Planning Commission.

I'm your chair of the commission and I'm calling this meeting to order at 2 32 p.m.

on Thursday, July 9th, 2026.

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

You may also monitor the meeting by viewing via HTV.

Speakers, if you wish to address the commission on an item, please fill out the speakers' 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.

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

Council members speaking on an item are not timed.

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

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.

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

To establish a quorum of 11, I'll call the roll.

Chair Clark is present.

Vice Chair Garza.

Present.

Commissioner Baldwin.

Present.

Commissioner Ballard.

Present.

Commissioner Carroll.

Commissioner Heich.

Present.

Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Matez.

Present.

Commissioner Naranjo.

Present.

Commissioner Fam.

Present.

Commissioner, neither one of those.

Sigler.

Sigler present.

Commissioner Sykes is not here.

Who did I miss?

I missed Pierce.

Yes, Commissioner Pierce.

Present.

And Commissioner Mondapaka.

President.

And our Secretary Von Tran.

Present.

I think that's 15, but I think I was counted.

All right.

One, two, three, four.

So we do have a quorum.

We have 16 members present.

Okay, now I'll call for the chair.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

I you didn't call Commissioner Victor.

Oh, how did I skip you?

Okay.

No, I called.

I thought I called Sarum.

Okay, I did not.

So, Commissioner Victor.

Commissioner Surim.

Now we have 16.

Now we have six.

Okay, thank you very much.

Sorry about that, guys.

Okay, moving on.

I do want to let you know that one item has been withdrawn from the agenda, and that means it will not hear any presentation or take any action, and that's item 40, White Wave Wing Village.

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

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

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

Welcome.

I have two announcements today.

The first one, the proposed amendments to Chapter 42, Division 7, the parks and open spaces are scheduled for a vote on July 15, 2026 at 9 a.m.

in city council chambers.

Second announcement, the planning commission will host a public hearing on the 2026 major thoroughfare and freeway plan on July 23rd at 1 p.m.

at this location.

The planning staff will present each item with preliminary recommendation, and the applicant will have an opportunity to make their case directly to the planning commission, and the public will have an opportunity to weigh in on each request as well.

No action will be taken at this meeting.

Staff will then take the feedback from this commission.

Work with applicants, agencies, and stakeholders in preparation for the MTFP update meeting, which is scheduled for August 20th at 1 p.m.

in this location.

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 please note that Commissioners uh Porus Pertle and Heinz are present.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners.

Now we need need to take a look at the minutes for our June 25th, 2026 meeting that were attached to your agenda.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Ballard.

Motion Ballard.

Second, Garza.

Second.

Garza, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Now we'll move along to replats requiring public hearings and not with notification.

Yeah.

A and B.

For some reason my script was out of place.

We are going to uh item one, plating activity, subdivision and development plats.

A and B.

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

My name is Maria Tolar.

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

Sections A and B are items one through 68.

Section A consent items are items one through 41, and section B replot items are items 42 through 68.

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 reply items not requiring notification.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on any of the items, but I do know we have some recusals.

Commissioner Heich.

Yes, Madam Chair, I'm going to abstain from items two, six, twenty-two, twenty-eight, forty-five, and forty-six.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Motes.

Yes, Madam Chair, I'm going to abstain from 1517, 25, and 68.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Uh Madam Chair, Commissioner Pierce abstaining from item six.

Alrighty, thank you.

Okay.

So now I need a motion, save and accept item two, six, sixteen, seventeen, twenty-two, twenty-five, twenty-eight, forty-five, forty-six, and seventy-four.

Motion motos.

Item 68.

And 68, sorry.

Carol.

Well, I know, but Commissioner Mars, I added 68.

I'd skipped it.

You're okay with your motion?

Okay.

Do I have a second?

Second by Carroll.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Now we'll go along and do item two, six, twenty-two, sorry, sixteen, seventeen, twenty-two, twenty-five, twenty-eight, forty-five, forty-six, seventy-four, and sixty-eight.

Do I have a motion?

Motion pores purdle.

Second fam, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

All right.

Moving on to replats requiring public hearings.

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

My name is John Phillips Adil.

Item 69 is Alcamberry residence.

The subject site is over 8,500 square foot property located in the Houston city limits at the southeast intersection of Cullen Boulevard and Alkinberry Lane, north of Old Spanish Trail.

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

The applicant has requested a variance to not dedicate five feet of widening to Alkinberry Lane.

All notification requirements have been met, and staff has received advanced comments regarding lot size and character of the neighborhood.

This is a replat of lot 14, block one of the Riverside Terrace Annex.

Review by legal indicates the proposed plat does violate building line restrictions filed separately.

Those building line changes would greatly impact the intended layout for the lots.

As such, the applicant has requested deferral to allow them to coordinate with legal and to consider possible layouts to come into compliance with those deed restricted building lines.

So staff recommendation is to defer the plat for two weeks per applicant request.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 69 is open.

I have a speaker signed to speak, Russell Jackson.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Jackson Jackson.

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

Hi, my name is Russell Jackson, and I am on the board of the West McGregor Homeowner Association here representing that organization, which represents this area of Riverside Terrace.

And we've been asked by residents of the area to testify against allowing the replat of that existing 10,000 plus square foot uh lot into two smaller lots for a couple reasons.

One of them is the character of the uh the character of the lots that would be created.

Uh the 5,000 square foot lot would be created would be smaller than any lot uh on Alconbury or in the area.

We think that that will change the character of the neighborhood by creating smaller lots than any other lot and the average size of the lots on Alkin Berry are over 7,000 square feet already so creating two 5,000 square feet lots we think is out of character.

We're concerned that the replatted lots although the current single lot is used for multifamily uh the question is whether or not the two single uh lots that would be created would be indeed uh limited to us to uh a single family usage if it's not specifically indicated in the deed restrictions what is the basis by which uh we could be assured that the usage would be uh as specified without a D restriction saying that the two five thousand square foot lots would be uh single family only and we also are concerned about the density burden the additional uh creation of uh drainage needs traffic needs flooding potential we think that is a risky proposition uh with very little benefit to the current neighbors uh in that area uh and finally this seems to be an attempt to just increase the housing density uh and developers' profits which we're not approved as the profits but to do it at the expense of the existing character of the neighborhood which is primarily single family large lot homes we think is uh uh not in the best interest of the of the neighborhood uh and the residents long-term residents of the area as well as this as well as the city so we have provided as uh the planner said uh a written documentation of our concerns uh we hope that the commission will when this application is re-visited uh will uh limit uh or or not allow that replant to happen thank you thank you commissioners any questions mr cedio the the point you guys are looking at is the setback is that correct not the division of the two lots correct uh that would not be a violation of the file restrictions is the building line building lines proposed by the plat and so the applicant has requested for all to find a way to kind of come to compliance with that or if they uh you know to work that out with legal okay anyone have questions commissioner baldwin so there are no size limitations on the lots nor any designation for single family residents so uh not currently the these are the the belief that you're just have expired but I have to defer to legal to get confirmation but I mean there are existing building line restrictions so those are active so I would imagine if there were single family those would be part of those restrictions um the only violation was the setback violation.

Thank you.

Commissioner Hines and uh council uh are the deed ex um are the deed restrictions expired no there are still enforceable deed restrictions as to the setbacks thank you anyone else I have a question on density if um it doesn't limit any uh sort of density as anyone can build whatever size multifamily on this lot there is no density requirement for this lot as such this will be defined as a single family lot which means the most that can be done would be two uh dwellings such as a duplex or a home in a separate uh adjacent garage uh apartment yeah anyone else okay so I will continue the public hearing we have a recommendation of deferral do I have a motion motion to defer garza motion garza second ballard all in favor opposed motion carries thank you thank you moving on to 70 by you woods section two partial replat number three and extension good afternoon madam chair members of the planning commission my name is Ken Calhoun item seventy is by you would section two partial replat number three and extension the subject site is located within Houston city limits southwest of Long Ferris Circle Code de sact the purpose of the replat is to create one single family lot there are no variance requests with this item and the applicant has met all notification requirements review by legal indicates that this plat will violate separately file deed restrictions recommendation is to defer the defer the application per the applicant's request.

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 70 is open.

I have one person signed to speak, which who is the applicant.

Um Mario Colina.

Good afternoon.

How are you members thank you for letting me speak.

I want to refer my state your name.

Mario Colina.

Thank you.

I want to defer my presentation from the next meeting.

Okay, thank you.

See you in two weeks.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this matter?

Okay, hearing none, I'll continue the public hearing.

I need a motion.

Motion to defer Garza.

Motion to divert Garza.

Second Hines.

Second Hines, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

71.

Braze uh Brayswood Park Estate.

Item 71 is Bracewood Park Estate.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits, south along Brazewood Boulevard.

The purpose of the replat is to create five single-family residential lots along the 18 foot shared driveway.

There are no vans requested with this item, and 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.

We have received a handful of opposition from residents in the neighborhood regarding deed restrictions.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing is open for item 71.

I do have a couple of speakers.

Our first speaker is Joe Powers.

Good afternoon.

Afternoon.

My name is Joe Powers.

I'm the chair of the Knowwood Village Architectural Control Committee, and I'm speaking on behalf of myself, my committee, and many of our neighbors who oppose this replat.

The core issue I think is fairly simple.

The proposed replat does not comply with the deed restrictions of for Nollwood Village section eight.

Deed restriction number three clearly requires every residential lot be at least 6,000 square feet, 60 feet wide at the front setback as shown in the original 1953 plat.

These original lots, those original lots all exceeded 6,000 square feet, excluding street access.

This the replat attempts to meet the minimum lot size by counting the shared driveway as part of each lot square footage.

That driveway functions of the street looks like a street and sharing a portion of each lot square foot with it is entirely out of character with the existing neighborhood.

More importantly, the street has never been considered part of a buildable lot under the deed restrictions for any other part of our vet section.

That replat would be rejected immediately.

The deed restrictions don't change just because the applicant has wrapped the same violation in a more complicated layout.

Remove the private driveway or treat it as a street, it effectively is, and the underlying lots fall well short of the required size.

The replat does not meet the deed restrictions of section eight, regardless of how the driveway is labeled.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask the commission to deny the proposed plat.

Read.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay, thank you so much.

Our next speaker is uh David Feldman.

Good afternoon.

My name is David Feldman.

I live at 2810 Conway Street.

This is the home where I grew up, where my parents lived for more than 50 years, and where my wife and I live today.

Others have spoken about the deed restrictions and compliance issues, which I think are compelling enough surrounding this application.

I would simply like to offer a more personal perspective.

The proposed replat is immediately behind my home on the other side of my back fence and would directly affect my property more than any others.

These lots are literally the only space between my backyard and Brays Bayou.

My home is already flooded twice, and adding more concrete and additional multiple homes between us and the bayou only increases the concern and risk for future flooding.

If this replat is approved, I will have to look at this higher density development every day from my back windows and from my backyard.

It would permanently change my home.

My family have lived in across generations, and the roads, the character of the neighborhood that has been nearly exclusively defined by one home on one lot.

I respectfully ask that this application be judged on the long term impact it will have on the surrounding homeowners and the character of our community.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask to deny this replant application.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your comments with us, Mr.

Feldman.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Commissioners, do you have any questions before we take a motion?

I do.

Yes, Commissioner Garza.

So again, there's some discussion here about deed restrictions.

Um could could you give us more detail, Mr.

Calhoun, about what is and what isn't?

In other words, do these meet due restrictions?

Do they not?

And if not, why not?

Uh I refer to the legal on that one.

I was gonna say.

Yes, um as I understand the written comments that have been provided and and the statement from the speakers today.

Um there is concern that the lots do not comply with the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement or the 60-foot frontage requirement, however, you can see on the face of the plat that they do.

So they do meet deed restrictions.

They do meet deed restrictions.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

You're welcome.

Any other questions?

Okay, I need a motion for staff recommendation to approve the plat subject to the conditions listed.

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Come on.

Second ballard, all in favor.

Opposed, motion carries.

Moving along to item 72, Hamlet raised residences.

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

My name is Araceli Rodriguez.

Item 72, Hamlet Residences.

The site is located in the city limit north of Cheatwell Road and east of Westside Drive.

The purpose of the we plat is to create three single family lots.

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

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

That did not receive any public comment in advance, and that recommendation is to 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 72 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 surround.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 73.

Item 73, Highland Enclave REPLT number one.

The site is located in the city limit west of Durham Drive and east of T.T.

Jester Boulevard and thought of I 10.

The purpose of the replat is to increase the number of dwelling units from two to three with two single family lots.

The applicant requesting a variant to allow a 15.6 feet dual garage borderline for an assisting residential structure.

That is in support of the request.

The assistant home was built in the past, and the property owner wishes to retain it.

The previous recorded plat created two single family lots with two dwelling units.

Now the applicant wishes to propose three dwelling units to provide um meeting middle housing.

While preserving the assistant home, the requested variant will allow the structure to remain a built and for the life of the structure.

Any future construction will be required to comply with the 19-foot garage borderline.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 73 is open.

I have Ms.

Joyce Owens' applicant.

Are you just here for questions or you'd like to speak?

Come on up.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

Commissioners, my name is Joyce Owens.

I'm before you today to give a special thank you to Aresele and Civita for their hard work in making this happen.

It was a little complicated, and so I just want to publicly acknowledge their assistance on this plat.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Owens.

They don't they don't get enough thanks, and we appreciate you doing that.

Okay.

So I'm gonna close the public hearing.

There's no one else that would wish to speak on item 73.

Okay.

I'm gonna close the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Victor, second garza, all in favor.

Aye, opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 74.

Madam Chair, I'm gonna recuse for items 74.

Thank you.

Item 74.

The site is located in Houston ETJ in Harris County along Cukendal Road and north of Grant Parkway.

The purpose of the replat is to establish a 14-foot front builder line and to relocate the utility eatment or blocks two and six as highlighted in blue on the screen.

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

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

That did not receive any public comment in advance, and that recommendation is to approve the platform to the CPC 101 form condition.

Madam Chair is to please the commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 74 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Montepaca.

Motion Montepaca.

Second Jones, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 75.

Item 75 is Mason Condo Association.

Uh the application was deferred last cycle per the applicant's request.

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

The purpose of the replat is 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 the plat will not violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

Statute 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 75 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.

Second, Carol.

Second, Carol.

All in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 76.

Item 76 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 replant is crate one unrestricted reserve.

There are no branches 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 a reply of lot five block 18 of the original Hyde Park subdivision.

This application was deferred last cycle to allow an extended review of additional documentation.

We have a receipt advanced comments regarding deed restrictions and proper maintenance of the property maintenance of the property itself and council members panzerella and salinas have requested an additional deferral to allow their offices to look into the application and deed restrictions.

Staff recommendation is to defer the plat for two weeks to allow the council members per the applicant per council members' request.

Ma'am chair, please the commission you may continue the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 76 is continued.

I do have a couple speakers.

Our first speaker is Sarah Frazier.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Document camera.

Hi, I'm Sarah Frazier.

I'm the president of Hyde Park Civic Association, the Civic Association on point for this.

We support deferring, and we want to thank both council members for making this request on our behalf.

Once we heard there was uh that this was to be deferred, I did let residents know who are all lined up to come today, but David Taylor is here.

Um David's uh home is uh right behind the property in question on Fairview.

Um we appreciate that the city attorney's office has now told us that they that we have raised a legal issue that is important and worthy of consideration, and we are continuing to advocate for our restrictions as they consider it in the next two weeks restrictions that would be removed if this application were to be granted, freeing this and other applicants to build up against our homeowners anything from a gas station to a multi-story with a street level garage, which is what they're talking about right now, would gravely affect uh the quiet enjoyment of the landowners around and would uh impact property rights for all in Hyde Park and beyond.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for coming in today.

We appreciate it.

I also have Ms.

Villa Real, the applicant.

Did you want to speak?

Back to presentation.

Good afternoon.

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

My name is Mary Willarillo with the inner field group.

Um I understand with the second, the second application or review uh was being referred for approval.

I believe that they have the the attorney has reviewed the restrictions and all the documents that were presented at the last meeting.

Um I understand that the city council is requesting for a deferral, but I was wondering if you if this is a shallow proof approval or plot or approval, and it doesn't violate the restrictions if you would consider approving it only for the sake of my clients.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

That's up to the commission.

Um, so I'm going to continue the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Baldwin, just out of respect for the council members.

It is uh our typical protocol to yield to those council members and I want to continue that.

Well, and we need to give them their time to look into it and research.

So I hope that you and your client will understand that.

And it's really hard, especially when it's council members asking, and there's two of them, so um yes.

So I have a motion from Mr.

Baldwin.

Second ballard, all in favor.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 7.

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

My name is Dorian Paul Flynn.

Item 77 is rain retreat.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits, west along Arnold Street, north of Chandler Street.

The reason for replat is to create one single family residential lot, revise the building line, and take access from Arnold Street.

There are no variants requested regarding this item.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

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

Staff have received advanced comments concerning maintaining the three-foot EAE on this lot because there is existing water meters that run through the easement.

The easement has been marked up on the plat to remain with record information.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 77 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 Heinz.

Second Heinz, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 78.

Item 78 is tourist venture replat number one.

The site is in Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in Harris County, Texas.

At the southwest intersection of AG AJ Ford Road and Becker Road.

Reason for replied is to create two single family residential lots.

There are no variants requesting.

There's no variance requested regarding 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 per the CBC 101 form conditions.

Staff have not received any advanced comments with this item.

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 78 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 Monday.

Motion Mondopaca.

Second Matez.

All in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to 79.

Item 79 is Bellevue Homes.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits at the northwest intersection of Wally Vale and East Cross Timber streets.

Reason for replat is to create three single family residential lots and two landscape and open space reserves and a parking reserve.

There are no variants requested with this item.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

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

Staff's recommendation is defer the plat per chapter 42 planning standards.

Staff has not received any advanced comments.

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 79 is open.

I do have two speakers.

Our first speaker is Charles Moore.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, people.

My name is Charles Moore.

I'm 69 years old.

This particular land we're speaking of.

My family has been on it for 80 years.

We have cleared it by hand with a lawnmower that didn't even have engines.

I've turned flips on this land as a child.

Now I have three addresses within this same property.

And they're saying that this particular valley view is going to be put at 7805 East Cross Timbers.

How can you put 7805 between the 5000 block and the 4900 block across Timbers?

And you're on my property.

Then they're saying they bought it from our motel, which is uh uh 7803.

If you look it up on the internet, 7803 is sitting in the middle of Cross Timbers 35 years ago.

It wasn't even a cross timbers between my house and the next house wasn't nothing but open land, and we used to keep it clear all the time.

Back in the 70s, we had this fence then.

I own the property now since my parents are dead, and I do pay my taxes.

Thank you, Mr.

Moore.

Um, we can't really fix that problem.

Um they pre shed proof of ownership.

We we're not a court of law, so we can't help you with that, unfortunately.

And the addressing is done by the city of Houston.

Mr.

Harris County Appraisal District.

It's 7805 East Cross Timber's block 1.

I understand.

You can't you cannot put that address in between the 5,000 block and the 4900 block.

No way.

I understand.

And staff can get with you after we're done with the this portion of the agenda, and they can help you get in contact with the right person.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

John.

John can help you.

John, can you help this gentleman, please?

Okay.

Our next speaker is Marco Moore.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mark O'More.

Um, that's my uncle.

Um, like you say, we've been there all my life.

I'm 45.

And, you know, it's just, you know, we used to have a rope and pin behind us.

We used to do trail rides through there when the horses used to come back and uh when I was a kid.

So that's basically it.

Thank you.

We appreciate that.

And we're not unsympathetic, but that's just not in our purview.

Um but I've asked Mr.

Brown, he's back in the back to speak with you and your uncle, and he can help you get some contact information for people that can help you.

Thank you so much.

Okay, do I have anyone else that would like to speak on item 79?

Yes, I do.

One more person.

Clyburn Hughes.

That's all right.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

Hearing none.

I've gotten off track.

I will uh continue the public hearing and seek a motion for deferral.

Motion Garza.

Second Pierce.

Second Pierce, all in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to D subdivision plates with variance requests.

Number 80.

Madam Chair.

I need to recuse me.

Thank you.

Please note.

Commissioner Mares is recusing.

And I will as well.

And Commissioner Heichas.

Thank you.

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

My name is Tammy Williamson.

Item 80 is Bridgeling Creekland Village GP.

The site is located within Houston's extra territorial jurisdiction in northwestern Harris County, along the western side of State Highway 99, Grand Parkway, and the eastern side of Katie Hockley, north of North North Bridgeland Lake Parkway, bisected by Jack Road and Peak Road.

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

Staff's recommendation is to defer the application for two weeks to allow further time for coordination between the county and the applicant.

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

Please.

The applicant is requesting to be allowed to record sections 23 and 24, which combined with the other recorded sections, there will be 509 lots that only access stargazing trail north to Jack Road.

Instead of being required to record Peak Road, which would provide the required second point of access.

The Peak Road Street dedication plat is approved by the planning commission, but per the applicant has more complicated permitting requirements, which is delaying the readiness of its recredation.

The compromise put forward by the applicant is to allow the section plats to be recorded, but to have Harris County permitting place a hold, only allowing 150 lots to be permitted until this section of Peak Road is provided.

Harris County Engineering has been working to determine if this proposed compromise is possible and desired, and has been coordinating with the applicant about possible conditions.

Additional time is requested to see if a final solution is reachable by all parties that will still provide for safe development.

Therefore, staff's recommendation is to defer the application, and this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I don't have anyone signed to speak on item 80.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Commissioner Jones.

My question's really county engineering that or the timing to build Peak Road and who would be the party that will take that responsibility.

So from the applicants correspondence with us that they anticipate it by the end of 2027, but for the rest of that and kind of conditions and what they're looking at, I would defer to Harris County.

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

My name is Matt Tangan.

So I believe your question was who would be responsible for building?

That would be the developer.

And then like Miss Williamson said their target right now is towards the end of 2027 to have it constructed.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

I have no one else signed to speak, so I will continue the public hearing and variance.

No public hearing.

Variances of public hearings.

Oh, I thought we were.

No, we're still in.

Yep, we've moved on.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, but I still need a motion to defer.

We do, yes.

May.

Motion Garza.

Carol second.

All in favor.

No.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

I think we've all been in the sun too long today.

Moving on to item 81.

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

My name is Devin Crittle.

Item 81 is Franz Reserves.

The site is located at the northwest intersection of France Road and the Grand Parkway in Houston's ETJ of Harris County.

The applicant is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing along the Grand Parkway by not providing an east-west street through the track and a special exception to allow minimum intersection spacing along Franz Road.

Staff is in support of both requests.

The applicant is proposing three unrestricted reserves for future commercial and light industrial use.

The applicant is dedicating a 70-foot peak.

Excuse me.

The applicant is dedicating the 70-foot wide peak ridge road collector street as shown on the major Therapy Freeway Plan.

The site is the replat of the forbidden garden subdivision first recorded in 1994.

That development consisted of a reserve restricted to museum and two non-residential reserves.

At the time, the planning commission granted a variance to exceed intersection spacing by not providing an east-west street.

Since the land use is changing, the applicant must readress the variance.

Intersection spacing along Grand Parkway is roughly 3,800 feet, and extending an east-west street through the track will not drastically enhance traffic circulation for the surrounding developments.

In addition, the existing subdivision to the west has multiple access points to Franz Road.

Also, the Grand Parkway is a controlled highway that does not allow a street crossing until you get to the southern intersection of Franz Road.

Harris County Engineering's office has voiced no objection to this request.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

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

Motion Monte Parker.

Is it Montepaca?

Motion Montepaca, Second Sigler.

All in favor.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to 82.

Madam Chair, I need to recuse from items 82 and 83.

Thank you.

Please note Commissioner Heist's recusal.

Staff would like to present items 82 and 83 as one.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Items 82 and 83 are Grand Mason general plan and Grand Mason Detention Reserve A, which is coming off of the 30-day extension and will both will be considered today.

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

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

They are requesting a variance to not extend nor terminate with the cul-de-sac stock disc school road along its western boundary.

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

Stocked the 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.

Harris County Engineering has no objection to the variance.

So staff recognition is to grant the requested variance and approve the plan subject to CPC 101 from conditions.

Madam Chair, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

I do have a speaker signed, Mr.

Gerald Grissom.

I'm available for any questions.

Just for questions.

Okay.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

Looks like you got off easy this time.

Okay.

So you have staff's recommendation to approve.

Do I have a motion?

Motion depart.

Motion Montepaca.

Second Madez.

All in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 84.

Item 84 is Lockwood Lift Station.

The subject site is over 8,700 square foot property located in the Houston City limits east along Lockwood Drive, north of Navigation Boulevard.

The applicant is proposing a reserve restricted to lift station and is requesting a variance to allow a 10-foot building line in lieu of the 25-foot building line required along Lockwood Major Thoroughfare.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is an existing lift station site that is uh replatting to make improvements to the lift station and is requiring a reduced building line as the site is partially in the floodway and has limited viable area for build uh for development.

Despite being along Lockwood right of way, the site is grade separated from the pavement and passing traffic by the bridge crossing Buffalo Bayou and would have no direct vehicular access to Lockwood.

The existing lift station takes access via an existing paved access easement shown in pink that extends from the stub of Harvey Wilson and crosses under the Lockwood Bridge itself.

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

Madam Chair, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

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

Motion high.

Second Victor, all in favor.

Opposed, motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item 85.

Item 85 is Loftsat Wayfair.

This application was deferred at the previous planning commission meeting.

The site is located within Houston City limits, north of Fuquay Road and west along Black Ark Boulevard.

The applicant is proposing one reserve and is requesting advance to terminate a stub street with the alternative T turnaround instead of the required cul-de-sac.

Staff is in support of this request.

The applicant is proposing a two-acre unrestricted reserve intended for multifamily use.

The site fronts major therapy Black Hawk Boulevard and has a public street stubbing into the rear of the property.

The stub street is roughly 1,300 feet in length, and as required by the ordinance, the applicant is terminating the stub street with the public turnaround.

However, the ordinance requires the turnaround to be in the form of a CODISA Act, and the applicant is requesting advance to allow a T turnaround instead of the required CODISAC.

Staff has coordinated coordinated with Houston Public Works to verify that the T turnaround is sufficient for vehicular traffic.

Staff supports this request as the alternative turnaround accomplishes a similar goal as a cul-de-sac by allowing safe maneuverability to travel in the opposite direction if needed.

Also, the site plan indicates traffic from the proposed development will take access from Black Art Black Hawk Boulevard.

Staff has not received any objection to this request.

A staff recommends granting the quest of variance and approving the plat subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Commissioners.

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

Motion Garza.

Second Carroll, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to 86.

Item 86 is Mason Business Park GP.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in western Harris County, north of IH 10, east of the Grand Parkway, and west of Mason Road.

The applicant is proposing a general plan intended for commercial use and requesting special exceptions and variances to allow excessive minimum intersection spacing along I-10 for proposed street connections.

Staff request the item to be deferred for two weeks to allow for continued coordination with Textstott and Harris County Engineering.

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 deferral.

Second Hines, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to 87.

Item 87 is Orion Logistics Center.

The site is located within Houston City limits near the intersection of Tri-Star Drive and Gulf Breeze Drive, just north of Interstate 45.

The applicant is requesting advance to not extend two stub streets through the tract.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a vacant 44-acre tract intended for light industrial use.

The property contains two stub streets, one along the northern boundary and another along the southern boundary.

Strict interpretation of the ordinance requires these two streets to connect.

However, there are existing conditions on the site that impact this request.

First, the northern stub street is not constructed up to the plat boundary.

The paved area of the street is separated by 130 foot wide drainage easement.

The construction of a public right of way over this drainage easement will require interest and coordination with Harris County flood control.

Second, the stub street along the southern boundary is bisected by multiple pipelines and a transmission corridor.

These combinations of conditions do not require any public street crossing per chapter 42.

Access to the reserve will come from the stub end of the tristar stub street, and this very short stub street acts as a driveway into the industrial site.

From the intersection, the public can determine if there's a need to enter the private site or continue traveling down the public right of way.

The applicant will also consider providing signage near the intersection indicating private property or no outlet signs if needed.

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

Uh Madam Chair, the applicant has provided a speaker form if there are questions, and this concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Sarah Dunn, did you want to speak?

No.

Great.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay, hearing none, I will seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Second, excuse me, motion.

Garza, second ball, and all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 88.

Item 88 is Shekinah Life Center.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limits in Harris County, south along Holman Street, east of Nally Street, west of Tirworster Street, and north of Winburne Street.

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

Staff recommends to defer the application for a second time per the applicant's request.

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

Yes, thank you.

At the previous planning commission meeting, the applicant was requesting a five-foot building line along Nally Street.

During the deferral period, we have been coordinating with the applicant and was provided with a revised plat drawing showing the site opting into the transit-oriented development standards along Holman Street and Tier Wester Street, which requires a 15-foot pedestrian realm, allowing for a reduced building line along those streets.

Now the current request is for a reduced building line of eight feet along Nally Street.

The applicant is requesting a second deferral as the architect is reworking the plans to see if the building will work with the shift.

Staff has received one public comment in advance concerning parking and the possibility for overflow into the neighborhood.

There is no parking variance being requested, and the parking for the site is intended off-site across the street.

This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

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

Motion Pierce.

A lot of them.

Motion ballard.

Second Pierce, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to E.

There is nothing under subdivision plus with special exceptions.

Nothing under.

Um F there, yes.

Moving on to F.

Recommendations of for reconsideration.

Item 89 is Scott Street Lift Station number three.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limits in southern Harris County, east of State Highway 288 and south of Airport Boulevard and Sims Bayou along the west side of Scott Street.

The applicant is proposing a reserve restricted to lift station and requesting a reconsideration of requirement with variants to allow a reduced building line of 10 feet along Scott Street, a major thoroughfare.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is an existing lift station facility along Scott Street, which is designed as an esplanade with two travel lanes, two lanes of traffic in each direction.

The intent is to upgrade and refurbish the existing facility to better serve the public.

The ordinance requires a 25-foot building line for structures along Scott Street.

The proposed new structures that are planned to be within the 25-foot building line are an electrical control building.

The replacement and site enlargement of the existing building, and a small stormwater detention pond.

Visibility along Scott Street will not be hindered with these planned encroachments.

Additionally, the site is constrained by its size and the space required for the necessary improvements.

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

Motion Mattas.

Second surem.

All in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to G.

Extension of approval.

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

My name is Malcolm Oliver.

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

Please, thanks.

Section G, extensions of approval consists of items 90 through 97.

Section H name changes consist of item 98.

Section I certification of certification of compliance consists of items 99 and 100.

And section J, administrative has no items.

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

Thank you.

Before I take a motion, I'm gonna note that Commissioner Heich is abstaining from 94 and 97.

Absolutely.

And now do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Second Sigler, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to K.

Development Platz with variance requests.

Item 101 is 3987 South Gessner Road.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limit along West Park Drive at the intersection with South Gessner Road.

The proposed construction areas within a strip center facing West Park Drive across from the Gastner parking ride.

The applicant is proposing a drive-up ATM kiosk along a driveway entrance from West Park Drive, a major thoroughfare.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the kiosk and screening wall to be set back 10 feet from the West Park property line instead of the required 25 feet.

Staff is in support of this request.

The proposed ATM kiosk and screening wall will be located at an existing driveway to the strip center.

This location was chosen to utilize the track's existing vehicular access without disrupting parking or traffic flow within the development.

The proposed kiosk will live or sorry, will accept drive-through traffic from the north and will steer exiting traffic to a parallel driveway rather than directly to the street.

This will allow for minimal disruption within the shopping center while limiting vehicle conflicts with pedestrians.

The applicant is requesting development by variants to allow for the screening wall to be set back 10 feet and the kiosk to be set back 20 feet from West Park Drive as opposed to the 25 feet required.

Staff finds the request consistent with the intent of the ordinance and staff recommends granting the variance request.

Thank you.

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

Pardon me for staff recommendation.

Motion Baldwin.

Second Naranjo.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Now we're going to move to Roman numeral two.

Establish a public hearing date of August 6, 2026 for the following.

Charles Mont Terrace, England Park Plaza, Faulkner Estates, MSQ, Dewbury Development, Orange Grove, Section Two, Partial Replat Number Two, Parkway Oaks, Section 6, Partial Replat Number 1, Rom Ramina Place, Residence at Dunlevey and White Oak Terrace Estates Replat Number 1.

Do I have a motion?

Motion fam.

Second Mattes.

All in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

We don't need to excuse Commissioner Pham.

She's here.

Moving on to Ramon Numeral.

No.

No, three.

Excuse me.

I'm just skipping right along.

Um off-street parking variants.

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

My name is Ramon Jaime Leon.

Item three, twenty eight twenty one West 11th Street.

The site is located at 2821 West 11th Street, west of TC Jesser Boulevard, and south side of West 11th Street.

The applicant proposes an adapted reuse of an existing commercial structure.

The applicant is requesting a parking variance to provide 57 parking spaces instead of the 94 spaces required for a mixed use development.

Steph is in support of the request.

The site is located at the southeastern side of intersection of West 11th Street and Ella Boulevard.

The site features a one-story commercial structure built for truck and railroad, sorry, it uh for truck and railroad transhipment.

The applicant proposes to convert the structure to accommodate a mix of uses.

The applicant is required to provide 94 parking off-street parking spaces based on the change of use and the square footage of the existing structure.

The applicant is requesting a variance to provide 57 spaces, uh citing the limits of the existing site and the multimodal transportation options within this neighborhood.

The site structure was designed with railroad access along the south and west sides of the property.

The geometry and existing railroad infrastructure do not allow for providing parking spaces on a large portion of the site.

In addition, the site is within close proximity to two bus routes and multimodal paths, given this location greater multi-bo multimodal capacity.

Furthermore, the site is surrounded by commercial multifamily and industrial uses, limiting opportunities for spillover parking in the single family residential areas.

Staff finds the applicant's request to be justified and recommends approval for the requested variants.

We received two written comments, one in support, one against, and a staff have received letter of support from Council District C expressing uh support.

Thank you.

I do have a speaker, Ruben Garza.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the commission.

Uh my name is Ruben Garza.

I'm a local conversation leader on behalf of Strong Towns Houston, as well as on behalf of the Houston Coalition for Parking Reform.

Uh we write in full support of this requested off-street parking variants for this adaptive reuse project.

Uh the proposal represents exactly the kind of community focused development that helps neighborhoods thrive, breathing new life into an existing building while creating space for a daycare, neighborhood, coffee shop, dance studio, and small scale retail.

Our coalition consists of Houston organizations and advocates committed to building stronger, more resilient neighborhoods through practical land use reforms that expand opportunity, improve affordability, and support small scale incremental investment.

We believe parking policy should enable, not prevent, adaptive reuse of existing buildings and the growth of neighborhood serving businesses.

Consistent with these principles, we support thoughtful parking reform and targeted variances that allow constrained properties to be put to productive use while strengthening the long-term economic and social vitality of Houston's communities.

So I just wanted to council member did.

Great.

Yes.

Great to hear.

Thank you guys.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Also uh for Commissioner Garza, I've been having to pick my head up every single time I keep hearing Garza approve Garza motion.

So, you know, thank you all for good one.

Thank you.

You too.

Okay.

That was the last speaker I had, so do I have a motion?

Yes.

Alright, just to clarify, um we uh the DAKER is there, but we made a clarification regarding uh it to be retail since it's more restrictive.

If once it goes to permitting, if they decide to go DACR is gonna require even less parking.

Okay.

So thank you for that clear question.

So any questions, Commissioner Bollins.

I'm 100% supportive, but I'm curious just from the neighborhood.

When would it trigger someone coming back?

If they put a bar there, what is 100%, right?

If they put a restaurant there, that's a coffee shop, it's one thing.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, all those buildings are being reused as restaurants for the most part, it seems like around.

Yeah, not not this one in particular.

Yeah, yeah, but it would trigger just for the neighborhood to know if they decide to put it in a brew pub there, come back to us, probably.

Correct.

Yes, thank you.

Commissioner Heich.

Yes, you you you may have noticed noted this uh and and I apologize if I missed it, but it states here you've clearly stated that 94 was is the requirement.

Yes, that's the requirement.

But our our packet here, it says it's 129.

So, sorry, that's a mistake.

It's 194 after uh discussing the uh the item with the applicant and reviewing it through the reviewing process, we were able to reduce it even more.

Okay, thank you due to shared parking table.

Great.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

I'll seek a motion for staff recommendation.

Motion Baldwin.

Second, second naranjo.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

We have nothing under amendment number four or five is public hearing.

Do I have anyone in the audience that would like to speak?

Okay, hearing none, I'll adjourn this meeting at 3 36 p.m.

Thank you.