Fulshear planning panel recommends Waters PUD despite residents’ water, traffic and legal concerns

The Fulshear Planning & Zoning Commission voted on June 5 to recommend approval of the Waters Planned Unit Development and a related coordinated development-ordinance amendment to city council, after residents raised water-quality, traffic and legal concerns and staff and the applicant outlined mitigation measures.

Residents cited discolored tap water, possible overloaded schools and congested roads as reasons to delay or deny multifamily development planned under the PUD. "This is not the kind of water that people want to drink," said Jonathan Gee, a Del Webb resident who showed a photograph and a sample of brownish tap water and identified himself as a geology Ph.D. He urged the commission to delay multifamily approvals until surface-water projects and system looping improve pressure and quality.

City staff and the public-works director acknowledged recent calls about discoloration in Del Webb and said the system is high in iron and manganese, which can discolor water that has sat in pipes. The public-works representative said the city has started a more proactive hydrant-flushing program and that routine testing is reported to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. "We flush our fire hydrants more routinely," the public-works representative said, and reported that a recent flush cleared discolored water in the reported block.

The PUD request covers five tracks near FM 1093 and FM 359 and aims to replace the Wallace Street PUD with the Waters PUD in the city's CDO. Planning staff summarized the development history and multiple prior amendments to development agreements dating to 2016 and a key 07/16/2019 amendment. That staff presentation said the 2019 amendments and subsequent exhibits authorized multifamily uses on some tracks and that the PUD is intended to align zoning with those agreements while adding standards for architecture, buffers, signage and open space.

Some residents and at least one citizen advocate disputed that interpretation. "It seems demonstrably false" that developers could build apartments on certain tracks, said Ben Donahue, who pointed to a 2021 amendment he said shows tracks 3 and 4 as commercial-only and urged the commission to confirm which exhibits legally control before approving new zoning.

The applicant team (LJA Engineering) described a redline PUD that, as revised, designates tracks 3 and 4 as commercial-only and limits multifamily to other tracks; the document also includes a requirement that Tract 1 maintain a minimum 50% of developable land devoted to commercial uses, added architectural standards, buffer yards, and civic-space and parking requirements. "Tracks 3 and 4 are designated to be commercial only," the applicant's planner, Kayla Liao, said while showing conceptual site plans and renderings.

Commissioners questioned impact fees, traffic-impact analyses and wastewater capacity. Staff said traffic studies exist for the affected areas but that updated counts will be collected in September to reflect school-year traffic, and that the city is upgrading treatment capacity (for example, expanding Cross Creek plant capacity and increasing downtown plant capacity from roughly 600,000 to 1,000,000 gallons per day) and negotiating a guaranteed surface-water purchase from the North Fort Bend Water Authority. The public-works representative said those master-plan projects were anticipated and are underway to serve anticipated growth.

Several commissioners sought additional protections: suggested edits included limiting maximum multifamily height (a motion was made to reduce the multifamily maximum from four stories to three), clearer phasing language tying commercial improvements and detention/looped water infrastructure to later residential phases, and landscaping/buffer clarifications referencing the city's CDO standards. The commission also discussed whether development agreements should include expiration or activity requirements, a suggestion staff said could be included in future negotiations but noted that many development agreements by state law run with the land unless specifically negotiated otherwise.

After questions, the commission voted to recommend approval of the PUD with the conditions discussed and to recommend the CDO text amendment conditioned on the PUD recommendation. The motions carried on voice votes; no roll-call tallies were recorded in the transcript.

The Planning & Zoning Commission's recommendation advances the application to the City Council, which is scheduled to hold the second required hearing on June 16 and will make the final zoning decision.

What happens next: the PUD and the text amendment proceed to the city council for formal action on June 16; staff and the applicant said they will refine the traffic-impact analysis, clarify phasing language and finalize PUD language per the commission's direction before council review.