Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I need you. Thank you. ¶¶

We do have a quorum tonight everyone is here and I will turn it over to introduction of agenda Good evening commissioners tonight the order of the agenda would be first the call to order followed by a staff report then followed by an applicant presentation and Then if there are any public comments to speak in support or opposition of each project, they are welcome to do so. If you are speaking on behalf of a project through public comment, please ensure you state your name for the record, be brief, and to the point within a three-minute time frame. Also, please make sure you have one of the green papers that are filled out so that we know who you are if you are not speaking as the applicant or owner of the property. Following that will be the commission and staff discussion. At that time, should the commission have any questions for the applicant, they can ask them then the commission will vote to recommend approval as presented, approval with conditions, or denial of the request, or should they need additional information, they may choose to table the item. On tonight's agenda, we have the consent agenda, which includes the excused absence of Commissioner Chad Comino from the August 3rd meeting. I never have to say his name out loud, so I apologize if I butchered that. Um, the approval of the minutes, as well as the preliminary plot of eight South industrial park and the preliminary plot of peril and preserve. And on a regular new business, we have the conditional use permit for a resale consignment shop in the business park, two 88 district, a zone change or amendments to the rice dryer commerce park plan development, and a zone change from neighborhood services to single family residential one located on Harki road. And that ends the introduction.

Wonderful, thank you. All right, moving on to consent agenda. Is there anything anyone is wishing to pull off the agenda?

Okay.

I will entertain a person, a second.

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

Okay, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor, sign by raising your right hand. Motion passes. And we're moving on to, oh, do I need to state that? Seven to zero, unanimous, sorry. I can state that going forward for the record. Thank you. All right, next we are moving on to new business. Sorry. I'm on the wrong page, excuse me. All right, new business number one, consideration of possible action, conditional use permit applicant CUP 2026-0354, public hearing a request for Dana Garnett, applicant on behalf of Amandali Virani, owner for approval of a conditional use permit for resale consignment shop use on approximately 2.438 acres of land within the business park 288 District. The property address is east of Business Center Drive, south of Broadway Street, and north of Magnolia Parkway, Pearland, Texas. EZ-26-070-Agenda Report. Negative.

Commissioner Haskins, motion to approve.

Commissioner Eisenberg, second.

Wonderful. We'll turn it over to staff.

Thank you, Chair. So my name is Patrick Bauer. I'll be making the staff presentation tonight. And so you'll maybe remember this property and this request a little bit. Originally came kind of mid-2026 and got approved by City Council in June. And so I'll kind of be walking you through where we are right now and what the applicant is requesting. And so bless you. So the applicant is proposing same-size building, a 15,000-square-foot resale and consignment shop. It's stored as open to the public for the purpose of dropping off clothing and other apparel items for resale and purchasing. And so a little bit of an update since that CUP approval in June. So that a new CUP has been submitted, this CUP, as the applicant had identified challenges to meeting Condition 7, which would be one of the conditions that US P&Z actually proposed Did not recommend approval or didn't add my bad didn't add because you all had 5 conditions and this was actually a city council. Addition to the conditions and so that 7th condition was requiring detention be a wet pond with a fountain. And so the applicant since then, they've noted that the. Proposed businesses insurance policy does not permit wet detention ponds and the ongoing maintenance and costs associated with a wet pond would create a significant burden to the long-term viability of the business. And so therefore they are essentially bringing a new CUP request to discuss that condition that was added by city council. So public notices and a notification sign were posted on the property, and to date, staff has not received any comments in support or against the request. Just a refresher, it's within the Business Park 288 district. That same zoning is in the area, and it's surrounded by a mixture of different commercial uses as well as 288 to the east. And it also is within the commercial center place type, and that same place type is surrounding it. So some history on the property annexed in 1996. It was originally platted as a part of the ZFAM property. It was a part of a bigger plat then. Since then, it has been officially replatted. I think previously they were going through the replat process, but now it has been replatted so that where they're doing the proposed development, it is its own lot now. And just additional, the CUP originally was denied in February, 2026. And then kind of coming a little more recently, it was resubmitted and approved by council at that June 2026 meeting. And at that time, it had seven conditions. Five of those were the staff-recommended conditions that y'all also recommended. And then there was two additional conditions added by council, which are shown below, which include one about cross-access, and then that seventh one, which is that wet detention pond was found shall be required. Note those. So we're going to look at the site plan and the landscape plan. I would say not much has changed. They maybe added some trees at the loading dock to kind of meet one of the staff recommended conditions or the CUP conditions. So they're kind of just updating the site plan slightly, but still the same size building, still access from business center. It's still the detention along the 288 side of the property. And here, again, is look at the elevations. Not much will have changed from the previous submittal. Just to show them again, the left-hand image kind of shows the west side, which would be from Business Center, the east side from 288, and then the south and north elevation would be facing the adjacent properties. And here's just another look, a rendering of, if you were looking at the site from Business Center, this is the proposed development. And then here would be the site if you were standing on 288 looking at the property. So the detention pod would be the first thing and then the building. And so in terms of some of the review criteria, I've met the comprehensive plan, that place type, as well as the thoroughfare plan. It'll still be required to meet the Business Park 288 regulations. And there is water and sewer to the site. As looking at the approval criteria for a conditional use permit, staff found that the request met five of the approval criteria and may meet two additional criteria with the staff's recommended conditions. And as mentioned, the proposed use is consistent with the policies of the comprehensive plan and the thoroughfare plan. And so staff recommends approval of the requested CUP with the following conditions. Condition one is that the two parking lot trees shall be provided in the end cap islands in the row of parking adjacent to the northwest side of the building and the tree shall be in a three inch caliper measured at 12 inches above the root ball and the tree shall be evergreen. Two, that the keeping, displaying, or storing of any goods, materials, merchandise, or equipment outside of the principal building shall be prohibited, and any material, debris, or refuse dropped off on site must be located inside the building immediately or be transferred to the dumpster Three is that the proposed elevations shall be substantially conformed to the attached concept elevation sheet with the requirement that a minimum 25% of the exterior wall facing business center drive shall be transparent. Condition four is that the exterior wall facing 288 shall provide a minimum 18% tinted or spandrel glass as shown on the proposed elevations and material shall substantially conform with those illustrated on those concept elevations. And five is that no sign shall be permitted to be placed on the Spandrel-Las facing State Highway 288. Just as a reminder, it is up to the commission at the end of the day, but it is up to you whether you add six or seven or one or the other or both to your recommendation at the end of the day. It's up to you all to decide to add those or not to add those. And that concludes staff's report.

Thank you. And now moving on to applicant. Is the applicant here? And are you wishing to do a presentation? OK. Great. All right. We'll move on to commission discussion.

Just to affirm, I heard you say you're here. No presentation, but you're here to answer questions.

OK.

The two council.

I'm sorry, we forgot to open up the floor for public comment.

Well, of course I knew that.

I'm so sorry. Is there anyone in the audience that's wishing to speak for or against this item? Anyone wishing to speak for or against? Now moving on.

Feeling much better now. Any way we can pull up the two council, additional council, what do they call those? Conditions. Conditions, thank you. Maybe I should have thought of my words while we were reviewing the, yeah. The cross-access, is that not already a city rule?

It is, and it's on the plat. There's already a note that would say cross-access and driveway requirements are to be provided, essentially. So that's also just a general engineering requirement.

And that's what I thought. I thought that was promoted by the city. So in my opinion, and I'm not a council member, but in my opinion, it's not necessary to have that item. As for the wet detention, I was present at the council meeting. I listened intently. That was one of those last-minute things that they added. And just to give, I guess I want to share what I heard from that meeting. It was added at the last minute, but it was also, I believe the reason was that When one of the council members, the person that brought it up, exits the freeway, and sometimes you get stuck there, he said he sees a detention pond that he's not very happy with, and I think it belongs to the car wash. And so it's a dry detention, and so he said, you know, I'd like to see wet detention to improve the area. To me, that's a code enforcement issue, not... not an issue to apply. But again, on the other hand, it is a CUP and we have the right to ask that if that's something we really want. That being said, I don't believe any of the other uses there are going to be a CUP. So they're going to be able to put whichever detention they prefer. I did hear, I spoke to the applicants on my way out after the meeting, or after I left the meeting. And I believe that that is going to be a deal killer for them, the wet detention, because the lessee or the leasehold, the goodwill, their insurance doesn't allow for, as stated by Patrick. So I concur. I don't think it's needed. As long as they beautify that detention pond And I understand they offered lots more of landscaping than average. I don't know that for a fact. I just heard that. You could elaborate on that if it's true or false.

So one of the requirements that the Business Park 288 district has is that essentially it says whenever you have a detention pond on the site, you need to amenitize it. Now with the UDC, the UDC doesn't say directly, or it doesn't say, hey, the only way you can amenitize is with a wet pond. It essentially says, hey, it needs to be amenitized, and that can be met in a number of different ways, such as you can make it wet, you could provide more landscaping, you could put a trail around it and put benches. It doesn't say you have to do this, or it doesn't. So one of those mechanisms that we've seen people do is, We say, hey, if you're going to do trees, then you have to do it around the entire thing because that's not normally something that we would require someone to do, but you need to amenitize it. You need to go above and beyond and put more landscaping than what would normally be required there.

I would be fine with that. So anyways, the other five I'm okay with. We looked at them last time, so that's all I have.

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

And can you just state your name for the record, please?

My name is Nelufar Nazarian.

What do you do for them?

I am the owner's architect.

All right. So you don't know anything about the operations?

No, sir.

The people they might be employing there?

No, sir.

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.

Not on that part, but we are proposing a dry detention pond, which we've updated one of the renderings for our presentation to include additional landscaping around the dry detention pond that exceeds the minimum city code requirement. And that rendering right there.

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

So I want to say there's people that drive 288 more than me on a daily basis, but I believe if you're on the feeder, the wall is not, there's not a wall there.

There's like a traffic barrier type wall on 288. On the side. Yes, so that people can't drive off of 288 into the grass on the right of way.

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

I will note, just for purposes of safety, the detention pond, even if it's wet or dry, they have to put a fence around it. So they're required to put that just for engineering purposes because that's just a safety concern in general. So no matter what they do, they have to put up a fence around it that's essentially a wrought iron fence.

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

We will have the landscape plan updated for the next meeting. But on the site plan markup itself, we are showing the landscape correct around the detention as well as the existing trees that are in the right of way. That's not a part of the tract, but it is also shown in the rendering view as well.

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.

Understood.

When you meet with them.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Yeah, if it's not an engineering reason why it has to be wet, I'm fine with it. I like the landscaping. I do agree that eyeshine, well, formerly eyeshine is blue wave now. By the way, great car wash. I went there yesterday. They don't have any trees behind their detention pond, so I can see that being an eyesore, but if it's landscaped the way we see it here, I'd be good.

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 that needs to be considered on engineering and council side of how do you keep the ponds to where they're not growing out of control. But that's probably why they were adamant about that. I mean, other than there is this amenity thing that's required on the state highway. But yeah. That's it.

Thank you. And we expect the tenant to be present for the next meeting who can speak to the ongoing maintenance for that and cleaning of the dry detention pod.

Quick question, Patrick. In this design that we're looking at, is there actually a fence around that detention?

So there may not be one here, but it will be required. That's something that...

Okay.

And you know, it will require it for the detention.

I just want to make sure. Did you have another question? Any other discussion? All right, let's call for a vote. Okay, I just have a quick question.

It's got to be amended.

Yeah, I was just going to...

It's got to be amended, right?

Yeah, that's exactly what I was just going to say.

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

If you add it as a condition, you're just, I don't want to say, you're doubling up. You're doubling up on things.

Right, but it's going to be included.

It's going to be, and it's even, even if you were to say, well, the code doesn't say it, well, it's on the plat. It's on a recorded plat now, so it's a note in there, but it is in the engineering design criteria manual.

If you want to withdraw your original motion and amend your motion, you can...

that and then have an amended motion and a second to that six and seven would be the only two we need to we would need to add six doesn't need to be at it or is it all so you can this would be a new request so you you define the conditions that you as p and z want to add is it one through five is it One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. You define the conditions because this is viewed as a new request.

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.

Anyone can second it.

Second it. Azenberg.

So we call for the vote. Since they had a motion and a second on the amendments from the original, the same two, do we still need to vote on the motions?

Yes. Yes, we do. We always went that you didn't. Yes. There was an amendment. Instead of withdrawing the original motion, the original motion was amended. So you'll vote on the amended and then go back to the original.

Yeah.

So we call for a vote on the amended motion.

All those in favor, sign by signing your right hand.

The motion passes 7-0, unanimous. And then a vote to approve the amended motion would be the last vote here. All right. Now we're going to vote to approve the amended motion. Everyone sign by raising your right hand. Passes unanimously. Moving on to item number two, consideration of possible action zone change, zone 2026-0287, a request by Paul Glenn, applicant, on behalf of 4401 Rice Driver, Inc., for approval of amendments to the Rice Dryer Commerce Park Plain Development on approximately 2.8185 acres of land, and the address is 4477 Rice Dryer Road, Pearland, Texas. I get a motion and a second.

Commissioner Haskins, motion to approve.

Commissioner Knight, second.

Turn it over to you.

Thank you, Chair. So this is a property that is within the Rice Dryer Commerce Park PD. And specifically, this amendment that they're requesting is only for their tract. This is a tract within that larger PD. So it's that 2.8185-acre tract. And specifically, they're requesting amendments for proposed development, and they're requesting to reduce the minimum percentage of office space that is required by that PD, as well as the required parking for the site. And so on this site, they're proposing to do a approximately 52,000 square foot building with 163 square feet of office and 51,110 square feet of warehouse space. So Steph posted the legal ad in the Parallel News Reporter. Public notices were sent to all property owners within 200 feet, and the applicant did post signs on the property. And to date, Steph has not received any comments in support or against the request. And so here on the map, we get a look at the subject property, which is outlined in yellow. And then the red outlines the overall PD. And so, reminder, this PD amendment is only for that subject track, the subject property. and is currently undeveloped and surrounded by a mixture of mostly industrial uses, office warehouses, equipment rental warehouses, and chemical manufacturing. In terms of the future land use plan is within the professional services and industrial place type. It's a little history on the property. The subject land was originally annexed into this PD in May 2018. It was actually, it was an add-on. It wasn't a part of the original, but it was an add-on. And then another PD amendment was done to change some of the regulations regarding minimum building size. And that was done in April 2019. And that affected the entire PD as a whole. And then this subject tract was plotted in March of 2019 as a larger tract. And then it was further subdivided into its current 2.8185 acres in September of 2019. And the site was previously developed as kind of more of an industrial site. And then since that time, the buildings were moved between 2018 and 2020. And the site has remained undeveloped since that time. And so going through some of the two proposed amendments and kind of laying out, this is what the current PD requires, and then this is what the amendment would be. So the first one has to do with that minimum percentage of office space. And so the applicant is requesting that the reduction be from the minimum 10% of gross floor area required for office, that it be amended down to a minimum 3% of the gross floor area of office. And this is based on their use. And they actually have a site plan which will show you where the office is on the site. And then in terms of the parking requirement, this one's kind of based on the use as well in the larger warehouse space, but they're requesting that they be able to reduce down from what the current warehouse ratio is of one space per 2,000 square feet down to, or down in number of parking spaces, but... to one space per 5,000 square feet for the warehouse space. And then the office ratio, they're proposing to stay the same, because that'll still serve as just an office where workers are. So here we get a look at the site plan for the property, and this is included with the PD amendment. And so Rice-Dryer Road is on the bottom. Of the image, Halleck Road is at the top and the railroad tracks are on the west side of the property. And so access is from Reichstraße Road and Halleck Road. And the office space is this portion at the front of the building with the rest of it being a warehouse space as well as kind of receiving area for trucks coming in and out. So here we also, this is a part of the PD amendment, was renderings of the building. And it should be noted that this complies with the PD requirements, the PD has specific requirements for materials. So this rendering does comply with that. And this kind of front building, this would be where that office space would be with everything else being the warehouse for the development. And so looking at the approval criteria for PD amendments, staff found that the request met all the criteria for approval. And so in terms of the office space amendment, it is consistent with the allowed uses in the standard M1 district, which is the M1 district is the base zoning for this area of the PD. And if we were in the standard M1 district of the UDC, there isn't a requirement that says There's a minimum amount of office you have to have for a warehouse. And then additionally, the requested parking reduction is based on the proposed building usage being predominantly a warehouse space. And then also the applicant has also included renderings of the proposed buildings that are consistent with the PD requirements. And so therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested amendments for the 2.8185 acre lot. And that concludes staff's report.

Thank you. Is the applicant here? Hi. Do you have a presentation that you have prepared? Okay. Perfect.

All right.

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

I'm so sorry. All right. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this item? Anyone here wishing to speak for or against? Okay. We will move on to commission discussion.

I appreciate Third Coast wanting to expand in our town, as always. I mean, that's a welcome. Any business wanting to do so, and somebody has established or a group has established a Third Coast, very welcome site. I did have one question for staff, but I answered my own question in my I was going to ask, it seems kind of strange to have a PD amendment with a user, a different owner of the other parcels within that PD. Is that true? Inside this PD, are there multiple owners? Yes. I was going to ask that question, and I thought, well, wait, I used to work at Shadow Creek Ranch, and I think there's about 7,000 to 12,000 different owners there. Within Shadow Creek Ranch and one PD. So that was a dumb question. So look forward to seeing this. I appreciate that the old buildings were torn down and we have some new construction and new life. And congrats to the EDC. I'm assuming they helped in some way. But if nothing else, they improved Halleck Road and maybe even Rice Dry Road. So good for the city. Good for Third Coast.

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

Yeah. I don't think it'll show up. Maybe it'll show up. This bottom section of the PD was meant for essentially regional detention for the entire PD.

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

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

And can you just make sure you state your name for the record? Thank you.

Sure. My name is Paul Glenn. I'm chief of staff for Third Coast.

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 it's a pretty tight squeeze in there for the warehouse size.

Sure. We have 17 spots that are available for parking here. This is just going to be a finished goods warehouse. We'll be producing the packaging on Macawa and moving it to a finished goods warehouse where it would just be picked up by truck drivers.

Okay.

So we won't have necessarily a lot of employees, I'm going to say, 10 to 15 employees. And if we have to work two shifts, then we would have up to 30 employees that could work at this location. So it's just a finished goods warehouse for the operation that is on Makawa.

I appreciate your answer. Thank you.

If the demand increases, this property is sold in the future, could you accommodate the 10% requirement then?

I'm going to let the applicant actually weigh in on his letter of intent, so I'll let Paul weigh in.

Yeah, we had plans to bring in trucks on Halleck and have them leave on Rice Dryer. I would think if it changed to a different type of entrance, you could put parking all down the... down that road area right there.

This is probably a question for staff. So is this 3% reduction just for this parcel in development and not a broader entitlement?

Just for this development. The rest of the PD still has to follow it. It's just being requested for this one development.

I think we're done with our discussion. We're gonna vote on it. Everyone in favor, sign by raising your right hand. Motion passes seven to zero. All right, number three. Consideration of possible action, zone 2026-0292, zone change applicant. A request by Alberto Ruiz, applicant and owner on behalf of George and Deborah Harrell, owners, for approval of a zone change of approximately 7.77 acres of land, being the entirety of a 1.0002 acre tract 1 and a 2.6622 acre tract and a 4.0002 1098 Acre Tract 3, further described below from Neighborhood Services to Single Family Resident District. And the property address is 2821 Harkey Road, 2829 Harkey Road, and PID 219070, Pearland, Texas. Can I have a motion and a second for approval?

Commissioner Haskins, motion to approve. Commissioner Como, second.

All right, turn it back to you, staff.

Good evening. Tract 1 contains a residential structure which is to be demolished and a new custom home constructed on a replatted Tract 1 and 2. Tract 3 is to be developed at a future date as residential. And the existing NS district permits neighborhood scale retail and commercial services while the requested R1 zoning limits use to low density single family residential. Notice tracks one two and three on the right At the time of this presentation we have received no written comments or phone calls in support or against the request a legal ad was posted in the parallel news reporter and 21 public notices were sent to property owners within 200 feet and a notification sign was placed on the property by the applicant Here are the surrounding uses. To the north is R1 with single family residential. To the south is a church. To the east is a church, undeveloped land and minor auto repair use. And to the west is a single family residential neighborhood. Here is the future land use plan. This area is identified as commercial center. Some of the primary land uses in the commercial center, future land use, are retail, restaurants, multi-tenant commercial, and junior anchor commercial. Some history of the site. In 1951, tract three was plotted as a portion of the larger lot 13 in the Johnson subdivision. Lot three is the west half of that plotted lot. In 1967, a wood barn was constructed on Track 3 per county records. In 1970, a single-family residence was developed on Track 1. In 2024, Tracks 1 and 2 were platted. Currently, Track 1 contains that single-family residence, which is to be demolished should the rezoning be approved. Track 2 is undeveloped, and Track 3 contains a wooden barn. Here is the proposed elevation or home. These are the criteria for approval for zone changes. Notice that it does not meet the first requirement. The first requirement speaks to meeting the land identified in the future land use plan. The request satisfies three of the four approval criteria under UDC section 2214. The proposed single family residential one, R1 zoning district aligns with the established single family residential and church uses along Harkey Road. Rezoning from commercial to single family residential reduces project utilities, projected utilities, excuse me, traffic generation, commercial lighting, and operational noise adjacent to residential properties. Staff recommends approval of the requested zone change from Neighborhood Services NS District to Single Family Residential 1 R1 District. This concludes staff presentation.

Thank you. Now I'll turn it over to the applicant. The applicant here, would you like to do a presentation? If you'll just state your name for the record, please.

Yes. My name is Adalberto Ruiz, R-U-I-Z for the record. And I'm going to open this up on the pad. Thank you so much. Well, so I'm here with our beautiful neighbors, George and Deborah Harrell. And so, you know, I'll be brief. We agree with the staff request of approval clearly and hope that you all do as well. But this property for us is a family endeavor and we're truly hoping that We can create something special in this space. This is my family, and my wife is here today, Bianca. And we are looking forward to be able to build a family home, a family estate and legacy here in Pearland. We have four children, five pets, and a very busy household. And we love Pearland. We're here to stay. My wife has been here since she was in middle school. I've been here for over 10 years at the Reese Law Firm down the road. And we want to give back, not only in our work and in our daily lives, but also by putting a wonderful, beautiful addition to this community by building this home. And in that way, adding and beautifying the community. The staff request, and this is kind of an aerial without the overlays of the red and yellow things, but this shows what is currently there on the property. And you can see that it's really surrounded by neighborhoods. Already it's residential in its character. There's schools and there's some churches for the most part. And I think that back at the time when the development of Pearland was being thought out, they thought maybe this would be a good location for a commercial center. However, we believe and agree with the city staff that it's a little bit too far south, and we haven't seen a lot of business developments reaching this far into the neighborhood, and we believe that it would be misplaced to continue that development plan, which was the only negative point on the staff's recommendations. And so we believe that the commercial center that was intended there doesn't fit there. There's already structures on the property, they're owned by private owners, and it would require a great deal of knocking things down and completely re-envisioning that space and that area. And then we have, this is really what the city, what we're looking at here, the large red square, or the square that's outlined in red is the area that we're asking to have rezoned into R1. And when you look at what is actually on the ground, you can understand why the city staff question whether the commercial center designation still fits this area. It simply does not function as a major commercial center in this location. And we're not asking the city council to disregard Pearland's comprehensive plan. We're asking the council and this planning zoning committee to recognize what the professional staff has also acknowledged, and that is that the map and the development pattern on the ground don't comply with the plan that was envisioned many years ago when that commercial concept was proposed. So the Harrells have been in town for many, many years, as long as some of you perhaps when the roads were still being paved and there was more cows and people. And they have invested in this property and they have always envisioned the property as a family area. They have really worked hard to preserve the character of the land. And Mr. Harrell wakes up every day and on a weekly basis, this gentleman wakes up at five o'clock in the morning to cut the lawn of the 7.77 acres that we're talking about today. And we're grateful for that. And because of that, the quality of the property has been maintained. And these wonderful people have really spent a lot of time investing in Pearland and really keeping the character of the property in place for future residents. And we happen to be that new generation of residents who are coming and really want to invest in Pearland and in improving the property and the land uses where available. But if we look at the difference between what the current zoning implicates the NS uses are for retail services, restaurants. You know, Harki is a two-lane road, right? It comes in and it comes out. There's some plans to expand the road, but that's for many, many years down the way. Currently, it's not designed for the kind of impact of traffic and stress that NS is envisioning. And so... If you compare that to the R1 character of the implications, we have much less traffic, much less lighting, much less noise, and much less danger of completely changing the neighborhood and creating an impact that the neighbors may not appreciate. In comparison, we are talking about a family home that is just going to allow us to do some amazing things and really keep the character of the neighborhood. I don't have the picture of the home that we're going to build, but I can promise you that it's number one, going to take a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to build a home. And number two, that when it's done, it's going to be an amazing, beautiful addition to the community. We look forward to continuing to work with you because there are so many other hurdles to cross to get there. And we appreciate your time and any questions you have.

Thank you so much. Right now we open up to public comments. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this item? Anyone wishing to speak for or against this item? We will move it over to Commission discussion.

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 Pearland, and I don't have a problem approving this at all, and I wish you luck in your endeavors.

Thank you.

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?

Any future development in that NS parcel to the east will need to have a specified setback against the residential property. It's for future development. So it's...

So is it the same setback or will it change?

I think it increases slightly.

You know what it would increase to?

So it'd be the buffer requirement. And I would say right now, and I guess the residential lot is not actually touching it, but I know that church, because the church to the south, just as an example, I know it came for a CUP in the past because churches had to get a CUP. And they actually, when they developed that church to the south of this lot, they had to do it with the buffer because even though it's NS zone, it still had a residence on it. And the way the code reads is whether it's residentially used or zoned, whichever one, you have to do a buffer adjacent. So just to say it will have to do a buffer if it's done for residential. I believe that one is a church already and the other's manufactured homes to the east of this property. One's a church and the other's manufactured homes.

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

So the change in the buffer, and I'm trying to remember if that church actually had to do a buffer because that one did get developed. Recently, it would be either a 25-foot buffer with a masonry wall and trees or a 30-foot buffer with just vegetation, trees, ornamental trees, shrubs.

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.

Yeah, I would say there's not a way to actually, because the CUP is only for this property. And so I would say this, I would say what you're kind of talking about is something that's very specific to like the garden of day mixed use. You see what you're talking about. We see it a lot in that area where you have a residence and a non-residential right next to each other. And the way the code reads is whoever actually comes first, they don't have to do the buffer and it's whoever comes after first. has to do it, but we can't put a CUP or put a condition that the adjacent property doesn't have to provide the buffer?

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?

Yes, yeah.

Not that there's no buffer.

Yeah, yeah, and I would say CUPs, though, we can't place conditions on other properties with a CUP. We can only put conditions on vets. Or zone change, my bad. Sorry. But even the zone change, sorry. Even a zone change, we don't have conditions that can be placed on zone changes that can dictate another property's regulation. That's where their zoning would dictate what the regulations would be for that property.

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?

It'll be 10 or 15 feet difference. So they'd either have to do another 10 foot, because it's 15 right now, so they'd have to do another 10 foot and they could do a masonry wall or they could do a 15 foot and they can do just buffer and regular fencing. But I would also encourage, like looking at this and how the property would most likely develop on Wagon Trail, which is to the right, I would think it's unlikely they would get that close to that property line anyways, just because it's the furthest back on their land.

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

And so I think the impact, in my opinion, would be fairly minimal, but that would do this, and there's nothing we could do here that would add some sort of requirement or reduce a requirement from that eastern property when it came in to redevelop.

Yeah, done.

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?

Yeah, yeah, because the entire lot was a residence before, and we have this with lots that They've always been a residence and then we may have changed the zoning or they may have come into the city and got a zoning that may have not been a single family residential zoning. And so the way the code reads is it's not, you have to, if it's a single family zoning, that's the only way you get a buffer if you're commercial, if it's the use or the zoning. And so those properties, and I know one of the churches, because they developed, maybe three years back, and I can't remember off the top of my head how the site plan looked at that time, but they would have been required to provide that buffer because it was a residence currently existing. If there wasn't anything on that property, then no one would have ever had to do anything because it would have just been an NS property with no existing residential use on it.

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.

Thanks for the presentation. My comment is really just kind of general. I think this is a good example of what we need to look at in the next future land use or comprehensive plan update because this probably should be residential, identified as residential already. I live not far from this area, and I would not want to see any type of commercial neighborhood services here. It just wouldn't make any sense. So I just want to make sure that when we go through that next update that we kind of look at areas like this and clean it up so we don't have to go through these procedures.

Just to tag on what you're saying, I agree 100%. Those properties along Josephine Drive, those also, and this is just a side comment, not necessarily pertaining to this particular zone change request, but are those all non-conforming? Because they show as NS. So do we want to take a look at anything there as well in the future?

I guess I'm unmuting. Yeah, so looking at this, staff does agree that the future land use plan, when the comp plan was done, got this one wrong. And it really looks like this swath in general should most likely be some residential zoning district. And up to Josephine and maybe even a block above that, too.

And that's no slight. I mean, we were all in those rooms together, right, looking at these things. Those things are time sensitive. I mean, if we looked at every single tract in Pearland, we'd still be working on that comprehensive plan. So we took general looks from the 10,000 foot level or 2,000 foot level, not granular. The other thing I would say, you know, I always look for reasons to support or deny. The churches themselves, I mean, I don't consider those NS, but they don't have to change their zoning right i mean they're allowed by right in in a lot of districts correct churches are a cup use in the neighborhood services district so they came in for a cup i'm assuming the one to the south and to the to the east um and if yeah it'd have been nice to just go through a zone change and put them as an r something just that's my own opinion without basis. I appreciate very much what they're doing. It sounds to me like they're going to demo a house, put a new one on there, and they need the zone change. Otherwise, when they demo the house, it's a non-conforming use. Similar to, God forbid, this storm that's coming in, if it had knocked this structure down, they could not have rebuilt it. if there was more than 50% of the value damage, uh, because it's a nonconforming use and, and, and, and shame on us for not having that fixed ahead of time. Right. But all in all, you're getting it done and, and that's what matters. Um, I do, I do it quick cause there's a storm coming. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'll talk, I'll talk faster. Um, one thing though, that, that just, just how I think, um, If we're allowing an R1 use, we're also allowing... It's fine that you put in a pretty rendition and you say you got a plan, but you could put a drive straight down the middle of this thing and develop single-family lots, right? And I'd be okay with that because R1 itself is a larger lot development, so I'd be okay with that. The last thing I'll say is you gave us a business card, and on there it says you are a... Proud U.S. Marine veteran, so I appreciate your service. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your presentation. I do kind of agree with everyone. I think the compatibility for this property definitely fits R1. Is there any other discussion? Anyone need? Trey, you good? All right, let's call for a vote. All those in favor, sign by raising your right hand. The motion passes unanimously 7-0. All right. Next on to discussion items.

All right. Good evening, everyone. So we've had two city council meetings in between our planning and zoning commission meetings in the month of August, as there were five Mondays in August. So we got a week off. So on consent for August 10th, we had the rules of procedure for the planning and zoning commission, and they were approved. As well as an extension request for the chemical packaging blending use within M1, located at 4902 Shank. And the development agreement with Beezer Homes was approved. As far as new business goes, the auto wash for 1705 Broadway Street was denied by City Council. And then looking at August 24th, we had the conditional use permit for the auto rental on 6906 Broadway. This was for the Enterprise. And it was approved with staff recommended conditions. And then we had a zoning change for the almost 11-acre property at 7409 Bailey. And that vote was unsuccessful with the city council. And so I did want to discuss the rules of procedure that was approved. on the 10th of August. So with that, our time is available to be shifted back by 30 minutes to have our meeting start at 6 o'clock. The first available meeting date that that is going to be allowed is likely the October 5th meeting. And so if you all are willing to do that, we can make that change. Or if you'd like until October 19th, we can do that. We cannot accommodate September 21st. Okay. We will make that change and we'll send an email out as a reminder of the 30-minute shift. And please let us know if it's not working. All right. City Council and Planning and Zoning Workshop. We have a workshop on September 14th from 4 to 6 p.m. We are discussing the Unified Development Code update with focus on zoning districts. And then just continuing on. We have another workshop on September 28. From 3 to 6, we have a two-hour time slot to discuss the UDC update related to an update on ADUs, trigger table, hotel standards. And we have a separate plan development for an age-restricted housing slash rental home along Magnolia. And that's a long one, 3 to 6. And then finally, our next P&Z is on September 21st at 6.30.

And that concludes my update. Thank you.

Can I ask a follow-up question then? September 14th, 4 to 6, UDC updates with focus on zoning. Anything in particular?

Zoning districts.

So we're going to take a look at what's R1. Terrible example. R1, R2, R3, those categories.

That's a good comment. Currently we have 28 zoning districts in the city and we are looking to receive feedback on some comments that we've received over the last year related to consolidating, looking at the size of each zoning district, so area requirements, setback requirements, lot width, lot depth, maximum height, maximum lot coverage, as well as potentially some plan developments. what we want our PDs to look like. As some of you may have recalled, we have continuously talked about having a tiered PD, PD light, and then PD heavy. So getting some feedback. And then the next is going to be talking about the updates to everything we've already talked about. So just kind of following up on those discussions to recognize that they haven't been forgotten, that we're continuing to move along in this process.

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?

Absolutely.

OK.

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

We do not. City is closed on September 7th.

Just thought I'd ask.

I think it's the 7th.

We'll check in. Thank you.

Good comment, though. One P&Z meeting in September for everyone to look at their calendars. You guys have any other questions?

Yes, and I think you may have, I know you asked me if I get these. I'm getting emails on the city email that's not, it's not Lexapro, something like that.

Lexapoll? So that's a software system the city uses for city policies. So you may be getting automated e-mails that go out to all city employees asking you to approve policies or changes to policies?

I had an attachment, didn't know who it was from, didn't open it. I stayed away from it. The second thing I get is also benefits information.

I think they're e-mail blasting everyone right now.

I do, too. I was just wondering if that was for their insurance. Maybe that could be clear.

Yeah, we get benefits.

Yeah, I did bring it to Stacy's attention about a week ago that we were getting all the, I assumed y'all were getting all the same ones I was. But I couldn't even get into the Lexa poll or whatever it was. So if you got in, you did better than I did. All right, anything else? All right, our meeting is adjourned at 7.36.