Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commissioner Haskins, motion to approve. Commissioner Eisenberg, a second.

Commissioner Haskins, motion to approve.

I'm Commissioner Knight. Can you answer a couple of questions for me, please, ma'am?

All right. So you don't know anything about the operations? The people they might be employing there? I have a concern that that could be a danger for some of the people they normally employ at the Goodwill stores, the water and the wet retention. And I agree with you down there that, you know, I think with the other one down there already having dry detention, I think it's unfair to ask them to put in wet detention at a much higher cost since they've already agreed to do the landscaping. That's all I had. I was just curious if you knew what they were going to serve in there.

Does anybody in the city know, is that wall actually there?

There's already a lot of things there that are deflecting the line of sight anyway. Thank you. That's all I have.

Commissioner Hendricks here. I like the additional landscaping that you have. If you were to build it like this, I don't think I could quickly see that there was a pond there. So I'm quite fine with that and the additional trees. Do you have a landscape plan that shows, like, are you going to be able to show city council this

Yeah, because the rendering doesn't quite match this. So I think you're going to have a, unless they match, I think council's going to give you a hard time again. So I'd make sure I give them a clear landscape plan.

What I was going to say is that unfortunately this is not on you, but There are dry ponds all throughout Pearland where they don't maintenance them and they don't maintain them and they let cattails and everything else grow. And they look really, really bad. They look trashy. And so I think that is the problem is just the people that have come before you have let that get out of control. And I think that almost has to be more on a city policy side. And if they don't want to see that, then they could get their ponds inspected and every year or two years or whatever. But I think that's something

And... back to the to the last amendments the ones at council um as number six is required by design through engineering that's already included and does not need to be included on on the yeah i mean it's not like it

I would recommend we just leave six in there since it's already a double dip. It doesn't matter whether it is or not. I would just remove seven. That would be my recommendation.

I'll amend my motion to include conditions one, two, three, four, and five to my motion.

Commissioner Haskins, motion to approve.

I will turn it over to I'm just having a hard time with that tonight. It's written in my notes. I know.

This might be a question for the owner. Is this utilizing, is there regional detention?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Thank you for clarifying.

Commissioner Knight, I have a question for you. Can you please, sir?

Thank you for coming. I appreciate that y'all are putting this in. It's going to be great for the city and the revenue it's going to generate. And it looks like it's a great use of this space. My only concern is I know these things, sometimes warehouses, you get periods where you're rushed. And I'm a little concerned about how much actual parking you have. I really don't see but a few extra areas you could add spots. How are you going to handle that if you do have a rush and you have too many people in there? Because it looks like most all of this around this is going to be fire lanes because

Thank you very much, sir. And thank you for being a part of Pearland for as long as you have. As long as you have. I think you're right, and there's a couple of places, and staff has recognized this before, there's a couple of places that through no fault of anyone, but we have filled in a couple of spots like this before where it just makes sense. with what's been developed around and approved to be developed around, not necessarily by right, but approved to be developed around certain small areas like this. I appreciate you wanting to live and stay in Pearland, and like I said, work in Pearl

Okay, can you go back to the zoning map? So when we look at that, there's a neighborhood services track behind them. If they zone this residential, what will the impacts be to that neighborhood services? Will they have any setbacks that they'll have to, that would change? Or can they develop as normal?

So is it the same setback or will it change?

Yeah, no, but what would be the change in the buffer?

Is there a way that we can, so because the person that owns the neighborhood services, there's two tracks they could develop further back. Is there a way that we could notate to where there cannot be impacts to those properties? Because I don't have an issue with the residential home. I just don't think it would be fair. If somebody owns neighborhood services track today, now somebody comes and rezones the land behind them, and they had the assumption that they could utilize the property, and now that's changed.

No, it's not the additional, whatever the additional. So if the buffer was 20 and now it's going to go to 30 because we rezoned this property. then I think the condition should be they don't have to meet that additional 10. Does that make sense?

But do we actually know what that impact to the properties behind them would be? Like, exactly? What's all involved? Is there like masonry wall now? I mean, what's the list?

Yeah, I mean, I agree. I just don't want to impact somebody else's commercial property, essentially, or neighborhood service property.

Commissioner Knight, let's go back. Early in this discussion, Patrick, you said that because these are already residential, even though they're NS that people behind them already still had to abide by that buffer. So what we're saying, what she was asking, I think, and what we didn't get answered correctly is you're saying, in effect, this will have no effect on the buffer they have in place right now because it's residential, it's being used as residential, so they would have to observe the residential setbacks, correct?

But just to state it again and make sure not any too much where it's missed, this will have no effect on it because it's already being used as residential. So everybody on the east side already have that buffer requirement, correct? Yes. Yes? Yes. I just want to make it on record. Appreciate it. Thank you.

I was going to say that one of those topics came up as the office, little mini offices that we don't have. I mean, we do have some in Pearland for sure. But it seemed like it could be in multiple zoning. It should be added in. I think that was something we discussed. Would that be something we could talk about?

I do. Can we confirm, I'm assuming so, but we do not have a P&Z meeting on Labor Day?