Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pecan District topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers present scaled‑back Pecan District plan and ask tourist board to help fund Festival Street upgrades
Summary
Developers from Presidium described a scaled‑back first phase of the Pecan District that prioritizes a pedestrian-centered “Festival Street,” reduces office and structured parking, and requests roughly $5 million from the TIRS toward about $20 million in near‑term infrastructure needs.
At the Boards and Commissions meeting, developer Sid Galindo and the Presidium team presented a revised plan for the Pecan District, saying market shifts since the original master plan made office and structured parking infeasible and required a phased, lower‑density approach.
"We are here to talk about how we are having to adapt and overcome with the new realities of development and the economy," Sid Galindo said, framing the change as a way to preserve the project’s public‑realm goals while keeping the work financially viable. Presidium designers described a first phase centered on a Festival Street — a curbless, pedestrian‑oriented boulevard flanked by single‑story retail — supported by temporary surface parking behind the storefronts.
Harrison Petrovich, who leads the team’s public‑private partnership work, told the board the team has identified roughly $20,000,000 in infrastructure needs for the next phase: about $15,000,000 for backbone roadways, utilities and streetscape work, and roughly $5,000,000 dedicated to Festival Street hardscape and landscaping. "That total is $20,000,000, and we're identifying $5,000,000 from the TIRS to cover that kind of additional upgrade," Petrovich said.
Developers said the scaled plan would deliver about 300 multifamily units in initial phases with retail that aims to be a neighborhood destination rather than big‑box strip retail. They described the Festival Street as designed primarily for pedestrians but with limited vehicle access so it can be closed for events; temporary surface lots would serve early retail until parking structures can be funded and built.
Board members pressed developers about tradeoffs. One member asked whether the change reduced the long‑term tax base; developers responded the change means slower tax growth in the near term but is intended to unlock the district and make future phases feasible. Staff reminded the board that the developer must submit a PUD (planned‑unit development) amendment and a formal TIRS amendment before any public funds can be committed and that staff has not yet received those filings.
The developer presentation did not include a final funding plan for the non‑TIRS portion; the team said it would pursue a mix of debt, developer contribution and other public or partner funds and return with refined numbers. Next steps: the developer will prepare documentation for a future TIRS amendment request and coordinate PUD rezoning and public hearings; staff will perform a formal analysis when amendments are filed.
Votes and formal actions on this item were not held; developers requested the board’s feedback and to continue coordinating with staff on the amendment and rezoning processes.
