Developers pitch regional retail center at NW corner of Kirby and Highway 6; utilities and incentives are key issues

Developers with BCS told the Manville City Council on July 21 they have strong market interest in a large mixed‑use retail development at the northwest corner of Kirby Drive and Highway 6, immediately west of Manville Town Center. The property is currently in the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), and developers asked council for direction on annexation, interlocal utility agreements and possible incentives.

What was presented: Ryan Sweeney and Jack Berger of BCS said the site has attracted interest from national anchors and regional users including home improvement, general retail and restaurant chains and medical users. They described an opportunity to build pads for anchors and many smaller tenants; some users were identified as “in discussion” but no signed leases were presented at the workshop.

Utilities and costs: Developers said the site lacks water, sewer and other utilities and that delivering them will require substantial off‑site infrastructure: public drainage, an extension of Kirby Drive, roughly 5,000 feet of sanitary sewer, and water line extensions. They proposed coordination with nearby residential developer Beazer Homes to create regional detention and reduce per‑project costs. Developers told council they would pay for much of the public work but would seek reimbursement mechanisms such as tax‑increment or 380‑style development agreements. They said MUD 42 and MUD 47 and associated interlocal agreements would play a central role in water and sanitary service, and that the city’s consent would be needed for certain annexation steps.

Why it matters: The developers emphasized potential sales‑tax revenue for Manville and said the site is appropriately spaced from existing regional centers, making it attractive to large anchors. Council members and staff asked questions about traffic impacts, timing and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) process for signalization at nearby intersections.

Council view and next steps: Council members expressed general support for further study while signaling caution about incentive packages and land‑use controls. The mayor said he prefers annexation before large incentives and suggested a Planned Development (PD) overlay to secure aesthetics and land‑use commitments. Council asked staff to work with the developers to (1) evaluate interlocal water and sewer agreements with nearby MUDs, (2) authorize or advise on a study of drainage and a traffic impact analysis (TIA) — developers indicated they will share some costs and coordinate with Beazer — and (3) return with a timeline and potential incentive structures for council review. Developers requested authorization to continue feasibility work promptly because they said their purchase option and market momentum are time sensitive.

Ending: No formal incentives or annexation were approved at the workshop. Developers were directed to provide updated technical studies (drainage, TIA, utility capacity estimates), and city staff agreed to assess legal and financial implications of possible reimbursements or incentive agreements.