Loading...
09-07-2021 MinutesMINUTES REGULAR MEETING September 7, 2021 A Regular Meeting was held by the City Council and Planning & Zoning Subcommittee of the City of Schertz, Texas, on September 7, 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 David Scagliola P &Z Commissioner Earl Platt Staff Present: Assistant City Manager Brian James Deputy City Secretary Sheila Edmondson Call to Order Councilmember Michael Dahle P &Z Commissioner Jimmy Odom (remote) P &Z Commissioner Richard Braud City Secretary Brenda Dennis 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: Chairperson Whittaker provided an overview of the purpose of the committee and outlined the items to be covered in this first meeting. 1. Summary of Past Concerns on Residential Zoning Standards Assistant City Manager Brian James provided a bit of background on current residential zoning districts. He then outlined of the summary of past concerns. Councilman Scagliola provided some background and noted that the names of zoning districts may have been renamed since then. — P &Z and CC didn't want small lots —Ordinance 10 -S -29 no longer allowed R -6 (7,200 square feet) and R -7 zoning (6,600 square feet). — The smallest lot now would be R -2 which has a minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet. 9 -7 -2021 Minutes Page - 1 - NOW, TH133REFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THR CITY OF SCHERTZ, TEXAS: Section 1. The Current UDC is hereby amended as follows: (a) Lfl'ectiae immediately upon the date of final adoption of Ordinance 10 -S -29, no applications for changes in existing zoning classifications to R -6 or R -7 shall be accepted, considered, or approved by the Cite. The ]Planning and Zoning Commission shall not adept, consider, or act upon any such applications. (b) Propezty zoned R-fi or R -7 upon the date of final adoption of Ordinance 10 -5 -29 shall not be affected by paragraph (a) above. — Too many cars parked on the street — Density too great — Residents needed bigger yards — Too many starter homes — Too much traffic Subcommittee members discussed the above and provided their views and comments. Councilmen Dahle and Scagliola indicated they agreed with the summary. Councilman Scagliola noted that it was also about aesthetics and not wanting the gridded -out pattern. Also, the concern was how much the smaller lots would increase the City's population, from the 30,000 it was at the time to potentially 120,000. There was concern about how we would pay for the infrastructure needed to support that growth. So, in part the smaller lots sizes were a way to manage growth. Councilman Scagliola noted that there is a place for smaller lots, but there is opposition to doing all smaller lots. Mr. James summarized by saying one goal may have been to ensure sustainability of our neighborhoods. 2. Review of Current Zoning Districts and PDD Subdivision Ordinances Assistant City Manager Brian James reviewed the following: Review of Current Zoning Districts and PDD Subdivision Ordinances — R -2 minimum lot size 8,400 square feet — 70'x 120' — 25' front yard setback — 20' rear yard setback — 10' side yard setback — Keep in mind these are minimums Mr. James noted that 8,400 square feet is larger than most currently in the City. He asked if one outcome is to simply require new lots to meet this zoning district — to be at least 8,400 square feed and if we did this would the other concerns sort of work themselves out? Councilwoman Whittaker noted that given current development patterns, a 70' wide lot is a luxury lot, so if that is all we allow, then all we will have a luxury lots. She noted the variety of lots in The Crossvine and used that as an example of 70' lots being luxury lots. She also noted that the bigger the lots the more house that tends to get built on it. So, at times larger lots look just as dense. She advocated for allowing smaller lots with different development standards. Councilman Dahle indicated no one was opposed to smaller lots, but it is how we get there — what standards we have over the aesthetics to mitigate the impact of smaller lots. There was discussion about the City's ability to require additional development standards with zoning. If we build that into our standards, we provide more options. 9 -7 -2021 Minutes Page - 2 - Commissioner Braud discussed why we amended the UDC to now allow smaller lots. He offered Pride Rock (not Rhine Valley) as an example. It would be 700 or 800 lots on gridded streets. He talked about what we are doing now- wanting more imagination from developers, no gridded streets. He indicated he was OK with a mix of lots, but with some imagination, increased development standards. He also noted some changes in other ordinances that impact development form — drainage and floodplain as examples. Commissioner Platt noted he was completely opposed to any smaller lots. He provided examples from his neighborhood — Homestead. An aerial was pulled up on the screen to illustrate the point. He pointed out the 65' x 120' lots and noted the setbacks and that the houses were built right up to the setbacks, with no extra room. Commissioner Odom noted he had the least tenure on P &Z but has lived in Schertz for some time. He noted P &Z's concern for higher density — number of lots, requests to reduce side yard setbacks from the standards 10' to 5'. He talked about the benefits of larger side yard setbacks. He compared this to The Crossvine with smaller side yard setbacks and how tight it looks, particularly when one considers things like AC units and fences. He noted the drawbacks and benefits of PDDs — developers take advantage of it to reduce standards vs flexibility. He noted that Council in the past had good reasons to only allow larger lots. Maybe come up with standards on how much house can be built. Councilwoman Whittaker summed up the comments — that everyone doesn't like developments feeling too dense or tight — being jammed in, too much home on the lot, regardless of lot size. She suggested we move away from so much focus on lot size and focus more on lot coverage and bulk regulations. Mr. James summed up. Many of the problems are design standards, cookie cutter, gridded streets, no open space, too much house crammed onto the lot. He indicated that most felt if we could correct for that, we would be OK with some smaller lots, but still not allow a development of 200 acres with all smaller lots. He asked if there was consensus on that. Councilman Scagliola reiterated the concerns over 5' side yard setbacks, including overhangs, fire rating requirements, etc. He also talked about how we regulate the mix of lot sizes. He noted that PDDs were workarounds to reduce standards. But he concluded that he was not opposed to the summary. Councilman Dahle agreed a 10' side yard setback was appropriate in most cases but there may be some exceptions, such as Heritage Oaks. There was more discussion about side yard setbacks and fire protection. Mr. James again summarized what was discussed adding that the normal standard would be 10' side yard setbacks. All committee members seemed to agree. • Review of Current Zoning Districts and PDD Subdivision Ordinances — PDDs — Crossvine, Homestead, Rhine Valley, Parklands — Lot sizes can vary — generally as small as 6,000 — Utilize a minimum median and mean lot size so that smaller lots are balanced by larger ones — Can modify setbacks as well — Master Plan is included in the zoning document to establish lot sizes in different areas. — Development Standards can also be set with a PDD — increased screening, open space, curvilinear streets Subcommittee members discussed the above and provided their views and comments. Councilwoman Whittaker talked about narrower frontage versus wider lots and why developers do 9 -7 -2021 Minutes Page - 3 - what they do. She noted that if we gave more options, that would be beneficial. Councilman Dahle offered some comments on bulk and setback regulations. Using the aerial photos, discussion of lot size, and setback requirements of past developments occurred. 3. Additional Items for Consideration Mr. James provided the following for consideration: — What else is important in this discussion beyond what we will cover in future meetings — bulk and lot coverage, setbacks, development standards (curvilinear streets, open space, mailbox bump outs)? Subcommittee members addressed the above in great detail and great length. There was a lot of discussion about other development regulations — setbacks, height and bulk, lot coverage, etc. impact how we feel about development. 4. Lot Size Minimums and Average Lot Size /Density Mr. James provided the following information: Lot Size Minimums and Average Lot Size /Density Straight Zoning — R -2 every new single - family lot zoned in the City will be at least 8,400 square feet So, while a few developments will be larger (Graytown) due to adjacent development (Laura Heights is lh acre) that will be all we get. What are the implications of that? Do we want that? PDDs allow variability Concerns that we need guidelines versus every zoning is done on a case -by -case basis — smallest PDD lot is 7,000, all side yard setbacks are 10' minimum, Median/Mean lot size is 8,400 square feet, no more than 100 lots less than 7,500 square feet can be in one "pod ", etc. PDDs are more work for staff and take longer to get through the process Subcommittee members addressed the above in great detail and great length. The concept of having standards, criterial or a checklist for new PPD developments. The Committee agreed this would be helpful. 5. Summarize Consensus In summation, Mr. James stated we have established direction for the next meeting: We are willing to allow for variability and lot size, but we want criteria in terms of design standards 9 -7 -2021 Minutes Page - 4 - that go into it that have to be met that dictate how much variability there is. Includes: setbacks, 10 -foot bulk and area regulations, lot width — going a little wider, curve and linear streets, parking at mailbox, usable open space mixed throughout, not having large concentrations of smaller lots together — this is what we want to come up with. If the developer doesn't want to go along with this, then they are going to have to go with much bigger lots, but still want to maintain setbacks, and open space — will not let you grid it out. This way we are incenting quality design but upping our minimums for everyone. Requiring variety by deviating lot sizes. There was discussion about not clustering small lots, but also interspersing larger lots. There was also discussion about how these additional development standards push up costs, and thus push up home price, impacting affordability. This then means younger families, teachers, etc. cannot afford to live here. This is something we need to keep in mind. Chair Whittaker mentioned that the Subcommittee will be meeting every week for four (4) weeks at the same time. Adjournment As there was no further business, Chair Whittaker adjourned the meeting at 5:16 p.m. C gun ' emrtier'Jill ittaker, Chair A EST: rends Dennis, City ecretary 9 -7 -2021 Minutes Page - 5 -