Tomball reviews draft comprehensive plan; residents object to commercial/warehouse near Cherry Pines

A consultant presented a draft comprehensive plan to the joint City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission on April 7, and staff said they will revise the future land-use map and related text after public comment and the bodies’ discussion.

Greg Gilbert, a Cherry Pines resident, used the meeting’s public-comment period to oppose a commercial/warehouse designation for property immediately south of his subdivision. “We came here to live here for Tomball, not for a warehouse,” Gilbert said, adding that a multistory concrete building could sit “as close as 15 feet from the backyard” of nearby homes and be “lighting 24 hours a day.” He asked the city to “reconsider how the future use of that land … would be best utilized.”

Alexis Garcia, a planner with Freese & Nichols, gave the presentation and described the document as “a comprehensive plan [that] is a high level visioning document. It's supposed to be guiding growth and development for the city over the next 20 years or so.” Garcia said the draft is intended to guide zoning and subdivision rules and to be updated every five to 10 years.

Key revisions shown in the draft include a clearer split between medium-density and high-density residential on the future land-use map, a new mixed-use designation outside Old Town, and focused study areas labeled East Downtown and the Medical District. Garcia said the draft separates high-density housing (intended to accommodate larger multifamily development) from medium-density categories that would better identify locations appropriate for duplexes, townhomes and similar “missing middle” housing types.

Discussion at the meeting focused heavily on a corridor along FM 2920 and several parcels near Persimmon and Holder avenues. Commissioners and councilmembers debated whether a large parcel just south of 2920 should be designated high density, medium density or left as lower-density residential. Staff noted the current underlying zoning varies across the parcels, with some frontage zoned general retail and other portions zoned SF-6 (single-family 6,000-sq.-ft. lots).

Participants clarified terms and compatibility: the draft’s land-use chapter lists compatible zoning districts and examples of appropriate uses. Garcia said medium-density guidance typically aligns with smaller-lot single-family or “missing middle” types and recommended that medium-density and compatible duplex/townhome examples be made explicit in the plan text. At one point, a staff member corrected an earlier remark: “the high density residential is duplex and multifamily. The medium density residential is meant for … single family 7.5 or single family 6.”

Staff and commissioners agreed on several procedural directions. They asked staff to: revise the future land-use map to show medium-density compatibility with duplexes/townhomes where appropriate; update population projections to reflect map changes; amend the plan text and the “appropriate land uses” lists; and prepare the plan for the formal adoption process, which will begin with Planning & Zoning’s recommendation and move to City Council for consideration. Garcia summarized the next steps: collect suggested edits from the meeting, update the draft, and route it for adoption notices, commission recommendation and council consideration.

On implementation, Garcia emphasized the plan’s action framework, which organizes recommendations by five goals (growth and capacity, land use and development, mobility, community livability and economic development). Each action in the implementation program is tagged with a timeframe (short, medium or long), involved entities, and whether it is a policy, capital improvement or program. She also said the city is updating a Unified Development Code (UDC) concurrently; the UDC will translate the plan’s recommendations into enforceable regulations.

Parks and trails, and walkability, were repeated priorities in public input. Staff reported that the draft increases mapped parks and open space from 12.4% in the existing plan to 13.6% in the draft (a 1.2 percentage-point increase), and that many proposed trail connections rely on existing right-of-way or future easements. Garcia said acquiring new publicly owned open space typically requires dedicated funding or land acquisition, and the parks and trails master plan will feed into implementing those recommendations.

Commissioners asked technical questions about traffic, drainage and right-of-way constraints for sidewalks and bike facilities. Garcia said traffic impacts will be evaluated on a project-by-project basis because the draft assigns ranges of density rather than fixed unit counts; an individual development application would require a traffic analysis appropriate to the project.

The meeting record shows a procedural motion to adjourn was made and carried. Commissioners Hyde, Harris and Ross were recorded as voting “aye.” That motion closed the planning session at about 5:33 p.m.

What staff will do next: staff confirmed they will update the map and draft per the meeting’s guidance (including the medium-density revisions and compatible zoning labels), update population projections and prepare the draft for formal consideration by Planning & Zoning and City Council. Planning staff also discussed scheduling an additional two-hour P&Z session to refine the draft before adoption steps.

Votes at a glance

• Motion to adjourn (procedural): recorded ayes — Commissioner Hyde; Commissioner Harris; Commissioner Ross. Outcome: approved.

Ending

Staff said they will incorporate changes agreed at the session and return a revised draft for formal recommendation and adoption steps.