

Moving to Roman numeral five, public hearing and consideration of a special minimum building line for the 1700 block of Milford Street in the West Edgemont and Ormond Place subdivisions.

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

My name is Jack Willem Brown.

The planning and development department has received an application proposing the establishment of a 27-foot special minimum building line block for the 1700 block of Milford Street, the north and south sides, between Dunlavy Street and Woodhead Street.

The block is located in Council District C and is in the University Place Superneighborhood.

The application area consists of 22 single-family residential lots representing 100% of the lots in the application area.

A minimum building line of 27 feet exists on 21 of the lots in the application area, which reflects a similar building line pattern within the boundary.

The application is in the West Edgemont and Ormond Place subdivisions, which were platted in 1923 and 1924.

The applicant provided evidence of support from owners of 15 of the 22 lots representing 64% of the total 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.

Staff's recommendation is to forward the application to city council for approval.

Thank you, Commissioners.

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

Motion Ballwood, second Jones.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Remember numeral six public comment.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Remember numeral seven adjournment 401 p.m.

We're adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.