At 2 32 p.m.

on Thursday, July 23rd, 2026.

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

You may also monitor the meeting by viewing via HTV.

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

Consent and repeat speakers are allowed for one minute.

New speakers are timed for two minutes.

Speaker rules are 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-time, two minutes time, as well as rebuttals.

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

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

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

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

Chair Clark is present.

Vice Chair Garza.

Present.

Commissioner Carroll.

Present.

Commissioner Ballard.

Present.

Commissioner Hines.

Present.

Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Matez.

Present.

Commissioner Naranjo.

Commissioner Pierce.

Present.

Commissioner Porz Pertle.

Present.

Commissioner Shepard.

Present.

Commissioner Siegler.

Present.

Commissioner Sykes.

Present.

And Commissioner Montepacka.

Present.

And Secretary Von Tran.

Present.

Thank you, everybody.

Yes.

So we have 15 members present, so we do have a quorum.

Oh, I want to let everyone know we have two items that have been withdrawn, so we will not hear anything on these items and will take no action.

The first one is item 38, West Haven Manor North, Section 2, and 98, Bridgeland Creek, Creekland Village GP.

And now I'll call for the Director's Report.

Director Tran.

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

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

Welcome.

I have only one announcement today.

On July 15th, City Council approved amendments to Chapter 42, Division 7, Parks and Open Space.

I would like to thank Director Allen of the Parks Department as well as our legal team led by Tammy Kim for their efforts in addition to my staff.

You guys are amazing.

Thank you so much for the support my entire team at the planning department.

And more so, I would like to extend our appreciation to the planning commission for supporting this item to forward to City Council.

With that, in closing, for assistance, please call the Planning and Development Department at 832-6600 to reach the planner of the day.

Please call 832-393-6624.

You may visit us online at Houston Planning.com.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Tran.

Commissioners, our Planning Commission meeting minutes of July 9th, 2026 were posted on the agenda.

Do I have a motion for approval?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Ballard, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on.

To remind numero one, semi-annual report of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee on Water and Wastewater Impact Fees.

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

My name is Dieter Van Lagen from Houston Public Works, and I'm here to present the July 2026 semi-annual water and wastewater report to the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee.

In accordance with Chapter 395, Texas Local Government Code, City Council adopted ordinances to establish procedures to administer the city's impact fees programs.

Approval of motion 90-0614 by City Council appointed the Planning Commission as the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee.

This report documents changes that occur between the period of November 30th, 2025 and April 30th, 2026 of the 2020-2030 impact fees programs.

In summary of this semi-annual report, I offer the following findings.

A total of 18,370, 883.16 cents was generated from revenues and interest for water and wastewater impact fees accrued in the impact fees accounts between November 30th, 2025 and April 30th, 2026.

The second half of the sixth year of the 2020-2030 impact fees programs.

The current water and wastewater impact fee of $4,286.93 cents per service unit for water and wastewater is $39.47 percent of the maximum fees allowed by current law.

The water and wastewater impact fees in effect for this reporting period have been in effect since July 1st, 2025, with the implementation of the 2020 and 2020 through 2030 impact fee program adopted by City Council.

The number of service units that generated the $18,370,883 and 16 cents was $4,075 service units for water and $3,981 service units for wastewater.

A total of 475 single family residences were exempt from paying impact fees and were granted single family residents below the median housing price during this period.

Examination of data regarding service unit consumption from November 30th, 2025 through April 30th, 2026 indicates significant capacity remains in the water and wastewater systems to support the anticipated demand through October 31st, 2026, the end of the next reporting period.

Based on these findings, I recommended that the Planning Commission, acting as the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee, authorized the appropriation to debt retirement for the total amount of revenues and interests generated from water and wastewater impact fees during the reporting period and the sum of 18,370, 883.16 cents.

Thank you for your time.

I now make myself available for any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Commissioner Martz.

Yeah, just gonna have a statement.

So we reviewed uh the impact fee reports and we recommend approving the transfers.

A couple items to note on the water wastewater impact fees.

475 homes were exempted from the impact fees since they fell below the medium housing price.

And since the inception of the impact fee program, the city has collected approximately 713 million in water wastewater impact fees, which as our speaker noted is only about 39% of the maximum possible impact fees available.

So based on that review, I recommend that as the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee, we approve the transfer of funds to depth services as noted in the impact fee report.

Thank you, Commissioner Mata.

So that's a motion.

Do I have a second?

Second Garza.

Second Garza, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving on to Ramon 2, semi-annual report on the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee on Drainage Impact Fees.

In accordance with Chapter 395, Texas Little Local Government Code, City Council adopted adopted ordinances to establish procedures to administer the city's impact fees programs.

Approval of motion 90-0614 by City Council appointed the Planning Commission as the Capital Advisory Capital Improvements Advisory Committee.

This report documents changes that occur between periods the period of November 30th, 2025 and April 30th, 2026 of the drainage impact fee program.

In summary of the semi-annual report, I offer the following findings.

A total of 547,827 and 65 cents in drainage impact fees were purchased between November 30, 2025 and April 30th, 2026.

A total of $8,771,274.25 cents was purchased since program inception.

Thank you for your time, and I now make myself available for any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Okay, hearing none, do I have a motion?

Yes, Commissioner Matez.

Yes.

Um based on our review, I recommend that at the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee, we approve the transfer of funds to support implementation of the capital projects.

Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second Jones, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you so much.

Okay, moving on to Ramon Number Three, Platinum Activity, Subdivision and Development Platz.

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

Madam Chair and members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Maximus Garza.

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

Sections A and B are items one through 80.

Section A consent items are numbers one through 39.

And section B replat items are numbers 40 through 80.

No items need to be taken out of order.

And there are no changes of staff recommendations.

Madam Chair, if there are any if there are no individuals signed up to speak on these items, the planning and development department requests uh approval of all staff recommendations for consent and replat items not requiring notification.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on any of these items.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

Okay.

I know I have some abstentions.

Commissioner Mates.

Yes.

On Section A, I requise from one and three.

And section B, I would recuse from item 43 and 80.

Thank you.

Commissioner Pierce.

Yes, Madam Chair.

I would like to recuse myself from item number three.

Thank you.

Commissioner Shepard.

Yes.

Um for Section A number one.

For B, um 43, 55, 68, 71, and 72.

Thank you.

Are there any other uh recusals?

Okay.

Hearing none, I need a motion, save and accept items one, three, forty-three, fifty-five, sixty-eight, seventy-one, seventy-two, and eighty.

Do you have a motion?

Motion Sykes.

And four.

Did I 134 43?

13.

I don't have anybody for four.

Do we not say four?

I mean apologies for my mistake.

No worries.

Glad it was your mistake and not mine.

Um do I have a motion?

Motion psyches.

Motion Sykes.

Second Pierce.

Second Pierce, all in favor.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Now we'll have a motion for items one, three, forty-three, fifty-five, sixty-eight, seventy-one, seventy-two, and eighty.

Motion, Poris Pertle.

Motion porrise purdle, second Sigler.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to C public hearings.

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

My name is John Phillips Celio.

Item 81 is Alcamberry residence.

The subject site is an over 8,500 square foot property located in the Houston city limits.

At the southeast intersection of Cullen Boulevard and Alcamberry Lane, north of Old Spanish Trail.

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

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

Staff is in support of the request, and all notification requirements have been met.

This is a replat of lot 14, block 1 of the Riverside Terrace Annex.

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

The plat was deferred last cycle per applicant request to allow the applicant to come into compliance with the ordinance and the deed restrictive building lines, and those requirements have been met.

There are two multifamily developments along Alcamberry outlined in pink, which have created four unit multifamily developments on each uh on each of two lots.

The developments have incurred the requirement for the widening to provide 60 feet wide right-of-way required by the ordinance.

The developments fall within the same scope as an MUR reserve and could potentially meet the MUR requirements, uh which could only call for a 50-foot wide ride of way.

That and the COLIS Act of Alconbury is only 320 feet long, making the widening infeasible as it would only decrease lot size without significantly improving right-of-way traffic, circulation, or access.

Staff has received advanced comments regarding the character of the neighborhood.

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

Madam Chair, please the Commission may continue the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

I have no one signed to speak on item 81.

Oh, let me open the public hearing.

For item 81, I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

No.

Okay.

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

Motion Hines.

Motion Heinz.

Second Matez.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to item 82.

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

My name is Ken Calhoun.

Item 82 is by you with section two, partial replat number three in extension.

This application was deferred last cycle to allow the applicant time to coordinate with legal regarding deed restrictions.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits.

Southwest southwest along Fair Circle Cold de SAC.

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

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

Review by legal indicates that the plat will no longer violate separately filed restrictions.

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

Madam Chair, but please Commission, you may continue the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 82 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 Jones?

Second.

Second Naranjo.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 83.

Item 83 is Kwood Park replat number one.

The subject site is number 32,000 square foot property located in the Houston City limits, west along Kwood Avenue, north of Westview Drive, and east of Antwon Drive.

The reason for replat is to realign the three-foot emergency access easement in pace with the uh 10-foot utility easement.

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

This is a full replat of Katewood Park and review by legal in the case of the plat does not violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

Staff has not received any advanced comments regarding the application.

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

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 83 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second.

Second Carroll.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 84.

Item 84 is East End on the Bayou trails.

The subject site is a nearly 36,000 square foot property located in the Houston City limits at the northeast intersection of Nagel Street and Freud Street, north of Navigation and east of Jensen Road.

The reason for replat is to create 23 lots and three reserves as part of a shared driveway subdivision.

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

This is a replat of unrestricted reserve C in block 1 of the East and Bayou Section 3.

Replat number 1 and extension.

Review by legal indicates the plat does not violate any proposed uh does not violate restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

Staff has not received any advanced comments for this application.

Staff recommendation is to approve the plat subject to CPC on a one-form conditions.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 84 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Motas.

Second None.

Second Naranjo.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 85.

Item 85 is Fisher's Point at Waverly, partial replat number one.

The subject site is nearly 8,000 square foot property located in the Houston City limits, east along Waverly Street, west of Yale Street, and north of 11th Street.

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

There are no variances requested with this item.

This is a replat of lot 21 of block 181 out of Houston Heights and a replat of lot 2 block 1 out of Fisher's Point at Waverly.

Staff has not received any advanced comments for this application.

Staff recommendation is to defer the plat for two weeks per applicant request to allow the applicant to comply with notice requirements.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 85 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion pours purple.

Second Garza.

Second Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 86.

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

My name is Araceli Rodriguez.

Item 86, Quinwood Views.

The site is located in the city limit west of Method Drive and south of Teatwell Road.

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

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

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

Madam Chair, is it pleased to 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 Sigler.

Motion Sigler.

Second Matthews, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 87.

Item 87.

The site is located in the city limit west of Method Drive and south of Teetwell Road.

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

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

That did not receive any public comment in advance.

Madam Chair, it is the pleasure of the Commission.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 87 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Jones.

Second Sykes, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 88.

Item 88.

Go out ultimate west view.

The site is located in the city limit eat up west wayside drive and thought of Keatwell Road.

The purpose of the REPLA is to create one unrestricted 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 plat or those filed separately.

That we see some public comment in advance, voicing concern we got into the proposed use, property value, traffic, speeding, and noise.

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

Madam Chair, it is the pleasure of the Commission, you may open the public hand for the item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 88 is open.

I do have a couple of speakers.

Our first speaker is Robert Stevens.

Good afternoon.

Hello, Commission, thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak here.

I am Robert Stevens.

I am a landowner at 78510 Woodvine Place Court, which is nearby to the proposed development.

I am concerned that the replat is going to be merging together several different tracks, and some might be subject to deed restrictions that are going to be kind of washed away in the process here.

So I am asking for some time.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Doug Lassard.

Good afternoon, members of the Commission.

My name is Douglas Sard.

I am a neighbor in this neighborhood.

I live just west of the proposed development in Aston Park.

Which is a community of 11 homes that is gated.

I oppose the rezoning of the residential lots to unrestricted reserve.

I also oppose the project.

I think it is too big.

This is primarily a residential neighborhood.

It's a really nice neighborhood that has transformed in the last 11 years since I have lived there.

There's been homes in the area that have been that were run down that were demolished, and they have split the lot in two.

They have created two homes, and really I think in the interest of growth here, there should be anything that zone residential should stay as a residential because there is need for housing that is affordable and in close proximity to the city.

It is a very walkable neighborhood.

There is three big churches that I can walk to.

There's three private schools in the area, there's parks.

It's really a beautiful area.

I would hate for it to be to be run down with this development.

The project is a large commercial industrial building for storage of sports cars.

It is going to be set up as condominiums sold at 600,000 apiece.

I would rather see residential in that area at 600,000 apiece.

This is really primarily a residential area.

So I I think that covers what I need to say, but again, I oppose the rezoning and I oppose the project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for coming in today.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

Okay.

Hearing none, I will close the public hearing.

And I'm going to ask you, Ms.

Rodriguez, the mention of deed restrictions.

Did this violate deed restrictions?

It will be legal in the it doesn't violate any known applicable restriction.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioners, if you don't have any questions.

Yes.

Commissioner Garza.

Mr.

Vigus, this is going to be an unrestricted reserve.

What was it before?

It's an unrestricted reserve and uh per the advocate, and they are planning to do a storage facility for a reserve for commercial before this request?

Yes.

So the corner property is an unrestricted reserve right now.

And they're just adding the northern lot.

Yeah.

To expand it.

Okay.

So it's already commercial or understanding.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yes.

I just want to make sure I understand that the two lots to the north.

Those are the same.

Commissioner signed.

Yeah.

Can you repeat the question?

The two northern pieces.

Are those deed restricted to residential or are they commercial as well?

Well, it could be used for anything they want.

It's not restricted to residential on phase of the platform.

So they could be used for any use.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

Anyone else?

Any other questions?

Okay.

So I close the public hearing.

So we have before us a recommendation of approval.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Hines.

Second Heinz, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving on to 89.

Item 89, Aviba Estates Nodens Street.

The site is located in the city limit east of Wayside Drive and south of Teetwell Road.

The purpose of the weapon is to create three single family lot, and no variances are being requested with this item.

The advocate has met all the notification requirements.

But that received a call from the Claremont Place Civic Organization indicating that the plot is subject to the deep restricted bullet line requirements.

This restriction has been forwarded to legal for further review.

So that recommendation is to defer the platform further deep restriction review.

Madam Chair, it's the pleasure of the Commission, you may open the public hearing for this item at this time.

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 89 is open.

I do have a couple of speakers.

Our first speaker is Vicky Martin.

Thank you, Commissioner, for this opportunity to speak.

This neighborhood is 75 years old this year, and the properties on the street have a setback line of 25 feet.

And to my understanding, we have not been given any renderings or elevations, but it appears as though the developer wishes to be 10 street, 10 feet from the uh frontal street.

So we are opposed to that, but we are open to see the renderings or the elevations so that we can have further communications.

But I understand it is deferred to go to legal for D restrictions, and I'll be welcome back to come when it's back on the schedule.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll see you in two weeks.

Our next speaker, Juan Castillo, you are available for questions.

Did you have anything you wanted to speak about?

Good afternoon, Planning Commission.

First, thank you for allowing me to speak.

I really don't have anything.

I uh we did extensive research on this property.

We didn't find any legal distri uh restrictions uh tied to this property.

So I would really like to look at the restrictions that she mentioned earlier.

Um abstract that they didn't find anything, our title company didn't find anything.

There are some deed restrictions tied to certain lots in this area in this neighborhood.

However, we couldn't locate anything for this particular lot.

Okay.

Uh Ms.

Martin, maybe you can get with the applicant here.

I'd appreciate that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

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

Is there any one else that wishes to?

Hearing none, I am going to continue the public hearing and seek a motion for staff recommendation of deferral.

Motion Matters.

Second ballard, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 90.

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

My name is Dorianne Paul Flem.

Item 90 is Laurel Place Reserves.

The site is in Houston Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in Harris County, Texas.

South along Will Clayton Parkway and north along Atasca Cedar Road.

The reason for replat is to create two reserves restricted to recreation and landscape use and one open space reserve.

There are no variants requested with this item.

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

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

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

Staff has not received any advanced comments concerning this item.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 90 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 ballard.

Second Jones, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item 91.

Item 91 is Mansfield Manor Preserve.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits, south of Manfield Street, and west of TC Jester Boulevard, east along Odyssey Dunes Drive, and west along Cassini Tour Drive.

The reason for replat is to create one recreation reserve.

The applicant is also requesting a variance to replat two single family lots in a landscape open space reserve into a recreation reserve.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is a reply of two lots in a landscape open space reserve created with the Mansfield Manor Amending Plat No.

Recorded in 2026.

The property is vacant and still under the developer's control, and no lots have been sold in the subdivision.

The developer desires to replat and develop the site as a recreational reserve to provide a pool, restrooms, pickle, ball court, and other amenities to the subdivision.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

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

The replat will provide amenities to the subdivision that is conducive to residential development.

Houston Public Works have no objection to the request.

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

Staff has not received any advanced comments for this item.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 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.

Second none.

Okay.

Motion Sigler, second Naranjo.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving on to 92.

Item 92 is Martin Developed Design.

Magdalene's replat number one.

The site is in Houston Corporate Limits, south along McDonald Street, east of Jensen Road.

The reason for replat is to create 24 lots and three reserves and correct the boundary lines.

There are no variants requested with this item.

Staff's recommendation, the applicant has requested that this item be deferred.

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

Staff has not received any comments in advance for this item.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 92 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 Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Shepherd, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to item 93.

Item 93 is Montrose Heights.

The subject site is 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 the replat is create one unrestricted reserve.

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

This is a replat of Reserve A Block 1 of Hyde Park, partial reply number two, recorded in 2014, and lot five, block 18 of the original Hyde Park Subdivision.

Review by Lego indicates the proposed plat does not violate any city enforceable restrictions on the face of the plat or those filed separately.

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

This application has been deferred twice, once for extended review of the deed restrictions and once at the request of two city councilpersons.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 93 is continued.

I have got several speakers.

My first speaker is Scott Shaftsma.

And if I mispronounce your name, please feel free to correct me.

Good afternoon.

Hello.

My name is Scott Shastman.

I live at 2100 Commonwealth, only a block or two away from this development.

I just wanted to state that I bought into this neighborhood in 2024 because it is quiet, it's walkable, it's all residential.

I'd like it to stay that way.

My understanding is this developer that owns this property unrestricted will be able to build whatever he wants, which is something I do not want to see.

I have lived in other major cities and I have seen what developers can do to neighborhoods because they don't take the best interests of their residents in mind.

So I definitely oppose this.

We appreciate you coming in today and sharing your comments.

Our next speaker is Augustine.

Could you state your full name when you come to the podium, please?

My name is Augustin Pereira.

First of all, thank you for the Commission for your services to this community.

I moved from woodlands around eight years back to downtown and selected Montos the area, which is uh very uh safe for my family and my children for higher education.

Uh this community uh has Hyde Park has nearly three parks and one school.

Very safe area.

I see people walking their dogs to the community to the park every day, morning, afternoon, evening, and as myself as well.

Uh over the years I see only uh changes is a lot of changes on commercial uh sorry, the resident property, no commercials at all.

And also I noticed a little bit of increase in traffic, which is which is makes sense because of the population increase and uh now what I'm afraid is uh the commercial, we don't know what is coming up in that property.

If the commercial, the property is uh neighborhood is in danger.

The reason is in noise, trophy, uh criminal activities, and also the park and adjacent to the school.

There are a lot of children crossing the road or to the going to the school in the morning, afternoon, and in the evening, evening.

So my request to the uh commission is uh if it is approved only for the residential areas for the resident purpose and not for commercial purpose.

That's all I have.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate you coming in, sharing your comments.

Our next speaker is Elizabeth Burke.

Again, if I mess your name up, please correct me.

Hi, I'm Elizabeth Burt.

I live at 1515 Hyde Park, just one block over from this property.

Um thank you for your service to the citizens of Houston and for listening to us today.

Um I have lived in Hyde Park for 26 years.

It's almost hard to believe it's been that long because the neighborhood has remained the same at heart during that time.

It's quiet, walkable, safe, friendly, caring, unique, welcoming, filled with diligent neighbors, a good investment, and a fantastic place to live.

Over the years, I have seen small changes to our neighborhood.

Specifically, I have noticed increase in traffic on Commonwealth and WA, a sort of overflow from Montrose Boulevard.

I am sure the owner of the property in question has noticed too.

Without further info on plans, what I fear from the proposed replatting of this property is that the developer would take advantage of these traffic patterns by opening some sort of business there.

Businesses in this area mostly serve the local community and are very welcome.

They are not intended to support growing traffic and people passing through our walkable neighborhood.

I don't want a business that attracts and supports more traffic in the very heart of Hyde Park, so close to my home and neighborhood schools.

I also fear that a high-density living community could be created.

The resulting increase in traffic would directly impact me as I walk or drive through the Fairview Commonwealth intersection on an almost daily basis.

This would also impact my property value just one block over.

I am opposed to using this property.

I'm not opposed to using this property in line with the deed restrictions.

Members of our community have worked hard to enact restrictions that apply to this property.

Replatting the property could make those deed restrictions moot.

With one of the only tools we have in the absence of zoning laws.

Please honor the desires and hard work of the Hyde Park community by denying the proposed replant of this property.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We appreciate you coming in.

Our next speaker is Rocky Neaton.

Good afternoon, Commissioners and Madam Chair.

I am Rocky Neaton, a Hyde Park resident and property owner for 30 years.

And I'm here to again to request that you deny this replat due to the fact that 1506 Fairview is deed restricted to single family.

Our Hyde Park deed restrictions have existed for over 30 years and were dutifully filed and are binding.

Our deed restrictions protect our property values, the character of our neighborhood, prevent excess traffic, and among other things.

The city should not be denying those who hold contract rights for their property and to violate the statute that applies to this manner.

Thank you for considering the concerns of our Hyde Park neighborhood.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is David Taylor.

Good afternoon.

Afternoon.

Madam Chairman, Commission members, thank you all.

Hopefully you saw a package.

What I hope to do today is convince you to vote contrary to the legal advice.

There are deed restrictions on the property.

They are valid.

We've given each of you a copy of the owner to time opting into those deed restrictions, and then when he sold the property, notifying the new buyer of the deed restrictions.

The city attorney, as I heard it, put it very well that they are deed restrictions not enforceable by the city.

That doesn't mean there aren't any.

And this plat would say there aren't any.

We believe that it is contrary to the government code 212.0146, which states a replat must not attempt to amend or remove any covenants or restrictions.

We've provided all of this to legal earlier in the week.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Taylor.

We appreciate it.

Our next speaker is Sarah Frazier.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, I'm Sarah Frazier.

I am the president of Hyde Park Civic Association.

You should have my two-page handout.

As David Taylor just stated, we think that there is an issue with the legal opinion not meeting the standard of the statute, which is to determine whether the replat would amend or remove any covenants or restrictions under 212.014.

What the city decided instead was that they did not see a violation of a city enforceable restriction.

They're not answering whether any restriction exists.

It does not mean that there is anything wrong with our common law restrictions, nor should the city be concerned that it is somehow enforcing them by acknowledging their existence, as it does with private utility easements, oil and gas leases, and access rights.

So what we're asking for is that the Commission seriously look at the question of what the standard is and ask the question of whether any restriction applies here.

We have a very traditional privately enforceable restriction, and it should count in that question.

That's just a plain reading of the statute.

And I I would hope that you all could engage in that consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If I may for one second more, at previous hearings it's come up that the developer's major work that he does is to build gas stations, specifically fake Buckeys gas stations.

So that's what we are talking about in our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Okay.

Our next speaker is Hugo Lozano.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Hello, my name is Ugo Lozano.

I live in 1515 Fairview, which is right across the street from the 1506 Fairview.

My wife and I purchased this property two years ago to raise our young children and accepted Hyde Park's deed restrictions when we purchase the property.

I understand that if the Commission allows this replet, then the whole new parcel will be categorized as unrestricted use, and that worries me and my wife.

So we urge the Commission to consider what the deed restrictions are and the school that is already there and the any traffic and safety issues that may come up with the kids.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We appreciate you coming in today.

The last speaker I have is Mary Villarreal.

I see you are available for questions.

Was there something you wanted to mention?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair members of the Planning Commission.

As I mentioned before, the proposed development, the own developer is working with an architect for multifamily.

This is the truth.

But planning staff has asked to see if I can find if the owner would be willing to restrict it to multifamily, but I haven't received a response from him.

And I know we're short on time, so I would not be able to make that decision at this time.

I would need to go with legal's recommendation and staff's.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Okay.

Commissioner Heinz.

I do have a question.

Can we defer voting on this towards the end of the meeting?

It's been deferred twice already.

Oh, move this to the end of the meeting.

I see what you are saying.

Would that make a difference?

It might.

Sorry.

It might.

I requested that I get the number so I can see call him outside.

I personally would love to see that if we could restrict it to multi-family.

I mean me I mean if he is willing.

Yes, I know.

So I if that's possible.

Yes, since you brought it up, I just want to give you the time.

Yeah, we can do that.

We need consensus.

Um we do.

So Commissioner Hines, that's a motion to move it to behind Roman numero five.

I second that.

Yes.

Okay.

So a motion to move it to after Remember number five, second by Ballard.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

No, thank you.

You opposed?

Oh.

You look like you are jumping out of your chair.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Oh, wait, Carol, yes.

Commissioner Carroll.

I have a question regarding the I think I understand the nuance of the legal that their question that the deed restrictions are indeed in place, especially for this lot since the prior owner uh signed them back in 1983, August of 93, excuse me, 93.

Is the is the question that legal just doesn't acknowledge those deed restrictions?

But they are definitely in place.

Legal does not have the authority to opine on whether the purported restrictions are valid, even if they were valid.

They're among restrictions the city does not have authority to enforce.

To enforce them, but they can at least acknowledge them.

We can't issue private legal advice.

Okay.

Right.

Okay.

That was a question, not a statement.

Understood.

Yes.

Commissioner Siegler.

So um would this be considered a sh our typical shall approve item?

Yes.

It is.

Okay.

Yes, it is.

There are no deed restrictions.

There is no deed restriction.

There's no request for a variance.

Correct, Mr.

Okay.

So we this would fall under the typical parameters of a shall approve, right?

Okay.

Any other questions?

Yeah, let's close this out.

Okay.

Okay.

So we'll move along now to 94.

And for those in the audience, I'm sure you understood, but our last uh point of action is Roman numeral five.

We'll bring this back, and hopefully Ms.

Villarreal will have heard from her owner by then.

I think it's Alandy Jones.

I think Commissioner Jones by his jumping out of his chair caused some technical issues.

Okay, give us just a minute.

Are you ready?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Let's move on with 94.

Item 94 is Telgi OST development.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits at the corner of Telgi and Old Spanish Trail.

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

There are no advances 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 file separately.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 94 is open.

Bourgeois.

Good afternoon.

Cool.

Good afternoon, Commissioner's Court.

My name is Arga Bouchoir, and I'm the owner of Houston's Best Vegan Restaurant.

We're located at 3102 OST.

And I'm here to oppose this replat because one, we weren't properly notified of this.

It has uh Sigma from Texas land map.

I've reached out to them on numerous occasions.

They will not give me the information on the owners, what are they planning on putting there, and so forth.

I've also uh reached out uh on the Texas website to see who the developers are.

Um my concerns and issues is I have a health food store where we're located is at the cus of the medical center.

And as you know, by 2030, all the way to 288, we'll be part of the medical center.

My restaurant already, we're already fighting for uh parking.

I uh uh Tex Dot came through about a year ago and took away five feet, so we're short on parking.

Um, this development, we don't know what it is, is gonna uh have a problem with parking and so forth.

For me, uh as part of the community, we just want communication.

We want to know what you are putting there, what are you building, what are your plans, is it gonna be a gas station, is it a high rise, what whatever.

This is business, and we just want transparency.

So uh respectfully, I would just uh request that you could defer this so we can get that information because communication is key.

So I appreciate you for listening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for coming in, sharing your comments.

I have no one else signed to speak.

Is there anyone else who wishes to?

Okay.

So that's what I was going to ask staff if the applicant is here by chance.

Are you the applicant?

Yeah, the applicant.

Okay.

Great.

Could you come forward, please?

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is George Morrow.

Thank you.

Uh I represent the applicant.

Uh Matthew Segman is the actual applicant.

He couldn't be here today.

So I'm in here in his place.

So I'm happy to answer what I can.

Yes, so we have you.

One, I would like to ask you to get together with uh the previous speaker for sure.

So you can walk through everything with her.

And secondarily, can you tell us today what the plans are?

You have any ideas at this point?

I don't have any idea.

This was really short notice of me coming here today, unfortunately.

Uh I will be more than happy to get with her and give her my contact information so I can get her in contact with Matthew.

Um we also do have contact with the owner, so we can give her that information too.

Um sorry that that happened.

You know, you were pretty good.

That's fine.

Please cause book.

You know, this is why I'm here.

Um, besides that, I really don't have much information on this.

I'm not sure what's going on.

I wasn't working on this project.

Like I said, I just came in to sub in.

I didn't expect anybody to be here because we didn't have any notifications that I was aware of.

So I mean, I would say.

Of course.

And that would be very much appreciated.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions?

Um just to confirm it's a shallow approved, correct?

You are correct.

Yep.

Okay.

I have no one else signed to speak on item 94.

Is there anyone else that wishes to?

Okay.

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

Motion.

Motion, Mata, second, Garza.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 95.

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

Item 95 is Valve View Homes.

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

The reason for replat is to create three single family residential lots and two landscape and open space reserves.

There are no variants requested with this item.

The applicant has met all notification requirements.

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

The plat was deferred at the last planning commission for Chapter 42 standards.

The applicant has revised the plat, and now the plat meets Chapter 42.

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

Staff has not received any comments in advance.

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

Thank you.

The public hearing for item 95 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.

Motion Garza.

Second Jones, all in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 96.

Item 96 is Warwick Place, partial replat number two.

The subject site is located within Houston City limits at the intersection of Breeland and Sanders Street.

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

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

Review by legal indicates that the plat will violate building line D restrictions for such recommendations to defer the plat per the applicant's request.

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 96 is open.

I have no one signed to speak.

Is there anyone that wishes to?

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

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Pierce.

Second Pierce, all in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to D subdivision plots with variance requests.

Item 97.

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

My name is Devin Critdle.

Item 97 is the mirror general plan.

The site is located within Harris County, north of the Grand Parkway, and east of Newski Road.

The applicant is requesting a variance to not extend the Stubb Street and a special exception to exceed intersection spacing along the northern GP boundary.

Staff is in support of both requests.

The mirror general plan is a 600-acre residential community.

The majority of the area within the general plan has been developed, and this request pertains to the newly acquired edition in a northwest quadrant.

Request number one.

The public street was recorded in 2025 with the Holdrith Road street dedication.

At that time, the stub street was created to address intersection spacing.

Now that street stubs into a detention pond and has no use as it remains undeveloped.

The plan is to abandon the stub street and utilize the street connection to the east.

Second, the special exception is to allow intersection spacing of a distance of 1,600 feet instead of 1,400 feet, which is within a 30 percent deviation of the standard.

In total, the northern boundary only requires two stub streets and the excuse me.

The northern boundary only requires through two stub streets and two streets are being provided.

These street connections are designed around a detention pond.

Providing the street connection on either side of the detention pond ensures each group of homes has its own ingress and egress when traveling north.

Ultimately, Harris County has voiced no objection to this request, and staff recommends granted requested variants and special exception and approving the plant subject to the CPC 1 form conditions.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, I was asking.

Yes.

I should have stepped out and I didn't want to interrupt him.

Okay.

So please note.

Yes.

I have a motion.

Yes.

Motion Garza.

Second Ballard.

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 98 was withdrawn.

I know y'all are just leaving me sitting here right now.

Moving on to item 99.

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

My name is Tammy Williamson.

Item 99 is Hunton Services Complex.

The site is located within Houston's corporate limits in Harris County, east of South Wayside Drive and south of Long Drive, on the block bounded by Midvale Street, Heffernan Street, Moline Street, and Loose Street.

The applicant is proposing one unrestricted reserve and requesting two variances.

One, not to dedicate right-of-way widening on all four block faces, and two, to allow a dual building line for one structure encroaching the 10-foot building line.

Staff recommends to defer the application for two weeks to allow the applicant time to provide additional information.

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

Thank you.

If there are no questions, do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion Mattis.

Motion Mattas.

Second Montepaca.

Second Montepaca, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 100.

Item 100 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 IH 10 for proposed street connections.

The applicant has requested the item to be for deferred for two weeks.

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

Yes, please.

The subject site is separated from I 10's feeder lanes by Harris County Flood Control District drainage channel own and fee.

The applicant has obtained access easements from HCFCD for five connections to the freeway frontage road and has begun the process of obtaining driveway access permits from Techstot at those five locations.

The applicant is requesting to exceed the minimum intersection spacing requirements to allow all five to be public street connections to IH-10.

The ordinance requires a minimum intersection spacing of 600 feet along a major thoroughfare or freeway between two local streets and 400 feet from a local street and a major thoroughfare.

The two proposed local streets on the west are special special exception requests because the deviation from the standard requirement of 600 feet is 33 percent or less.

During the deferral period, TechSoup provided that the minimum connection spacing for a 50-mile per hour frontage road would be 425 feet, but that all roadway tie-ins must be submitted by a public entity.

Private entities are allowed to request private driveway access permits, but in this case, only Harris County has the authority to request public street tie-ins.

With this new information, the applicant has requested a deferral to confer with our clients and the engineering team.

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

Thank you.

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

Motion Parker.

Motion Montepaca.

Second Garza.

Second Garza, all in favor?

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 101.

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

My name is Petra Shaw.

Item 101 is Shekinah Life Center.

This item has been deferred twice and cannot be deferred again.

The site is located within Houston City limits, Harris County, south along Holman Street, east of Knowley Street, west of Tier Westor Street, and north of Windburn 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 Kally Street instead of the required 10-foot building line.

Staff is in support of the request.

The site is located within a transit-oriented development or TOD area.

Holman Street, north of the site, and Tier Western Street, east of the site are both designated secondary TOD streets.

The applicant is opting into the TOD standards, which requires the site to provide a 15-foot pedestrian realm along Holman Street and Tierwester Street and incorporate pedestrian improvements, including sidewalks, landscaping, and safety buffers, creating a safer and more inviting environment.

Although Nally Street is not a designated TOD street, with the five-foot right-of-way dedication required and the requested reduced building line of five feet, the proposed plot is able to maintain a pedestrian realm of at least 15 feet in width.

The applicant is also proposing sidewalks and pedestrian realm improvements along the street consistent with the intent of the ordinance.

Additionally, the proposed parking for the site will be located east of the subject property across Tier Westor Street.

Locating the parking off-site eliminates the need for curb cuts along the subject site, resulting in a safer, more continuous pedestrian realm.

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

However, there is no parking variance being requested, and parking for the site is intended off-site.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, if there are no questions, do I have a motion?

Yes, Commissioner.

So for the parking off side, do they have to provide documentation on an agreement or something?

Or it's their property.

Thank you.

All right.

If there are no other questions, do I have a motion?

Motion.

Motion Mattis.

Second Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Item 102.

Item 102 is Telgee Hill Business Park.

The site is located within Houston's extraterritorial jurisdiction in northern Harris County along Telgey Road, north of Grant Road and south of the Grand Parkway.

The applicant is proposing one reserve restricted to commercial use and is requesting a variance to allow excessive intersection spacing along Telgee Road by not providing an east-west public street.

Staff recommends to defer the application for two weeks per Harris County Engineering's request.

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

Thank you.

If there are no questions, do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second car.

Second Jones, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

We have no items under E, so we'll move along to F.

Reconsideration of requirement.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Item 103.

Is Bearing Drive Reserves?

The subject site is a six-acre property located in the Houston City limits, west along Bering Drive, south of San Felipe, and west of Chimney Rock.

The applicant is proposing two unrestricted reserves and is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing by now providing an east-west street through the site.

Staff is in support of the request, is in support of the request.

The site is an existing church site on the northern portion and an existing office on the southern portion.

The intent of the replet is to let the office site absorb 50% of 50-foot wide sliver of the church site to increase its on-site parking.

There are permits required to improve the parking area, but they would not normally be granted as a site exists as lots.

The replat allows a change of use and the transfer of the property, but has triggered the variance request due to intersection spacing.

And East West Street could potentially connect to the sub of Inwood Drive to the West.

However, there are two recorded apartment complex plats that would hinder any potential connection, and the church intends to continue its existing use.

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

Ma'am Chair, this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

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

Motion Garza.

Motion Sigler, second Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Item 104.

Item 104 is Hillcroft Business Park.

The site is located within Houston City limits, Harris County, south of West Orham Drive along Hillcroft Avenue.

The applicant is proposing an unrestricted reserve and is requesting a variance to exceed intersection spacing along Hillcroft Avenue by not extending nor terminating Bonita Street in a cul-de-sac.

Staff is in support of the request.

The subject site is located along Hillcroft Avenue, a major thoroughfare that requires an east-west street every 2600 feet.

The intersection spacing along Hillcroft Avenue between West Orm Drive and Beltway 8 measures approximately 4,400 feet.

However, due to the close proximity of the site to the intersection of West Orm Drive and Hillcroft Avenue, measuring approximately 380 feet, requiring the extension of Bonita Street through the property would not significantly improve the overall traffic circulation in the area.

In addition, the site is bounded to the north and west by a Harris County flight control district drainage easement containing existing drainage channels, which may encumber the construction of a public street connection.

To the west of the subject site is also an established single family residential subdivision with three existing points of access.

Requiring the extension of Bonita Street through the subject site would not significantly improve traffic circulation in and out of the neighborhood and would introduce commercial traffic into the residential subdivision.

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

Motion Sykes.

Motion Sykes.

Second Garza.

Second Ballard, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Please note that Commissioner Matez is recusing from 105.

Item 105 is the midline detention reserves section one.

The site is located in the ETJ of Harris County, east along El Dorado Boulevard, between Beamer Road and Interstate 45.

The applicant is requesting a reconsideration of requirement to exceed intersection spacing by not providing a north-south street through the tract.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a portion of land out of the Midland General Plan intended for drainage and detention.

The distance between the nearest intersection along Glenn West Drive is roughly 2,800 feet, and strict interpretation of the ordinance requires a public street to be dedicated with this proposed plat.

Justification for supporting the request is based on the public street system within the general plan and the surrounding area.

The approved street pattern within the general plan does not have a street connection to this track, meaning if a public street was to be dedicated, it would not be able to make a connection and would remain a stub street until the GP is redeveloped.

The surrounding area excuse me.

The surrounding area provides multiple access points to nearby major thairfares and Interstate 45.

Also, the site is proposed to be detention and would not generate any public vehicular traffic.

Harris County has voiced no objection to this request, and staff recommends granting the requested variance and approving a reconsideration subject to the CPC 101 form conditions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

If there are no questions, do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion Jones.

Second Ballard, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to G, extension of approval.

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

My name is Nathan Cooper.

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

Yes, and please let's note 108 and 110.

Mates is abstaining from.

Please proceed.

Thanks.

Section G.

Extensions of approval consists of items 106 through 111.

Section H, name changes, consists of no items.

Section I, Certificate of Compliance, consists of no items.

Section J, administrative, consists of no items.

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

Thank you.

Commissioners, do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Second Carroll.

Motion Garza, second Carroll.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to K, development plates with variance requests.

Item 112 is a development plat variance for a property located at 5500 Evergreen Street.

The site is located within Southwest Houston at the northwest intersection of Chimney Rock Road and Evergreen Street.

The applicant is requesting the variance to allow a 15-foot building line along a major therapy in lieu of the required 25-foot building line.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site is a corner property from the Richmond Plaza addition subdivision recorded in 1942.

At that time, the property was platted with the 15-foot building line along Chimney Rock.

Shortly after a single family home was constructed on the lot.

That home was recently demolished, and the applicant is requesting to replace that home at the same 15-foot setback as recorded on the original plat.

This planning commission granted a similar variance for property directly behind this lot to allow a 15-foot building line along Chimney Rock.

Similar justification for supporting the request is that the 15-foot setback is very much in character with the surrounding single-family homes along Chimney Rock, and the majority of the homes still sit at the original platted 15-foot building line.

Also, the site plan shows the home will meet the 30-foot setback along Evergreen Street and the driveway is off of the local street and not the major therapy.

The new backup curb distance along Chimney Rock Road is over 25 feet with six-foot sidewalks and the required safety buffer.

Staff has not received any objection to this request and recommends granting the development plat variants as submitted.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do I have a motion for staff recommendation?

Motion ballard, second Porsperdle.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Moving on to Ramon Numeral 4.

Establish a public hearing date of August 20th, 2026 for Aziz Vista, Charles Mont Street Views, Gomez Bigwood Development, St.

Augustine Park, and White Chapel Estate.

Do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Motion Garza.

Second Hines.

Second Heinz, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Moving to Ramon Numero 5.

Roman number 5 is a landscape variance for 1442 Summer Mayor Street.

The site is located east of Gestner Road and south of Hempstead Road, bounded by Summer Meyer Street, Winfern Road, and Teague Road.

The applicant is proposing a new waste transfer station and is requesting not to provide the required screening shrubs.

Staff is in support of this request.

The site currently houses a facility where trust is transferred from neighborhood collection vehicles to 18-wheeler trucks for transport to landfills.

The facility is proposed to be replaced, which triggers the compliance with landscaping.

The applicant proposes to meet the full street tree and parking lot tree requirement, but requests the variance to not provide the shrubs due to concerns.

The shrubs will provide shelter to pests, such as rats, raccoons, and other small rodents, and will make it difficult for cleanup services.

The property is surrounded primarily by industrial and non-residential sites, and the waste transfer station is an existing use.

The intent of the shrub requirements is to screen parking areas from the right-of-way.

But the proposed development only requires 10 parking spaces and 14 spaces are being provided.

The proposed trees and grass will help improve the overall look of the site and removal of overgrown vegetation will facilitate cleanup.

The city's urban forestry group has offered a letter of support of the variance request.

And due to concerns about public health and cleanliness, as well as the site's industrial location, staff's recommendation is to support the request and waive the requirement to plant screening shrubs.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

I do have a speaker, Denise V or Yee, I can't tell.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Denise Yi with RDLR Architects.

I am helping our office design this new waste transfer station.

And just wanted to make sure y'all, if y'all had any questions, I would be here to uh answer them.

Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Garza.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So first, and you may or may not be able to.

It looks immediately to the west of this.

It looks like a large neighborhood.

Is that industrial or is that residential?

Do you know?

Some residential, but it is mostly commercial.

Okay.

I want to make sure that the neighborhood surrounding, apparently to the west, has a fencing and light shielding.

So that I don't know if this plant is going to be working 24 7, but we want to make sure that we don't have any light pollution going into the neighborhood.

So that would be in my mind, part of this variance request, we would request that you make sure that there's shielded lighting so it's not going across the street into the neighborhood.

Um then um Mr.

Criddle, don't don't leave Mr.

But Mr.

Crittle, fencing requirements.

I'd also asked about an eight-foot fence on that line.

That's going to be a standard?

Yes.

Okay.

And then one more request.

I don't know what the standard is for trees every 10 feet, every I'd like to have more trees.

If I can't have shrubs, I'd like to have as many trees as we could possibly put in there.

Okay.

And that's more of a request than a demand.

So we are providing trees already along the entire perimeter of the property.

Okay.

That's enough for you.

Any more than we can do.

That's enough for me.

That's Ms.

That's perfectly fine.

That's enough for me.

So I'll just leave it at lighting.

If we could make sure that the lighting, at least on the west side uh uh where there might be housing, would be shielded to uh to keep back light pollution from going into that neighborhood.

That's all.

Noted.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you, Commissioner Garza.

Are there any other questions?

Okay.

So we have a recommendation by staff to approve.

Uh do I have a motion?

Motion Garza.

Second Heinz.

Motion Garza, second Heinz.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Sidia, are we ready to go back to item 93?

Yes, ma'am.

In coordination with the applicant, they are uh or in the property owner, they are insisting on moving with a unrestricted reserve.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

All right.

So we have a recommendation to approve the plat subject to the conditions listed, which does not require uh multifamily designation.

Yes.

Commissioner Garza.

And I want to make sure that legal is listening to me so I don't overstep.

Um so to the people who are here for this neighborhood, I understand very much.

I live in an old neighborhood myself.

We are restricted to what we can do by the recommendations by our legal.

I would say to you that you might pursue a legal remedy outside the purview of this commission.

And that's all we can say today.

We are we will ensure what the city ordinances allow us to do, but we can't go beyond that.

So again, um I don't want to overstep, but I think you might need to go to uh another forum to get um the response that you want.

So thank you.

And I I we so appreciate your being here, your vigilance, and your research, because we know keeping your neighborhood intact is a difficult thing, and we so appreciate the fact that you're doing that for your neighborhood.

So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Garza.

Any other questions or comments?

Okay, hearing none, I need a motion for staff recommendation of approval.

Motion Sigler.

Motion Sigler.

Second, Garza.

Second, Garza, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Carroll.

Please note that Commissioner Carroll uh is opposed.

And okay.

Who else?

Yeah, I have a question.

Okay.

Ballard opposed.

Ballard is opposed to the question.

Okay.

I'll do the opposed in a second.

Yes, Commissioner Sigley.

So I'd like legal to explain if it's a shall approve, how are commissioners opposing?

Okay.

Good point.

Good question.

Ms.

Cook, would you like to answer that, please?

I can't explain Commissioner's actions.

There, I I I suspect they just want their vote on the record.

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

So by show of hands, I need to know who is in favor.

Okay.

All opposed.

Opposed?

So Commissioner Sykes, Commissioner Ballard, and Commissioner Carroll.

Not on home.

Year four.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay.

Okay.

And Carroll.

Did you get all of those?

Okay.

Okay.

So the motion passes.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to round numeral six, public comment.

I don't have anyone signed for public comment.

Is there anyone that wishes to make one?

Okay.

Hearing none.

We'll adjourn this meeting at 3 57 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you, everyone.