Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council annexes 3.015 acres but sends contested multifamily rezoning back to planning staff
Summary
Council approved first reading of an annexation for ~3.015 acres near FM 229, linked to a proposed multifamily plan-development; planning & zoning recommended denial of the PD for insufficient amenities and tract size, and council directed staff to return the rezoning to planning and zoning rather than take final action.
The Tomball City Council adopted an annexation ordinance on first reading for roughly 3.015 acres adjacent to FM 229 (ordinance 2026‑20) but elected not to approve a related plan‑development (PD) rezoning request for a proposed multifamily development.
Staff explained that annexation would bring the remainder of a contiguous property into city limits and that the applicant initially proposed a multifamily PD with up to 48 units and an estimated $11,000,000 in value. Planning & Zoning reviewed the PD and recommended denial by a 4–0 vote, citing the small tract size and a perceived lack of amenities that would distinguish a PD from a standard multifamily project.
The applicant told council he had revised the concept (shrinking unit counts) and was open to adding amenities — dog-walk areas, walking trails and a fitness space were discussed — but several council members and at least one planning commissioner present said the parcel may be more suited to commercial uses in the city's corridor plan. Council took no action on the PD zoning tonight and directed staff to return it to planning and zoning for further consideration and renotification; council passed the annexation ordinance on first reading (motion carried 4–1).
Council members emphasized two consistent points: (1) if the PD is to move forward it should include design and amenity commitments above and beyond baseline multifamily standards, and (2) if a PD is rejected, the applicant could seek commercial zoning but staff should renotify adjacent property owners in that case. The applicant indicated willingness to work with staff and the commission on revisions.
