Loading...
09-21-2021 Agenda with backup Subcommittee on PDD Standards, New Zoning District and Tree Mitigation Program A COMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAL BALDWIN MUNICIPAL COMPLEX CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1400 SCHERTZ PARKWAY, BUILDING #4 SCHERTZ, TEXAS 78154 September 21, 2021 4:00 P.M. Call to order (Councilmember Whittaker) Citizens to be Heard Discussion and/or Action Items 1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of September 14, 2021. 2. Review Consensus of September 14, 2021, Meeting. 3. Discuss Development Standards • Curvilinear Streets • Usable Centrally Located Open Space • Mailbox Bumpouts • Lot Size Distribution 4. Straight Zoning with Improved Development Standards vs. PDDs 5. Summarize Consensus. Adjournment CERTIFICATION I, BRENDA DENNIS, CITY SECRETARY OF THE CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THE OFFICIAL BULLETIN BOARDS ON THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 AT 2:15 P.M., WHICH IS A PLACE READILY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES AND THAT SAID NOTICE WAS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 551, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. Brenda Dennis I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED NOTICE AND AGENDA OF ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL WAS REMOVED BY ME FROM THE OFFICIAL BULLETIN BOARD ON DAY OF , 2021. TITLE: This facility is accessible in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Handicapped parking spaces are available. If you require special assistance or have a request for sign interpretative services or other services, please call 210-619-1030. 9-14-2021 Minutes Page - 1 - MINUTES REGULAR MEETING September 14, 2021 A Regular Meeting was held by the City Council and Planning & Zoning Subcommittee of the City of Schertz, Texas, on September 14, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. at the Hal Baldwin Municipal Complex Council Chambers Conference Room located at 1400 Schertz Parkway, Schertz, Texas. The following members present to-wit: Members Present: Councilmember Jill Whittaker – Chair Councilmember Michael Dahle Councilmember David Scagliola P&Z Commissioner Jimmy Odom (remote) P&Z Commissioner Earl Platt P&Z Commissioner Richard Braud Absent Staff Present: Assistant City Manager Brian James City Secretary Brenda Dennis Call to Order Chair Whittaker called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Hearing of Residents/Citizens to be Heard No one signed up to speak. Discussion and action items: 1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of September 7, 2021. Chair Whittaker recognized Councilmember Dahle who moved seconded by P&Z Commissioner Earl Platt to approve the minutes of the meeting of September. The vote was unanimously approved. 2. Review Consensus of September 7, 2021, Meeting. In summation, Mr. James reviewed the following with the committee: – There is a willingness to allow for variability in lot size – less than 8,400 sq ft contingent upon them doing other things above and beyond – 10’ side yard setbacks generally the minimum – rare exception to deviate – Curvilinear streets – Mailbox parking – Usable open space distributed throughout the subdivision – Some wider some smaller lots – Mix of lot sizes (not all small) work on the math to insure cannot play with the numbers, example not 1 large not and then a bunch of smaller lots 9-14-2021 Minutes Page - 2 - – No concentrations of smaller lots – inter-dispersed in small pods – Mix larger lots throughout the development – where there is variability in lot sizes throughout the development – Keep in mind correlation between design standards, costs, price point and affordability Idea was to get this down in writing, get these built in the development standards that when anyone walks in, we can hand them a one sheet piece of paper stating that if you want to do something other than straight zoning, 8400, these are the elements you have and the regulations to back it up. The last part, the caveat, there was we did get in a conversation, and keep in mind there is a correlation between these additional design standards we want, the cost to put the subdivision on the ground, which translates to price point of lot which then gets us into the issue of affordability. No solution yet but keep this in mind. This is where we ended it as a direction to move forward. 3. Discussion regarding Setbacks. Mr. James provided the following information: – Keep in mind setbacks play a role in the subsequent bulk discussion on next item – Single Family Residential Detached all require as a minimum: (This is the norm for all Single Family Residential Detached Districts regardless of size) • 25’ Front • 20’ Rear • 10’ Side – Consensus from last meeting was to very very rarely deviate from 10’ side yard setback. It would need to be a unique product, different criteria that overcomes the issues we talked about on aesthetics as well as the fire concerns. – Front Yard setbacks: Typical Residential Street Cross Section is 50’ of ROW with 30’ of pavement (10’ parkway either side). After you get to the curb of the street you have 10 foot that is in ROW, then the property line – that’s when your front yard setback starts. Typically, with the 25foot front yard you typically have a situation where the house is actually set back 35feet from the pavement of the street. This creates the issue where the sidewalk is, the sidewalk is typically 1 foot inside the ROW line, so when you talk about driveways and parking standards, and when you have cars blocking sidewalks like that. That is the norm. – One item that had a bit of a discussion was if we wanted to require a greater front yard setback on smaller lots or that part of the house be setback further. Concerns seemed to be we are ok with some of the small lots but a concern on the smaller lots that feels tighter, feels more dense – how do we offset this? Assuming we do not want to increase the side yard setback, one way to do this is to increase the front yard setback, but still maintain the rear yard setback at 20 feet. One idea would be do we want the house to be 25foot back on the smallest lots – again limits how much house you can get – a little more open space but is limiting. Other is to set the garage back a bit a get a little variation. Discussions on the below: • Lots less than 65’ wide have a 30’ front yard setback • Garages on lots less 60’ wide must be setback 30’ 9-14-2021 Minutes Page - 3 - Subcommittee members discuss the above and provided their views and comments. Councilmember Scagliola regarding the moving of the garage, we had this in the Saddlebrook Subdivision, on the smaller lots he believes that it makes sense. The increase of the driveway would make it more likely we would be able to get 4 cars parked in the driveway and less on street parking. He doesn’t think they need to do for the entire front – but setting the garage back deeper resolves some issues. Chair Whittaker stated she sees no benefit of moving or requiring larger setbacks on a smaller lot. Councilman Scagliola that yes when that happens is when you start to get more cars on the street. He stated no problem with pushing back further. He stated that looking at a 55 x 120-foot lot, this gives you a house in the neighborhood of 3300 sq. feet – if you were to build it border to border etc., the 25ft front and the 25ft rear and 10 ft sides gives plenty of room to build a big house. Maybe even push front setback further it would maybe allow another car in the driveway. Commissioner Odom stated as far as setbacks go and what they have currently established seem reasonable to him and what Mr. James is talking about is an additional front setback for the smaller lots. There is a way to limit the square feet of a house on a smaller lot - so he doesn’t see any issues to that. He stated as an example the R7 6600 sq. ft – the width of 160 x 110 – that is what his lot is, and if you were to take a smaller house and set it back a little bit, he wouldn’t see an issue with that. Not sure if we need to go that far, but he doesn’t see a problem with doing it. Chair Whittaker stated that if the goal is to limit the square feet and a tactic to get cars off the street and limit square footage she would say the opposite direction – take the larger lots and require the bigger home to have a greater setback. Typically the larger the home the more people you have in it – even more drivers. On a 70ft lot you are needing more driveway space – then you would limit square footage. She personally sees not benefit but if we are going to pick one size or the other then she sees you would pick a smaller lot to make those houses even smaller. Seems like the group is mixed on the setbacks. Mr. James stated then perhaps its these things that they keep in mind as a factor for staff to set offside, if they wanted to do something a little different – a little bit smaller – but otherwise the norm with mix lots not a factor moving forward. 4. Discussion regarding Bulk and Lot Coverage Standards. Mr. James stated that this gets to how much house you can put on a lot and below is how we do that through: – Bulk regulated through maximum height, setbacks and max impervious coverage. – 35’ is the maximum height for all single family detached districts – this allows you to get a two- story house – Setbacks just discussed were 25’ front, 20’ rear and 10 side – The other thing we regulate is the maximum impervious coverage - 50% is maximum impervious coverage for all single family detached districts – this includes house footprint, driveway, walkways, if you do a concrete deck and technically it the pool on it. This is generally not a limiting factor on new construction. We have this regulation that we use but what we don’t regulate is the actual building in terms of lot coverage. You can have a smaller house, but they have paved the yard and have a big pool area, they would have a higher lot coverage potentially than a bigger house. This is a function of detention requirements in his opinion. If we don’t let people pave their yard, what do we care how big the deck is in the back, and how big the pool is in the back, as long as now we 9-14-2021 Minutes Page - 4 - accommodate the rainfall and the detention. It is important to note that like in the past we require the runoff from the lot to either go to the back or the front or a combination. If it goes to the back it has to be on a separate parcel of land – common lot, it can’t be through an easement. In the past there were issues of drainage running through some lots – people would build shrubs etc. and we would have an issue. Because of our detention regulations its not an issue. Our impervious coverage is a function of drainage and runoff that the engineer accounts for. In saying this: – Schertz does not regulate lot coverage (footprint of building on lot) – Schertz does not regulate lot coverage (footprint of building on lot) – Effectively limited by setbacks (4,650 sq ft) does include the garage – R-2 8,400 at minimums is 44.6% 3,750 sq ft does include the garage – R-6 7,200 at minimums is 35.4% 2,550 sq ft does include the garage – R-7 6,600 at minimums is 29.5% 1,950 sq ft does include the garage – Keep in mind these are minimum – More house can be built by adding a second story – Schertz does not regulate floor area ratio – a way of combing building footprint with a second story to limit bulk – Keep in mind if developers plat bigger lots (above minimum) they can fit more house within the setbacks. Is that a bad thing? After the explanations above by Mr. James, the question is really do you want to restrict that further than the setbacks do? Chair Whittaker stated that if we are already feeling like in the communities, they are building with the setbacks, and it still feels crunched – this is the only way to shrink the house on the property to make if feel like it has more room. These are massive sizes, a 70 x 120-foot lot you could have a house potentially that is over 6,000 feet. She stated if we are looking to reduce the bulk, bring it back by 10% - less will make it better. Councilmember Dahle stated that he is not further wanting to restrict size he believes – driving down the street and every house is a 2-story rectangular that has maximized the total that they can build on the smallest possible lot. Ways of limiting the bulk instead of trying to limit the size is to limit the percentage of lots that would be able to build a 2-story house on. Limit the amount of 2-stories within the subdivision. Have a set ratio would be better to regulate having massive 2-story homes. Commissioner Odem stated remain open for developers to build the different types of houses we are looking for, remain and work with the R-2, R-6 and R-7 – we are already limiting them on the square footage - this would limit the bulk– keep current requirements. This Subcommittee came out due to the PDD’s that have have – such smaller lot sizes and setbacks and the higher concentration of homes that they are going to be developing because of that. If we keep are current requirements to the minimums it should limit that down enough to what would be acceptable to us within the bounds we currently have. We just need to watch the PDDs and make sure they abide with those requirements. Chair Whittaker asked if that was accurate that the PDD’s that are coming, other than the Crossvine Subdivision, are the PDD’s asking for variations from these minimums that we have discussed? In answer, Mr. James stated that everyone that comes in asks for variations from the minimums. This is just a matter of staff knowing, this is where we hold firm, and if you want to run it, P&Z is going to recommend 9-14-2021 Minutes Page - 5 - denial and Council will recommend denial – short answer, yes. Every developer wants to get as much as they can get out of the subdivision. Going forward staff would like to say here are our normal standards, this is what you need to do – this makes it less combative with staff and a quicker process for the developer. To Councilman Dahle’s point, one of the challenges in trying to do that is how we limit that. Is it on the front end we have to select the lots or is it once the builder builds so many 2-storys that’s it, which will and can be problematic? The real thing for staff to think about is not on the front end when it is developing, it’s 20-35 years later when someone comes in and want to do an addition and don’t realize that they have this limitation. It becomes problematic in enforcement. Subcommittee further discussed lot sizes and discussions regarding developers coming in to request different lot sizes within the PDD’s. 5. Discussion regarding Lot Size, Width and Depth Standards. • R-2 8,400 70’ x 120’ • R-6 7,200 60’ x 120’ • R-7 6,600 60’ x 110’ • Depth doesn’t seem to be an issue • Do we want to increase width of R-7 – so the smallest lots are wider? Perhaps 65’ but do we reduce depth? If not new minimum is 7,150 sq ft • Maybe to 105 for a lot size of 6,825 sq ft? James stated so what is the smallest lot and is there a need to further restrict beyond the normal regulations – the bulk restrictions that we have, or do we need to do something else? Chair Whittaker stated that she believes that if we are not going to stick to the standards, we are going to end up like we were before where there were issues between the P&Z and Council. Mr. James stated that where P&Z and Council are, is that Council sets policy and P&Z upholds the policies. Mr. James stated that once it gets to P&Z and Council that staff and the developer have going round and round with changes, most developers want smaller lots, reduced setbacks etc. Most people look at the Crossvine Subdivision which has smaller lots, but there were tradeoffs – such as open space etc. From a staff perspective the worst-case senior is they get the smallest lots, the reduced setbacks, all smaller lots and they don’t do any of the other things like a park, open space, etc., things that would counter the smaller lots. He believes that is what Council was reacting to years ago and what we are trying to do today is find the right balance. He provided examples of subdivisions with no open space and others that have some. So how do we balance that and require the other things that offsets. Key for this group is to say we are not going to do the gridded lots, need to find the right balance, some smaller lots, what the setbacks are but require the other things that offsets. Question from Commissioner Platt was and how do we tie that into what we already have which would be the subdivision master plan and the application process where we can review that. He has brought this up when we talked with Council about Homeowner Associations, it did not go in the right direction. He hasn’t seen one since he has been on P&Z and was told don’t use these anymore. In answer Mr. James we don’t because most come in with PDD’s for residential – this has taken that place. What we do going forward that we have talked about is we increase our normal regulations, and we have the ability to do straight zoning but requiring these other things and still get the same thing. It is basically we are modifying what we do through 9-14-2021 Minutes Page - 6 - a PDD, like it better and don’t have concerns, but we are able to create the same sort of thing, straight zoning as well and they can pick either path. Councilmember Scagliola stated that when Crossvine came in they were going to set the standard – there were several tradeoffs there – even in Crossvine he believes they are pushing the envelope. The more houses you put on a given part of land, the more potential revenue. He remembers voting for the SUP for Crossvine with the general consensus that they traditionally have provided the tradeoffs. It was a good plan – he is starting to change his views, as he believes this is starting new standards that is unacceptable to him. Commissioner Platt stated that that is setting the tone for the price points, not to pick on Crossvine, it is just where he was looking and the one he referenced. There is a 45 x 110 lot with a 1600 or 1700 sq. foot house on it and the price point is starting at $260,000 to $320,000. This is a tiny house for that much money compared to other areas in the City. So, we are starting our base price point for houses in the City at that size at that price point. Mr. James offered that is the crutch of where we headed with this committee. While the Crossvine has the smaller lots the reduced setback it sort of checks all the other boxes of the design standards that we want. When we compare it to the original phase, which was Sedona, which do we like better as a neighborhood? Do we like the feel of Sedona, or do we like the feel of Crossvine? This is where we all have to step back a little bit and say my personal opinion maybe this, but what are the implications for the City. His question is fundamentally if you are not willing to allow some smaller lots for these other things – then we are back to last meeting and just tell everybody to do 8400 sq. feet with a few modifications to the design and we are done with it. Those living in Crossvine like their neighborhood. The chose it for a reason and like the amenities and other things. As Commissioner Braud said last meeting there is a tradeoff in providing that. There is not a right or wrong answer. But comparing Crossvine to Willow Grove, is Willow Grove what we want? Willow Grove has a bit of open space, but not a lot of variability of lot size not a lot of curvilinear in terms of street, its pretty gridded out. Nice subdivision with bigger lots as well as varying lot sizes as well. We can say here are some things we could change to make things better in Crossvine but fundamentally if we are not ok with making some of those tradeoffs, then we need to revisit some of our past items. If we want the variability to appeal to folks – then what are the things we have problems with. Crossvine doesn’t have a lot of complaints regarding on the street parking. Councilmember Dahle stated that most of the on the street parking are from the older parts of town where we have the gridded type of development like we see over in Sedona. He personally doesn’t like smaller lots but sees there is a place for them in the market. If done in junction in a community such as Crossvine, he did the calculations once, in Crossvine 18% of it in the total land area within the TIRZ is open space – no other community could create the open space that exists in Crossvine – its unique and is what makes it special. In order to make it sustainable, there has to be smaller lots in order to get the number houses to be able to pay the HOA fees required to maintain all this. Mr. James stated that Crossvine is unique, and you can see within the trails they are wider and unique, but they are pulling it off the lot. Crossvine is unique it has a TIRZ, different type of development and he doesn’t think we are going to see another Crossvine in Schertz there are things that caused the development. The more common models to reference to this type of development that we reference of what we do with PDD’s is probably looking up at Homestead – its parklands you can see coming in – this is what we would probably want to look at as our typical type of models for what people would do going forward. 9-14-2021 Minutes Page - 7 - Chair Whittaker indicated that one of the reasons the price point is different in there is that the smaller lots are on the Pulte side – there are three builders in Crossvine. Pulte builds a lower price point product. Scott Davis and David Weekly their smallest lots are 50ft wide, you are paying for the greenspace and open space and not to say these restrictions are causing the price point to go up. That typical community has a lot of open space, and you have to make up for that, - that’s why the price of the homes are higher. She doesn’t think that this has do with what we are setting for future communities that we are talking about in allowing the smaller lots. Councilmember Scagliola referenced Willow Grove and across the street Rhine Valley – his biggest bone of contention is the distinction between those. Wilow Grove is a nice subdivision and easy to canvass when he is out campaigning, because the homes are nice together. You have to put things into perspective. But if you look over to the other side with Rhine Valley, is you can almost walk on the housetops the houses are so close. Mr. James stated he appreciates his comment, he would say the same thing in Rhine Valley and Crossvine. The history of Rhine Valley, they came in and submitted a plat when it wasn’t in the City limits, they vested under that, and was really trying to get the best thing that we could with it. To him he wouldn’t necessarily base the decisions what he would view as a very unique anomaly, but this is the way it is because they had the right to literally come in and do 5000 sq. foot gridded out lots per that original plan. He thinks that we won’t get as many as these going forward because of the Development agreements Council has. Councilmember Scagliola stated that as we are marching down that section of the City seems like they are using Rhine Valley as a template almost. That is the impression he got from the last two or three zonings that have come across for approval. They are looking for that. In answer Mr. James stated he would say and in going back to his point every developer that walks in wants as small as they can get, and they will point to any subdivision they can point to. Staff will point out great, but Rhine Valley came in and they weren’t in the city limits, and it was a trade off on what they got. This is again, keep in mind the eyes on the prize. Our goal is to develop that set of standards that we are all clear on, we are all solid on, and as Megan (Planner) slides across the table and says, nope this is what we do. Caveat really really really unique thing generally not worth mentioning to most developers, but this is it, this is the minimum, this is how we are doing it. He thinks that that is how staff used. The problem he thinks we’ve had been, we all haven’t quite been on the same page, because we have all come on at different times, we have different experiences and have seen different things. The point of this exercise is to get us all on the same page so that 95% of the time, staff looks at it and says, this is ok, P&Z looks at it and says this is ok and Council looks at it and says this is ok, even if personally I don’t like it as much, but we say, we have achieve consensus – I can read the regulations, we have been able to apply them and he can tell you this meets and the conversely he can look at it and say no it does meet the standards. This is where we are trying to get to. This is again the point of the exercise, how do we prevent these anomalies coming forward, because now we are all on the same page. 6. Summarize Consensus. Going back, what he has heard from Commissioner Odem is there is not necessarily a reason to deviate from these standards, they kind of work for us, but it’s about not having to many of the R7’s, having enough of the R2’s, having to lay out fits and not clustering those together and having some of those tweaks of the development regulations to avoid the really gridded out developments. Another way, if it feels like 2 stories after 2 stories maybe that’s where we require a bit curve to the street, so it doesn’t feel like that long straight shot, he thinks those are regulations we can build in. Don’t need to totally change everything, it’s just 9-14-2021 Minutes Page - 8 - applying what we have consistently and with the right mix, and we think we have a good path moving forward. Question to the group – is that what we are saying? Question from Councilmember Scagliola would it help if could come up with different percentages for the different lot sizes? In answer, Mr. James stated he thinks that is our next step in the upcoming meetings is getting on that. What’s that medium mean and how many of which do you have to do. That’s where we are headed. If we say it’s about that balance. Question from Commissioner Odem, since the standards have changed back in 2010, have we had any neighborhoods that requested straight zoning R2? In answer, Mr. James stated we probably have, and had some come in with bigger than 8400 square feet but those were really like the Laura Heights they were ½ acre because they were on septic and had to be ½ acre. Graytown which has just come forward because we said there is no way you are getting smaller lots when all those 500 homeowners show up and say we are on ½ acre lots why are you letting them do 7000, no way you are getting through because where you are. There was also concern from staff we have to hold really firm, not being critical but what you saw going in in Converse and areas like that, we felt like we really have to hold firm. Hallie’s Cove is the one example of a developer coming in and saying they can do that, but it’s probably the only one he can think of. What he can say is most developers would say this 8400 square foot requirement, it doesn’t work for them, you are really pushing the price point. He doesn’t know what they are starting at Hallie’s Cove, in answer 4’s and 5’s, yes expensive, but if we want to maintain affordability, but it’s that mix and the right balance, does this help in the answer? Commissioner Odem said yes and thank you. Chair Whittaker asked did we hit all the discussion items? In answer Mr. James indicated yes and thinking in consensus what staff is hearing is maybe we radically don’t have to reinvent the wheel. The districts that we have laid out, even though we don’t grant them through straight zoning anymore, they can work for us with the right mix, with the right development standards and we do not want to get to much into the builders’ business and the home buyers’ business. Regulate on the stuff that is really important and most impactful, otherwise stay out of the little minutia stuff that doesn’t have a huge impact on what it looks and feels like but really affects the builder, buyer and homeowner going forward. Mr. James received consensus. Mr. James stated that next meeting is going to be that critical what’s that right mix of this and how it is laid out. Again, what’s that median and mean? Are there some other factors? How big a pod can you do? How much do you need to separate pods and break them up? That is what he believes will be the discussion at the next meeting. Adjournment As there was no further business, Chair Whittaker adjourned the meeting at 4:53 p.m. _______________________________ Councilmember Jill Whittaker, Chair ATTEST: __________________________________ Brenda Dennis, City Secretary