Tomball previews Unified Development Code; parking and incompatible uses flagged

City planning staff previewed a consolidated Unified Development Code and walked Tomball City Council members through how the city currently regulates land uses and parking during a June 2 workshop.

The presentation, given by Craig (staff member), centered on land-use compatibility charts and parking calculations and solicited preliminary council feedback for Friese Nichols, the consultant preparing the full UDC draft. "Everything that you provide me tonight, I can pass along to our consultant," Craig said, describing the staff role in gathering council input before a future formal draft presentation.

The draft UDC effort would combine zoning, subdivision regulations and sign provisions now scattered across city ordinances, Craig said, and bring Tomball’s rules into conformance with more recent state statutory requirements. He detailed the process that would be required to impose new limits on uses already allowed in a zoning district, saying the city must notify affected property owners and operators under a state statutory notice process and hold a public hearing before enacting restrictions that would create nonconforming uses.

Parking dominated council discussion. Craig walked members through a tabulation for an existing strip center at Baker Drive and Highway 249 that shows a required parking total of 62 spaces and available parking of 65 — a surplus of three spaces — but noted a vacant tenant bay that, when filled, would likely create a deficit. "The required parking based on this tabulation is 62 parking spaces, with the available parking of 65," Craig said. He also noted that the city’s current parking ratios date to the zoning code adopted in 2008 and that some ratios may be out of date for certain uses.

Council members and staff examined standard ratios cited in the presentation: 1 space per 3 children for day care; 1 space per 300 square feet for office; 1 per 200 for general retail (the current ratio cited for nail salons); and 1 per 100 for restaurants. Council members argued those square-foot metrics can miss real demand when tenant mixes change: staff cited a local nail salon with an estimated 40 chairs, which, if full, could far exceed parking provided under a square-foot-based approach.

Council members suggested several alternatives for the consultants to study, including basing parking on use-specific metrics (for example, spaces per nail station or per dining seat/table) rather than solely on gross square footage, and looking at comparable Texas cities without high public-transit ridership. Craig said staff will ask Friese Nichols to compare national and regional standards and recommend where Tomball’s ratios should be changed.

The workshop also covered how older strip centers built before zoning can create recurring parking and spillover problems into adjacent residential areas, and how the Board of Adjustment (BOA) and Planning and Zoning Commission interact with staff recommendations when variances or conditional-use matters arise. Craig explained that the BOA’s jurisdiction and appeals process are governed by state law and that BOA decisions can only be challenged in county district court.

Council members asked staff to prepare materials that BOA members and applicants could use, such as written guidance and staff reports that emphasize site-specific evidence, potential spillover impacts, and alternative remedies (cross-access agreements, shared parking, or redeveloping adjacent properties for parking). Craig encouraged council members to e-mail follow-up questions; Friese Nichols will present a full draft of the Unified Development Code at a future meeting.

The item was a discussion and preview only; no formal action or ordinance vote took place during the workshop.