Developers seek annexation of Shell Road parcel; neighbors urge no apartments, no gas station

City planning staff presented an applicant’s request to return a property at Shell Road and Shell Spur to the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, with the developer also seeking eventual annexation and PUD zoning. Staff and the applicant described a concept plan that mixes commercial frontage, two tiers of multifamily and lower‑density multifamily meant as a transition to existing large‑lot homes.

Why it matters: the tract borders established estate homes and a future mobility corridor; neighbors emphasized compatibility, tree preservation and road improvements while warning that a county‑permitted on‑site wastewater (TLAP) option would be worse for neighbors than city annexation.

Sophia (planning staff) said the applicant asked to return the tract to the ETJ and pursue annexation and zoning; that request appeared on the council’s consent agenda. She described proposed land uses: a corner commercial area (Tracts 4 and 5), higher‑density multifamily and lower‑density multifamily as transition areas, and a proposed extension of Falling Leaf Lane to Shell Road to improve connectivity. The applicant’s concept would allow up to 434 units across the multifamily tracts under the current proposal, with proposed setbacks and a 125‑foot transition zone adjacent to single‑family lots.

The applicant, Amanda Brown (H.G. Brown Consulting), told council the owners had previously pursued a TLAP (TCEQ on‑site wastewater) approach when annexation seemed unlikely, and that bringing the property into the city would allow city standards, impact fees and utilities rather than a county wastewater permit. "Every single provision in the PUD is a betterment to the code," Amanda said, and she identified several voluntary PUD restrictions on a proposed convenience store site at the corner — a 30‑foot building setback, 6‑foot opaque wall to the south, limits on fueling islands and canopy materials that match the building.

Neighbors urged the council to require lower density and greater buffering. Carol Tharp (neighbor) said residents support annexation but oppose apartments and a convenience/gas station: "We would like to see the apartments go away," she said, and added that the neighborhood does not want a gas station at the corner. Another neighbor, Heath Culp, asked that road and signal improvements be delivered before major construction and expressed concern about spray irrigation under a TLAP permit if annexation did not occur.

Council feedback: a majority of councilmembers said annexation is preferable to the county TLAP permit and supported staff working with the applicant to reduce multifamily density, strengthen buffers and ensure compliance with the city’s Unified Development Code (UDC). Several councilmembers asked staff to prioritize transportation improvements at the Shell Road–Shell Spur intersection and to require the applicant to meet UDC standards for tree preservation (staff suggested using upcoming UDC code updates to calculate tree credits rather than exempting the project entirely).

What’s next: staff sought direction to work with the applicant on buffering, uses allowed in commercial zones, transportation commitments and tree‑preservation credits; staff and the applicant will proceed with municipal‑services‑agreement discussions, a planning‑and‑zoning review and eventual council action on annexation and zoning.

Ending: Council members broadly supported keeping the project under city jurisdiction so city development standards and impact fees apply and asked staff to return with refined PUD language and a transportation plan that addresses turn lanes and signalization needs.