Council approves first reading of 394-acre Prescidio PUD; members press developer on traffic, drainage and pipeline setbacks

Council members gave initial approval to Ordinance 2026-16 on first reading after an extended workshop and regular-session discussion of a proposed Prescidio planned unit development (PUD) covering roughly 394.232 acres around State Highway 6 and FM 288.

The applicant described a mixed-use plan that retains commercial frontage along the major arterials and reserves large tracks for residential, public uses and a medical campus that representatives said could include an MD Anderson-affiliated surgical facility. Don, representing the applicant, said the project “mirrors the original OPUD approved in 2007” but updated standards and market timing had prompted the refreshed PUD application.

Council members pressed developers and staff on transportation, stormwater and public-safety impacts. Multiple councilmembers said feeder and intersection improvements at Highway 6 and FM 288 — including a southern feeder tied to the project’s early phases — must be secured so the area can absorb increased traffic. “If you don’t have that feeder, it’s going to cause a mess,” a councilmember said, asking the applicant and TxDOT partners to provide clear phasing and delivery commitments.

Drainage dominated the discussion. Engineers explained the project will rely primarily on gravity detention but will require pump-assisted facilities at the southern outfall; staff noted the city’s design-criteria manual allows pump facilities only in nonresidential developments and only when at least 50% of required detention is gravity-based. Council members asked staff and the applicant to provide more detailed modeling and contingency plans, including backup generators and approvals from the relevant drainage district, before second reading.

Another area of negotiation was a requested pipeline-setback change. The applicant asked to reduce the city’s 50-foot standard along a crude-pipeline easement to 30 feet, citing negotiated easement language and the need to preserve commercially viable building pads along Highway 6. Staff said comparable PUDs in the area contain similar language but noted recorded plats sometimes still show a 50-foot setback; council asked staff to reconcile plat setbacks, pipeline agreements and the PUD’s provisions.

Council also discussed signage scale along the arterials, parkland accounting, and buffers between commercial tracks and adjacent one-acre neighborhoods. Several councilmembers expressed disappointment with the conceptual appearance shown in the master plan and asked the developer to strengthen community amenities, pedestrian frontage along Charlotte Drive, streetscape trees and on-site parkland that is “true” recreational acreage rather than sidewalks counted toward dedication.

After two weeks of follow-up work on the points above, council approved the ordinance on first reading and asked staff to return with updated drainage models, traffic-phasing commitments and any revised PUD language for the second reading.

Outcome and next steps: The council approved first reading of Ordinance 2026-16 and instructed staff to negotiate specific conditions on traffic phasing, pump-detention mitigations, pipeline setbacks and landscape/buffering before the second reading.