Pearland staff and developers pitch 76-lot townhouse PD north of McHarg Road

Pearland city staff and developers presented a planned-development (PD) concept on Sept. 8 for an 11.849-acre townhouse-style subdivision north of McHarg Road and west of Old Alvin Road. The applicant proposes 76 single-family detached lots with alley access, two wet ponds at the frontage, community open space and 16 guest parking spaces. Staff said the site was annexed in 1960 and remains undeveloped.

Staff introduced the request as a workshop item. Katia (staff) said the selected base zoning is Townhouse Residential and noted the applicants earlier brought proposals for the same site (July 2024 workshop and a later 96-lot submittal that failed Planning & Zoning). Staff listed 15 requested deviations and said it supports area regulations and guest parking but asked for stronger, binding language in the PD packet about reduced setbacks, an achievable planting/landscaping goal, and clearer common-open-space detail. Staff recommended increasing building separation to 5 feet if reduced setbacks are approved instead of the 3 feet shown in the packet.

Scott Burrow of Sullivan Brothers Builders, joined by Kevin Stuckey, Julie Glass and Ed Cummins, walked the council and commission through two product types: a larger rear-entry single-family product and a smaller front-entry product. Burrow said the design aims for a craftsman look and to avoid streetscapes dominated by garage doors by placing alleys and rear entries in a central core. He told the group, “We’re gonna build it. It’s gonna look like that.” The applicant confirmed the units are intended to be for sale, not short-term rental; the team said HOA documents will include a one-year minimum lease restriction.

Council and PNZ members generally praised the design and rear-entry approach, saying it fits the residential context and offers a transition from commercial frontage to neighborhoods. Commissioners asked for clarification on lot widths (presented as 34' perimeter and 38' interior lots), material treatments (applicant said elevations will include a mix of masonry, Hardie siding and optional brick accents), driveway/sidewalk expectations, and whether utilities could be placed underground. Council members and staff discussed CenterPoint’s easement/tariff policy and asked staff to pursue tighter UDC guidance so future infill projects are more likely to underground utilities when feasible.

On stormwater and amenities, the applicant described two wet ponds with fountains at the front and a third detention area at the rear; councilmembers asked whether underground detention could be used to increase usable park space, but the builder said underground systems are costly and require clear long-term maintenance plans. The applicant said they remain open to evaluating alternatives and will return with refinements.

Next steps: staff requested a formal PD submittal with stronger, measurable language about landscaping, masonry percentages and open-space calculations, confirmation on fire-code setbacks and driveway/sidewalk design, and an updated utilities plan reflecting coordination with CenterPoint. The mayor and chair indicated sufficient favorable feedback for the applicant to return with a formal PD packet addressing those staff requests.