Council approves MOU to advance Greylieu Grove annexation, asks developer to check detention capacity

TOMBALL, Texas — At its July 21 meeting, the Tomball City Council approved a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with FLS Development LLC that lays out requirements for the proposed 49.301‑acre Greylieu Grove development and clears the way for annexation, creation of a public improvement district (PID) and submission of a planned‑development (PD) zoning application. The council adopted an amendment asking the developer to review whether proposed on‑site detention has additional capacity that could serve a future Medical Complex Drive extension.

The MOU spells out developer responsibilities and city commitments needed to run parallel the annexation, PID and PD processes. It requires voluntary annexation, a CCN (certificate of convenience and necessity) release or transfer from ACWA Services, extension of utilities, dedication of right‑of‑way for a future Medical Complex Drive, construction of a four‑lane boulevard through the development, a looped water main with two connection points, and construction of detention sized for the subdivision. The MOU notes the developer or future HOA will maintain most improvements after acceptance by the city, with detention ponds excluded from city maintenance responsibility.

Why it matters: The project would bring about 43.149 acres of residential development (commercial acreage excluded from the PID) to the area west of Hudson‑Corbett Road (Hudson/Coralville/Hudsmouth in the presentation). The city’s MOU contemplates a single issuance reimbursement bond not to exceed $8,000,000, sold when debt‑to‑value reaches a 3:1 ratio, with a 30‑year term and a proposed assessed‑value rate used in staff materials of 95¢. Those financing terms — if adopted later in a PID order and development agreement — could affect future assessments paid by property owners in the PID.

Key details from the agreement and council discussion - Acreage and uses: The proposed Greylieu Grove site totals 49.301 acres. The PID acreage shown to council was 43.149 acres with commercial acreage excluded from the PID reimbursement area. The PD concept submitted with the zoning application includes about 88 single‑family lots and a separate area shown for commercial retail at the intersection of the future Medical Complex Drive and Hudsmouth/Coralville Road. - Detention and future roadway: The MOU requires the developer to design and construct retention/detention sized for the full build‑out of the proposed development. The amendment added by council requires the developer also to "review the design and verify if there is additional capacity for the future build‑out of Medical Complex Drive." City staff and council repeatedly emphasized the developer had not completed final engineering and therefore could only report whether additional capacity exists after engineering review. Councilmembers discussed options if detention cannot accommodate future road runoff — for example, the city could acquire additional land for detention, or the developer could deepen detention, but deeper detention might require pumping and more land and cost. The council did not require the developer to guarantee detention capacity for an as‑yet unbuilt Medical Complex Drive; the amended language asks only that the developer investigate and report. - Right of way and connections: Council and staff clarified that the city cannot require the developer to construct the future Medical Complex Drive or to force a connection through the adjacent Country Club Green HOA property at this time. The plan shown includes dedication of right‑of‑way for a possible future extension, but construction of that extension would be a separate future project and could require additional approvals and funding. - PID financing and policy exceptions: The MOU contemplates a single issuance reimbursement bond up to $8,000,000, a 30‑year term, and an assessed rate noted in staff materials of 95¢. Staff reminded council that previous policy privileges had included shorter terms and different assessed rates; council members discussed balancing policy exceptions (30‑year term and assessed rate) against what the city would receive in return such as right‑of‑way dedication and infrastructure built by the developer. - Amenities and commercial land: Council members debated whether developer‑provided features such as pools or courts should be considered PID amenities; staff clarified the proposed PID excludes commercial acreage and that typically PIDs do not reimburse commercial parcels. Developers indicated they expected the commercial edge to serve as an amenity for residents but also said margins for small retail uses are often too thin to justify PID assessments supporting commercial tenants.

Council action and next steps Council entertained a motion to approve the MOU, allowed an amendment to add the Section 2(f) review language about detention capacity, and then approved the amended MOU. The amended motion was restated on the record before the final vote. Under the MOU schedule presented, annexation and PD processes (including the August 4 public hearing on annexation and the upcoming PD public hearing and first‑reading ordinance) will continue in parallel; the MOU is intended to put all parties on the same timeline but does not itself approve final platting, PD site plans or any bond issuance.

What the council did not adopt Council did not require the developer to construct Medical Complex Drive now, did not require an emergency access through Country Club Green, and did not obligate the city to accept detention ponds for maintenance. Staff and legal counsel clarified that the city cannot force dedication beyond what the development requires under state law and current practice; if a different developer later proposes a different plan and does not annex into the city or seek PD zoning, the city’s leverage on right‑of‑way and other conditions would be reduced.

Quotes "The MOU is letting the developer and council know that they're going to be looking to see if there is enough capacity for the future build‑out of Medical Complex Drive," a city staff presenter said during the discussion. Councilmembers pressed for the engineering verification and discussed mitigation options if additional detention capacity is required.

Community and technical context Councilmembers noted the development proposes larger lot sizes than many recent projects in the area; council discussion referenced lot sizes discussed in the packet (one councilmember noted 7,500 square‑foot minimum lots in oral remarks while the PD packet listed a 7,800 square‑foot minimum). Staff emphasized that the developer had not completed final engineering and that the MOU is not final development approval — the annexation, PD ordinance and any PID formation will return to council with appropriate hearings and record votes.

Next steps: The developer’s annexation petition is scheduled for a public hearing on August 4. Planning and Zoning had approved the PD concept at its July 14 meeting and the PD ordinance will appear on council agendas for first reading and subsequent readings; the PID process will require separate notices, public hearings and a development agreement if the PID order moves forward.

Ending The MOU approval advances city‑developer negotiations and asks for a technical check on detention capacity; it does not finalize platting, PD entitlements, PID financing or construction schedules. Those items must return to council for the statutorily required hearings and approvals, and staff said they will bring engineering verification and any recommended conditions back to council as the project proceeds.