The URL can be used to link to this page

07-09-2021 Joint City Council and Planning & Zoning Agenda MEETING AGENDA City Council SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING & ZONING July 9, 2021 HAL BALDWIN MUNICIPAL COMPLEX COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1400 SCHERTZ PARKWAY BUILDING #4 SCHERTZ, TEXAS 78154 CITY OF SCHERTZ CORE VALUES Do the right thing Do the best you can Treat others the way you want to be treated Work cooperatively as a team AGENDA FRIDAY, JULY 9, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. Call to Order Hearing of Residents This time is set aside for any person who wishes to address the City Council. Each person should fill out the speaker’s register prior to the meeting. Presentations should be limited to no more than 3 minutes. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body, and not to any individual member thereof. Any person making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks while addressing the Council may be requested to leave the meeting. Discussion by the Council of any item not on the agenda shall be limited to statements of specific factual information given in response to any inquiry, a recitation of existing policy in response to an inquiry, and/or a proposal to place the item on a future agenda. The presiding officer, during the Hearing of Residents portion of the agenda, will call on those persons who have signed up to speak in the order they have registered. Workshop Discussion Items Residential Lot Size and Development Standards Unified Development Code Amendment Updates Landscaping Requirements Tree Mitigation July 9, 2021 City Council Agenda Page 1 Eliminating the site plan requirement from SUPs 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 2nd DAY OF JULY 2021 AT 9:00 A.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. The City Council for the City of Schertz reserves the right to adjourn into closed session at any time during the course of this meeting to discuss any of the matters listed above, as authorized by the Texas Open Meetings Act. Closed Sessions Authorized: This agenda has been reviewed and approved by the City’s legal counsel and the presence of any subject in any Closed Session portion of the agenda constitutes a written interpretation of Texas Government Code Chapter 551 by legal counsel for the governmental body and constitutes an opinion by the attorney that the items discussed therein may be legally discussed in the closed portion of the meeting considering available opinions of a court of record and opinions of the Texas Attorney General known to the attorney. This provision has been added to this agenda with the intent to meet all elements necessary to satisfy Texas Government Code Chapter 551.144(c) and the meeting is conducted by all participants in reliance on this opinion. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS Mayor Gutierrez Audit Committee Investment Advisory Committee Main Street Committee Councilmember Scagliola – Place 5 Cibolo Valley Local Government Corporation - Alternate Hal Baldwin Scholarship Committee Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions - Alternate Schertz-Seguin Local Government Corporation July 9, 2021 City Council Agenda Page 2 Councilmember Davis– Place 1 Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions Main Street Committee - Chair Schertz Housing Authority Board TIRZ II Board Councilmember Scott – Place 2 Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions Schertz Animal Services Advisory Commission Councilmember Whittaker – Place 3 Audit Committee TIRZ II Board Councilmember Dahle – Place 4 Cibolo Valley Local Government Corporation Interview Committee for Boards and Commissions TIRZ II Board Councilmember Heyward – Place 6 Animal Advisory Commission Audit Committee Investment Advisory Committee Main Street Committee Councilmember Brown – Place 7 Main Street Committee Schertz-Seguin Local Government Corporation - Alternate July 9, 2021 City Council Agenda Page 3 City Council / P&Z Special Joint Workshop Session July 9, 2021 Residential Lot Size and Development Standards UDC Amendments CC/P&Z Joint Workshop Goals 2 Articulate the City’s position on: –Single family residential lot sizes –Single family residential development standards –Straight Zoning vs PDDs –UDC Amendment Philosophy But first, what do you like and not like about the neighborhoods in Schertz? 3 So think about some of the neighborhoods in Schertz. 4 Neighborhood – plat 5 Neighborhood – photos 6 Neighborhood – plat and photos 7 Neighborhood – photos 8 Neighborhood – plat 9 Neighborhood – photos 10 Neighborhood – plat 11 Neighborhood – plat and photos 12 Neighborhood – photos 13 Neighborhood – photos 14 Neighborhood – photos 15 So do the photos help you to identify what you like and don’t like? 16 Things we like and don’t like: 1.Big Side Yard Setbacks – feels more comfortable and open, not constricted, allows for more parking on the street too. 2.Feels better to have fewer cars parked on the street – fewer instances of cars parked across from each other on both sides. 3.Having the garage set further from the street 4.Well kept lawns/landscaping 5.Location of sidewalk (adjacent to ROW or 2’ landscape area) 6.? 7.? What are the minimum standards in some Schertz neighborhoods? 17 Willow Grove Estates and Willow Grove are both nice but Willow Grove Estates had bigger lots and had a really good feel and look although the lot size standards are the same. Crossvine – tone is set by the wide boulevard feel coming in and low fences that set a tone for a wide open feel despite having smaller side yard setbacks. A Few Things to Keep In Mind 18 Balancing factors with what we want as an outcome –We hear a lot about cars parked on the street. Which neighborhoods don’t have that? –Developers have to be aware of costs – land cost, infrastructure costs, amenity costs, lot yield, lot price, city development standards, fees, etc. so they can’t do it all. –Affordability – home prices going up in the region. What do we consider affordable? A Few Things to Keep In Mind 19 Balancing factors with what we want as an outcome - Affordability A Few Things to Keep In Mind 20 Balancing factors with what we want as an outcome - Affordability A Few Things to Keep In Mind 21 Balancing factors with what we want as an outcome - Affordability A Few Things to Keep In Mind 22 Balancing factors with what we want as an outcome –Which neighborhoods are negatively impacted by too much signage –Does planting three trees matter? –Does everyone understand what the City requires vs what developers just do on their own? Masonry on houses for example. –Provide a park or just pay a fee – no open space required A Few Things to Keep In Mind 23 Balancing factors with what we want as an outcome –What factors do City Council and P&Z think we need to be aware of ? CC/P&Z Joint Workshop Goals 24 Minimum residential lot sizes –The smallest single-family detached lot size currently allowed by the UDC is 8,400 square feet (70’x120’) –Most developers have indicated an 8,400 square foot minimum lot requirement is not viable for their development type. –We have used the PDD to allow a variety of lot sizes •Under this process we haven’t held firm on an overall mean lot size of 8,400 square feet. –But if we create a new zoning district what would be the minimums? CC/P&Z Joint Workshop Goals 25 R-Staff Suggestion –65’ x 115 –7,475 minimum square feet –10’ side –20’ rear –25’ front –Impervious Coverage – what do we care as long as they account for detention/drainage –Lot coverage for structure maximum – we don’t currently regulate it directly – sort of with impervious coverage CC/P&Z Joint Workshop Goals 26 R-CC/P&Z – thoughts on appropriate standards? –XX’ x YYY” (width x depth) –X,XXX minimum square feet –XX’ side –XX’ rear –XX’ front –Impervious Coverage %? –Maximum Lot Coverage %? CC/P&Z Joint Workshop Goals 27 Straight zoning Vs. PDD –If we were to create a new zoning district or simply require developers to meet the R -2 zoning district minimums and add some additional development standards, can we move away from doing PDDs generally? –Potential new development standards: –Curvilinear street requirement –Community Mail box parking bump out –Minimum required usable open space (could get parkland credits) if no city park. –? CC/P&Z Joint Workshop Goals 28 Responding to changed conditions in Southern Schertz –Comp Plan future land use designations •Southwest Schertz (South of Randolph) calls for primarily Estate Neighborhood and Agricultural Conservation •Southeast Schertz calls for Mixed Use Core/Neighborhoods, Estate Neighborhood and Agricultural Conservation –Consideration of a density shift in Southern Schertz –Moving away from larger “estate” lots and the Mixed Use Core –Maintain lower density in particular areas as appropriate (near floodplain, APZ zones, respecting continued agricultural uses, etc.) –The updated Comp Plan should reflect this shift CC/P&Z Joint Workshop Goals 29 Increasing flexibility in regard to development regulations –Common issues we have with current UDC regulations –Requiring large trees under power lines –Cutting down trees and underbrush for masonry wall and buffer between residential and commercial –Shrubs or other landscaping required between industrial uses –Minimum parking requirements –Residential subdivision entry and wayfinding sign size requirements –Approved site plan requirement for SUP application –Need to apply regulations fairly but not in an overly rigid manner Landscaping Area and Tree Planting Requirements 30 Current Regulations: Abutting Property Landscaping/Screening Requirements 31 Current Regulations: Landscaping Requirements 32 Updated Regulation Concept: –Simplify landscaping requirements – fit on one page –Consistent front/side/rear landscaping buffers –Numerous specific tree planting requirements are excessive, and don’t lend themselves to tree preservation –Build in flexibility to the landscaping requirements •Ornamental trees instead of shade trees when overlapping overhead power lines •Allow total inches in lieu of total number of trees to encourage tree preservation •Remove vehicular use screening in industrial areas •Allowing different options for parking area landscaping to encourage tree preservation •Remove front yard landscaping and phased landscaping requirements •Provide multiple options for landscaping and screening between residential/nonresidential uses SUP without Site Plan 33 Current Regulation: –Currently, this would require the developer to spend money on civil design work and go through the full site plan certifications (best case timeline is 3 -4 months) –Any changes to site plan require developer to go through SUP process again to get re - approved by City Council – QuikTrip example Updated Regulation Concept: –Conceptual site plan if needed –We really only talk about very specific site plan requirements at City Council meetings for SUPs (e.g. dumpster locations), which are already reviewed by Staff during site plan Tree Mitigation 34 Current Regulations: Tree Mitigation 35 Highest commercial tree mitigation fees collected over last decade (over $40k): –Autozone* •2008-2011 Rate = $47,375.00 / 1.39 acres / $34,082.74 per acre •Current rates = $94,750.00 / 1.39 acres / $68,165.47 per acre –Schertz Pkwy. Professional Plaza* •2008-2011 Rate = $42,850.00 / 7.66 acres / $5,593.99 per acre •Current Rate = $85,700.00 / 7.66 acres / $11,187.98 per acre –Emerus Emergency Hospital •$53,300 / 9.03 acres / $5,902.54 per acre –Bush’s Chicken •$42,400 / 1.30 acres / $32,615.38 per acre –Schertz Cibolo Emergency Clinic / AT&T retail •$89,100.00 / 2.10 acres / $42,428.57 per acre –Woodland Oaks North medical offices •$52,150.00 / 1.44 acres / $36,215.28 per acre –Primrose School •$93,100.00 / 1.90 acres / $49,000.00 per acre –Kellum Medical Offices •$257,600.00 / 5.41 acres / $47,615.52 per acre *2008-2011 tree mitigation rate was $50 per inch Tree Mitigation 36 Updated Regulation Concept: –Capping tree mitigation per acre at $10,000 (adjustable); –OR reducing the dollar figure per inch above a certain amount – after paying $5,000 per acre the tree mitigation fees are reduced to $25 per inch –We want to maintain incentive to preserve trees without being punitive Tree Mitigation 37 Updated Regulation Concept Examples: –Bush’s Chicken Tree Mitigation Paid •$42,400 / 1.30 acres / $32,615.38 per acre –Bush’s Chicken Tree Mitigation Paid with $10k/acre Fee Cap •$13,000.00 –Bush’s Chicken Tree Mitigation Paid with $10k/acre Fee Cap with Adjustable Rate ($25/in. after $5k/acre) •$15,475.00 –Woodland Oaks North medical offices Tree Mitigation Paid •$52,150.00 / 1.44 acres / $36,215.28 per acre –Woodland Oaks North medical offices Tree Mitigation Paid with $10k/acre Fee Cap •$14,400.00 –Woodland Oaks North medical offices Tree Mitigation Paid with Adjustable Rate ($25/in. after $5k/acre) •$18,437.50 Do these fees seem more proportional? Would you want a higher/lower cap or adjustable rate? Or a new method entirely? Tree Mitigation Fund Balance 38 Tree Mitigation Fund Balance = $676,936.43 (as of 03/31/21) Revenue Expenses Tree Mitigation Fund Utilization 39 History of Tree Mitigation Fund Utilization: –FY 14-15 Tree planting for the soccer complex construction ($148k), first big round of pruning at parks –FY 15-16 Second big round of pruning at parks including Heritage Oaks Park, and Schertz Parkway –FY 16-17 First big round of pruning at the campuses, tree planting for Aquatic Center –FY 17-18 Miscellaneous pruning and tree removal of dead trees and/or storm damage –FY 18-19 Gutierrez Park, Forest Ridge Park, Fire Station #3 tree planting ($10k) and miscellaneous pruning and planting (replacing dead trees) –FY 19-20 Berry Creek Open Space fence line clearing and trimming of limbs over neighbors' fences ($7k) and miscellaneous pruning and planting –FY 20-21 Miscellaneous pruning so far this year (Mary Whitfield Burks Park $2k, and helping out on Curtiss Ave sidewalk trees), goal is to plant more trees in Ashley Park (screening berms) and to add street trees to Live Oak Rd on our property. Plans for Tree Mitigation Fund: –FY 21-22 We will do a big planting and irrigation set up (for trees) at Parklands Park and at Hallie's Cove Park, & will probably need to do Schertz Parkway again. –FY 22-23 Tree planting at Hilltop/Homestead Park CC/P&Z Joint Workshop Goals 40 Approach to the Comp Plan and UDC Update –High quality suburban community that is a good place to raise a family and start a business •This is what we see as generally the direction of the City, and the Comp Plan should reflect that –Our Comp Plan should build on current plans and reflect the wishes of our citizens –Public input at board/commission meetings during plan development, and specific community meetings to get feedback on draft plan