Loading...
09-28-2021 MinutesMINUTES REGULAR MEETING September 28, 2021 A Regular Meeting was held by the City Council and Planning & Zoning Subcommittee of the City of Schertz, Texas, on September 21, 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 P &Z Commissioner Jimmy Odom (remote) P &Z Commissioner Richard Braud Staff Present: Assistant City Manager Brian James Councilmember David Scagliola P &Z Commissioner Earl Platt Mayor Pro -Tem Michael Dahle Deputy City Secretary Sheila Edmondson Director of Planning & Community Development Lisa Wood Planner Megan Harrison Call to order Councilmember Whittaker call ed the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Citizens to be Heard No one signed up to speak. Discussion and /or Action Items 1. Approval of the minutes of the meeting of September 21, 2021. The minutes from the September 21, 2021, were not available and will be on the next agenda for approval. 2. Review Consensus of September 21, 2021, Meeting. • Curvilinear Streets • Usable Centrally Located Open Space • Mailbox Bumpouts • Lot Size Distribution 3. Discussion regarding Straight Zoning with Improved Development Standards vs. PDD's. 4. Discussion regarding the Tree Mitigation Program. 9 -28 -2021 Minutes Page - 1 - Summarize Consensus Assistant City Manager Brian James opened up the discussion stating if we can write design standards on new subdivisions that accomplish what we want, then we have the ability to with straight zoning with restrictions and limitations and Planned Development Districts (PDD). The design criteria will be put into a checklist that the Planning and Zoning, City Council, Public and Developers can have that will let everyone know what is expected for any projected submitted. Mr. James then continued and summarized on what staff understood what those standards were. 1. Mailbox Bumpouts: The parking of the bumpouts for mailboxes. What staff sent in as a proposal, was that we are going in with having 2 parking spaces per mailboxes. We contemplated that they would bumpout the street and provide those as parallel parking spaces and use the current parallel parking requirements. It would be 8 feet by 22 feet which Staff feel is sufficient. It would also accommodate a bus if the bus wanted to pull over and use it as a bus stop. There was a question that if the consensus wanted to require it have a cover over the area for residents picking up their mail. It will benefit students if the buses use this area for picking up and dropping off students. Staff recommendation is use 2 spaces that we normally have for spaces: if you wanted to off - street spaces, then it follows the normal requirements which is 10' x 20' space or if it's on- street it follows the parallel spaces requirements, additionally do you want it covered. Mr. Brian James asked if the sub- committee was in agreement with that. Chairman Whittaker asked if there ware any objections. There were none. She stated that adding the cover up was a good idea and asked if the sub - committee was in favor of adding this as a requirement to the communal mailboxes to have a cover. The sub - committee agreed on all three recommendations. The next standard Mr. James brought forward to discuss was the Parks and Open Space requirement. The standard that staff drafted is that 435.6 square feet of usable open space per residential lot is required for the first 200 lots. This equates to for every 100 lots you need 1 acre of usable open space. With the first 200 lots that would be 2 acres of usable open space. For every 100 lots after that, it requires an additional 1/2 acre of usable open space. The general criteria is that the open space needs to be a minimum 11/2 acre, not encumbered by easements and located to be accessible by the neighborhood. Chairman Whittaker stated at the previous meeting the open space presentation was very informative and she is comfortable with the staff recommendations. She asked if any sub - committee members had any questions. Councilmember Scagliola asked these requirements meet up with the Parkland Dedication requirements. Mr. James confirmed it is generally consistent with the Parkland dedication requirements; 1 acre for every 100 dwelling units. He did continue to explain that a development that comes in and doesn't have a park has to have this private open space. The developers do have the ability to get 1/2 credit for the park requirement but shouldn't be an issue because the open space private is less than the park requirement. So must likely, they will provide a private open space and they will still have to pay parkland dedication fee cash in lieu. 9 -28 -2021 Minutes Page - 2 - Councilmember Scagliola commented that we can make more in parkland in lieu of fees instead of open spaces. He asked with both options, which would a developer prefer? What would the incentive be for the developer to go with a larger park? Mr. James explained what we typically see when a developer has enough lots and land to warrant dedicating that city park that is 5 acres minimum, they view that as an amenity to help sell lots. They will use that in marketing as the same way they would if an elementary school was nearby. From the developer's perspective, they are going to have to pay cash or give up land, they will give up land and benefit from advertising that as a selling point in their community. On the other end, if the developer does not have a lot of land, they would view giving up land because their lots have more value, so it varies, but most understand you are going to pay either way. To summarize, what staff has drafted is that if there is not a city park dedicated, the developer has to provide a private open space, so every subdivision will have either one of these options once these standards are passed. Mr. James asked the subcommittee to comment and clarify if subdivision plans include private open spaces, do the plans need to go through the Parks Board for approval prior to Planning and Zoning? Plans with city dedicated parks do or is this an unnecessary step in the development process since it is private open spaces. Mayor Pro -Tem Dahle asked since we are mandating open space for developments, are we mandating any type of improvements. Mr. James explained we would not mandate improvements on these open spaces. As to the comment of having Parks and Rec look at the plans with private open spaces, he is fine either way, but to simplify the process, have only Planning and Zoning review the plans. Chairman Whittaker agreed with only requiring Planning and Zoning to review the plans with private open spaces. Councilmember Scagliola likes to have all the interested parties look at all the plans (both Parks and Planning/Zoning), but if both of those committees are in agreement to this, he would agree to move the developing process along. The rest of the sub - committee were in agreement as well. Mr. James reviewed the discussion of R6 and R7 lots wanting to have some variation in lot size from the September 21, 2021, meeting. From the discussion: R6 -Would allow Straight Zoning with 30 acres or less. R7 -Would allow Straight Zoning with 20 acres or less Chairman Whittaker explained that with these two options, developers with smaller parcels of land can work within these standards. The developers that come in with larger parcels and are requesting a PDD, the city was asking those developers for the different size lots to be interspersed with the development. The feedback we are getting back is that those developers would not be able to do that, and they would still be coming in with R6 and R7's in block sections. An option for the small parcel land owners would be if you owned a smaller parcel of land where you don't have the ability to have a variety of sizes, the straight zoning option for a limited parcel size allows developers to come in with a particular product that makes sense for that parcel. With these proposed restrictions, they would still be required to have private open spaces, covered mailboxes, etc. It allows one more option for the small parcel land owners. If the developers with large parcels of land requesting a PDD would be able to block sections of their development with R6 and R7's, why not allow the smaller parcel land owners the ability to do this with straight zoning. 9 -28 -2021 Minutes Page - 3 - Chairman Whittaker did have questions about developers who have 100+ acres coming in and breaking up their parcel in 20 -acre sections and wanting to do straight zoning, how do you buffer those areas, so they do not do anything similar next to those areas. Mr. James indicated staff would need to work through these possibilities with developers. Staff does not want to see developers that would normally come in as a 100+ acre development and break it up in 20 acre increments to develop blocks of R6 and R7's. Staff would like the developer to limit the amount of R6 and R7's in large areas. Staff would also let developers know if other small parcels around their area are already zoned R6 and R7 and limit them, even if they are owned by different owners. The benefit for small developers' who do not have as much time or money, this would allow to get them through process fairly quickly. For bigger tracts of land, the two things I believe we will see now that we have laid out the criteria it narrows the range of what we are going to allow and not left it open ended, that move through a little more quickly, but also larger parcels of land, developers are more creative and can spend more time and money to increase the lot yield. Mayor Pro -Tem Dahle asked about if a developer had 500+ acres plan and staff would limit the R6 and R7's within those zones, so how do you work with the box layout. Mr. James said staff deal with that and that would be in inherent problem and there is no perfect solution. Staff does not want developers coming in and straight zone for it and holding that up forever. Staff also knows that the sub - committee does not want to see a lot of small parcels owned by different owners all requesting the straight zoning for R6 just because they are small parcels and end up having a large area of the same zoning but made up of all these small parcels. Mayor Pro -Tem Dahle asked about developers who have might have approx. 100+ acres and wanting to zone 20 acres of it and then come back later and piece out another 20 acres of the same zoning. Mr. James explained staff felt there were enough of the R7 zoning in a large area of land, they would not want another R -7 next to it. Mr. James stated staff would have to see what property owners are out there and kind of see where they might these issues. Again, he stated there is no perfect solution. Councilmember Scagliola stated he is not in favor of straight zoning for R7's. He does like the larger plats that are out there can subdivide. It is an integrity issue of the entire community and would like to see a lot of homes being built by one developer that take on a certain characteristic. With the design standards, you would not have a bunch of mix - matched homes. That would be the incentive to develop these large areas that look like this, for example with Cross Vine, where we allowed them to have certain things because they consolidated all that acreage and took on a certain flavor. Mr. James agreed that there are some advantages to having a large parcel being developed as one project, however there are a lot of smaller parcels out there and cannot come in as a bigger piece. For that reason, we will need to make some provision for that. The question is do you want to force those smaller pieces to go bigger as R2 or are you willing to allow those who come in as smaller subdivisions. Councilmember Scagliola asked how do we get garden homes into the city? He would like to see more garden homes, but he is not in favor of straight zoning for garden homes or R7's. He would like to see a variety out there. Mr. James explained that if we do want garden homes in the city, we need to make it easier for the developers to do with an option of straight zoning for this. This is the flip of this, is if we are saying we want garden homes, but we are going to take 6 -9 months to get approved, this is not going to attract developers to do this. Councilmember Scagliola stated that 9 -28 -2021 Minutes Page - 4 - would be the benefit of a PDD to get some garden homes in but does not like straight zoning for it. Chairman Whittaker stated that what they discussed last week was, Riata, with the smaller lot sizes, could not be built today because it is a large of a land space to accommodate either category of the limits of R6 -30 acres or less or R7 -20 acres or less. She explained that Mr. James is trying to narrow down what the concern is and see if these suggestions we are discussing today address those concerns. If the concern is that we are going to have wall to wall R6 and R7's, then what we put in place with these limits make sure that issue has been eliminated with the limits of R6 -30 acres and R7 -20 categories. Developers will not be able to put one next door and next door without a buffer. For the committee members that are concerned about straight zoning, we need to pinpoint exactly the concern, because those concerns will be there with PDD's as well. This particular solution solves that problem in limiting the land mass and overall feeling of wall to wall, cookie -cutter type houses that are crammed in there. So, we addressed all of those issues and Chairman Whittaker stated we limited the land mass for R6 and R7's. She asked if the sub - committee had other concerns. Commissioner Platt has concerns that these solutions will cause a patchwork of smaller neighborhoods of R6 and R7's and then the neighbors next to these parcels would want to know why they cannot be zoned R6 and R7's. He also has concerns that with straight zoning, the landscape will be a patchwork R6 and R7's without oversight like they have with a PDD. Mr. Platt would like to keep the straight zoning for only R2's and the rest with PDD's for the developer to have flexibility. Chairman Whittaker stated the other concerns she is hearing is that larger parcels could be chopped into smaller lots to get straight zoning and how do we address that. Commissioner Richard Braud mentioned that the Haley Subdivisions came in with four different developments. It has happened before, and Haley was a large parcel of land that could have been brought in a one development but wasn't. Mr. James replied to Mayor Pro -Tern's question, is how tricky we want to get with this sort of solution? One option is to define larger areas in the city by looking at the Thorough -Fare Plan and look at the natural topography and see what the acreage is and based on that acreage we would want to limit R6 and R7's. The worst option would be `first come, first served', whoever comes in first and requests these R6 and R7's zoning gets it and everyone else would have to come in and do bigger lots or a PDD. Hopefully we can talk to the city attorney and see if we can have some kind of SUP, so we don't have developers come in and zone R6 or R7 and if you don't file the plat within a certain time frame, the zoning expires. We can see if something like that would be possible. Mr. James stated even with the details worked out on these solutions, he feels some on the sub- committee were still not comfortable with straight zoning on these small lots. Commissioner Odom and Councilmember Scagliola concurred. Mayor Pro -Tem Dahle asked how many homes were in Kramer Farms. There are 307 homes on 62 acres. Mayor Pro -Tem Dahle continued to explain that if this development came in today, looking at the design standards we would require some open space, which currently Kramer Farms does not have. Mayor Pro-Tem. Dahle stated he struggles with entitling that by right, but if we limit it to 20 acres or 30 acres, and require the open space, require the curvilinear streets, he thinks this is workable. Mr. James mentioned that at these meetings the question that is often asked, is there is a consensus that we want some homes to be more affordable homes in the City of Schertz. The City has that new median home price around $300,000 dollars. He reminded the sub - committee that all of the things 9 -28 -2021 Minutes Page - 5 - the city requires, for new development standards, the regulations, the time it takes to get through the process adds to the cost of the home price upwards. If after this meeting we want to have some homes that are affordable, how do we do that, if we are not willing to make some adjustments. Chairman Whittaker agreed that when you are home shopping and you see developments with lots of amenities, the cost of those homes are more expensive than other developments with the same size square footage. By offering these smaller parcels of R6 and R7 is a way to offer more affordable housing or less expensive homes options because they won't have to put in a lot of amenities, but they will have to put in open space that will have more aesthetically pleasing areas. The concern of the quality of the smaller neighborhoods, was brought up, but Chairman Whittaker believes it won't be an issue since they would still have the same building and inspection standards. Councilmember Scagliola stated the problem he has is that no one is entitled to a home in a given community where they want to live. He would like to sit with a developer and ask what a subdivision would look like that had houses in the range of $180,000 4220,000, what would that subdivision look like. Councilmember Scagliola says he is looking down range, 50 -60 years from now and is concerned about what we might allow to be built now. Mr. James explained that the city is not going to relax any of its design standards, what we have gone through is how do we add design criteria that is mandate for everyone going forward. Private open spaces, bumpouts for the mailboxes, mailbox covers and curvilinear streets. What we are not talking about is just letting whatever happens, happen. Mr. James just cautioned the sub - committee to not look at the worst -case scenario and think that is going to happen here. Commissioner Platt stated that his concern is that we have a process that we have had for a long time. We have PDD's, SUP's and they work great, but the concerns and the complaints are that it takes too long, it raises costs for the developers. Some developers can't come in and go through the process, so now we are going to create another process and procedure with straight zoning to accomplish something that we can already do, and we have been doing. We just have not been doing it efficiently enough. Mr. James added that before 8 or 9 years ago, the city did not have PDD's. Everyone came in with straight zoning, and because we only did straight zoning for residential, we had this problem with somebody coming in with just wanting only R6 or R7's. We didn't have those controls that we could limit those to a certain number of acres, and because of these problems coming up, City Council said we are not going to allow R6 and R7's. Staff did not have anyone in and want R2. Now we have a different problem, because we saw even if you came in R2, staff was still not happy with the subdivision and when we talked to Planning and Zoning about what we liked, it just wasn't just about the lot size. For example, Jonas Woods. It might not be what we want now, but back then, it was generally liked. Mr. James asked what did we like about it, curvilinear streets, trees, and some variability of the street layout. Mr. James stated as long as we have been having these types of meetings, there has not been a consensus among the sub - committee members of any subdivision they liked as is. Mr. James went on to explain that this is where staff struggles. Mr. James asked sub - committee to identify subdivisions that they like as is: Councilmember Scagliola liked Deer Haven, Arroyo Verde, and Forest Ridge because they had the some of design standards that are being discussed today. Chairman Whittaker identified that many of the subdivisions mentioned all had mature trees in the neighborhoods, even if the subdivision had a variety of lots. 9 -28 -2021 Minutes Page - 6 - Mr. James summarized that when you do bigger lots, you can overcome many of the issues. He asked the sub - committee if they are saying they only want RI zoning which has a min. 9600 sq.ft. Chairman Whittaker asked what the zoning for Forest Ridge is, the gated community behind HEB. Forest Ridge is zoned R6. She liked this subdivision because it had the curvilinear streets, cul -de- sacs, and mature landscape. It is also gated which many folks find attractive. Councilmember Scagliola stated if Forest Ridge had more green space, it would be a better example of the subdivision he likes. He continued to say if the R6 subdivisions had green space, they would be on his list of desirable subdivisions. Chairman Whittaker asked the sub - committee are we going to allow a process to eliminate this type of discussion for a small developer with a small parcel of land. Any PDD's goes through Planning and Zoning with 7 Commissioners and then to City Council with 7 members, and the developer will have to attend these meetings to hear everyone's opinion on the submitted plans. She stated just offering this R6 or R7 Straight Zoning simplifies the process and putting the faith in the developer. There would be a checklist for the developer to follow. Chairman Whittaker added that there was a change made before going from straight zoning to PDD's because they didn't like what was happening. She noted that what the sub - committee decides for right now does not have to be forever but asked does this make sense for right now. Currently the city is very restrictive, and developers are pushed into using a PDD every time they want to include smaller lots and it does slow down the process. Chairman Whittaker stated she believes this would be a beneficial to offer another option. She continued and said if the sub - committee could not agree on this option, the developers would have to submit a PDD and sit through a longer process. Mr. James explained that one of the biggest challenges for the developer is uncertainty. The developer spends a lot of time and money on engineers, consultants, options on property and if they have no clue what they are going to get, that is what kills the project. Even if they do the PDD, it is still problematic and it take a lot of time to get through staff. Typically, some of the issues are that Planning and Zoning is not ok with what staff is ok with than visa versa. Staff helps the developer with the process to get their project through Planning and Zoning and then City Council and that is part of the frustration. In addition, Mr. James explained that the city does not have the staff levels in part why it takes so long to get through the process. Commissioner Odom stated in the spirit of consensus he does not have an issue in allowing smaller development with the straight zoning with the R6 and R7. What has been occurring lately is developers are coming in with smaller lots, smaller side setbacks and rear setbacks and we have addressed that with development standards. Commissioner Odom likes the PDD because it gives the developer flexibility, and the city can hold their feet to the fire with lot sizes in the design. He likes the Cross Vine subdivision however his concern was the larger houses on smaller lots. Mr. James reiterated that the developer would say Crossvine our concept doesn't work unless we're able to put that size house that lot. When the developer puts a larger house, the value of that lot increases and that in part is why Crossvine works. Mr. James explained that this is what the sub- committee wants to limit by keeping the setbacks in place with no adjustments. Mayor Pro -Tem Dahle believes the sub - committee is close to a consensus with the R6 and R7 straight zoning with the additional design requirements. The percentage of lot sizes in the PDD's as a separate discussion. 9 -28 -2021 Minutes Page - 7 - Mr. James stated that the sub - committee could vary the plan by mixing R2 and percentages of R6 and R7. The sub - committee discussed Kramer Farms, which is 62 acres and Bindseil Farms is 22 acres and what design standards these two subdivisions would need to implement if they were new developments for the city today. Both subdivisions would have few lots because of the required park and open space standard. Chairman Whittaker asked if Bindseil Farms is a PDD. Mayor Pro -Tem explained they were entitled by right before 2010. Chairman Whittaker continued and said this is a great example of a subdivision with R7 zoning that even without the parkland spaces doesn't make the city feel smaller or cramped. Both R6 and R7's have 60 ft wide lots. Councilmember Scagliola mentioned that Kramer Farms is zoned R7. Chairman Whittaker stated that a 60 ft wide lot is not a small lot. She stated that there should absolutely no reason why the sub - committee agree to allow a small community with 60 ft. wide lots. The $200,000 homes she mentioned before had only a 40 ft. wide lot. Councilmember Scagliola explained that what they were discussing a few years back was development on the southside of Schertz where it was mostly RA. He asked do we want the southside of Schertz looking like the middle and that is the key here. There are several communities that have GH- Garden Homes, and they are on a 50 ft. wide lot. Crossvine has a few 50 ft lots within their community. Councilmember Scagliola stated that Crossvine was an exceptional situation to allow garden homes. Commissioner Odom stated that the discussion on whether the Planning and Zoning, City Council and the Sub - Committee are opposed to R6 and R7's, it is a process in getting to the end goal of what we are all looking for. Chairman Whittaker agreed and asked the sub - committee do we allow a process that certain people who meet certain requirements to streamline their opportunity to develop or do we want as a body and inspect every development that comes into the city. Commissioner Braud stated that his responsibility on Planning and Zoning is to not make it easier for developers to come in and develop a product. It is to have that oversight and follow the procedures that are there and to make sure they are up to standards. To not make it easier to sit on this Board and we will give the R6 and R7's by right, and they can just whatever they want and then go about their business. What we are going to get is all these pods around the outside of a larger development and the prices are just going to go up and they are going to inflate the prices of all of these pods and these use their premium lots and sizes to raise prices. It is going to make a huge headache for everyone. Mr. James explained that if you allow these smaller lots, and as much as we build in these standards and criteria, you still want to see what you are going to get, want to see the layout and make sure it truly meets the criteria, and make sure what they do responds to the property if it is flat piece of land vs. one with topography, might treat it differently because of that. Commissioner Odom explained that's what we have the ability to do with the PDD's and SUP's. Mr. James agreed that is what they all come back to is that we would like that level of oversight, if we can come up with standardized criteria and let them know on the front end so we eliminate some of the debate. We would not allow them to ask for come back with different setbacks, we will not 9 -28 -2021 Minutes Page - 8 - give it to them, those are off the table, make sure the developers do all the things on a checklist and with this we can shorten some of the time with a PDD process because staff will not agree to certain items. Commissioner Platt stated that what they see on their side, the developers are trying to get an exception, trying to get a smaller lot. If they have the criteria and submitted to us to begin with and meets the criteria, it goes through pretty quickly without any problems. Where the holdup comes in and the time - consuming part and the financial drain is when they want something specific, i.e., 80% garden homes, smaller lots that don't fit in with what we are looking for. Chairman Whittaker would like on this particular issue is that we have 6 members up here and even though we will probably not come to a consensus, as a body it is our responsibility to make a recommendation. She asked for each member to see where they all stand on this one particular issue and if it is a split decision, there will be no change. If at least 4 members agree in one direction, the sub - committee needs to move in that direction, even without a unanimous decision. The question is: Would you like to allow for straight zoning for R6 and R7 lots, 60 ft. wide as an option for a developer with a maximum size parcel 20 acres or 30 acres, respectively and avoid the PDD process with certain restrictions in place and the enhanced design standards? Commissioner Braud: Yes, with both being 30 acres. Councilmember Whittaker: Yes, would agree to increasing parcel size if all agreed Councilmember Scagliola: Yes, on R6, No on R7 Mayor Pro -Tem Dahle: Yes, on both R6 and R7, with the smaller acreage requirement on R7 due to the number of additional units Commissioner Platt: No, opposed to straight zoning, believes we can streamline the PDD process and have a guideline criteria to get through the process quicker Commissioner Odom: Yes, R6 and R7 with 30 acres and 20 acres respectively Chairman Whittaker stated there is a majority of sub - committee members that approving of a R6 and R7 straight zoning option for developers. We will put it back to the city to tweak some of the details, and there was lots of discussion on that item and we can move forward on that. Mayor Pro -Tem Dahle wanted to add that we would be taking on the assumption that we would try to. find a way to limit the total on sectors in the city. Councilmember Scagliola asked if there was a consensus with these standards in the PDD's. Chairman Whittaker stated the sub - committee has not specifically addressed PDD's. Mr. James indicated that staff would put together a one -page summary if you want to go with straight zoning for R6 and R7, here is what you have to do, here are the limitations and once we settle on that then what are we going to do with PDD's. Chairman Whittaker stated at the next meeting they we will have both sets of minutes from September 21, 2021, and September 28, 2021, to approve and will discuss the Lot Size Distribution in PDD's and the Tree Mitigation Program. Commissioner Odom wanted to add that the sub - committee address the non -PDD larger parcel if the developer comes in and wants straight zoning. Mr. James agrees. 9 -28 -2021 Minutes Page - 9 - Adjournment As there was no further business, Chair Whittaker adjourned the meeting at 5:22 p.m. Co cilmember Jill Whittaker, Chair ATTEST Sheila Edmondson Deputy City Secretary 9 -28 -2021 Minutes Page -10 -