Loading...
09-21-2021 MinutesMINUTES REGULAR MEETING September 21, 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 Councilmember Michael Dahle Absent Staff Present: Assistant City Manager Brian James Councilmember David Scagliola P &Z Commissioner Earl Platt City Secretary Brenda Dennis Director of Planning & Community Development Lisa Wood Planner Megan Harrison 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: Approval of the minutes of the meeting of September 14, 2021. Chair Whittaker recognized P &Z Commissioner Earl Platt who moved seconded by Councilmember David Scagliola to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 14. The vote was unanimously approved. 2. Review Consensus of September 14, 2021, Meeting. In summation, Mr. James reviewed the following with the committee: — Current standards are generally fine — no need to reinvent the wheel. — Hold firm to the 10' side yard setback 9 -21 -2021 Minutes Page - 1 - Single - Family Residential 9,600 80 District -1 Single - Family Residential 8,400 70 District -2 Two - Family Residential 9,000 75 District Apartment/Multi- Family Residential 10,000 100 District Single - Family Residential 7,200 60 District -6 Single - Family Residential 6,600 60 District -7 120 25 10 20 120 25 10 20 120 25 100 25 10 20 10 20 120 25 10 20 110 25 10 20 Mr. James stated that last meeting they talked about the current development standards in terms of lot size with setback depth/width regulations. Generally, the consensus was the current standards were fine, no need to reinvent the wheel in terms of the lot width, depth, and setbacks. Key was really to hold firm on these with side yard setback at l Oft in virtually in all the cases with a few rare exceptions. Above are the zoning districts — as a reminder the R6 and R7 per ordinance can not be granted anymore but will discuss later as to how we go forward and work into these. The assumption being that where we would do PDDs we would tend to stick with these zoning districts as the subdistricts. So, you could come in with a PDD, do a section as R2, section as R6, section as R7 — key is how we communicate that out to those, given the prior council ordinance. The above zoning districts again were fine and there was a feel to so smaller than 6600sq. ft. in most cases, but again there maybe those exceptions with a really rare product. He is looking for confirmation that everyone agrees where they ended up at the last meeting. Mr. James received confirmation. 3. Discuss Development Standards Mr. James discussed with the Committee members the following: 9 -21 -2021 Minutes Page - 2 - — Review existing developments to establish what we want for: — curvilinear streets — Usable centrally located open space — consider in terms of lots — how many lots triggers an open space and how big (in terms of lots) — Mailbox bumpouts — to accommodate 2 cars or 3? — Lot Size Distribution Mr. James provided the following information and why we use Planned Development Districts (PDDs) — was to really look at the subdivision layout and have a discretion of what that looks like, and if someone came in with straight zoning R2, as long as they met our minimum standards, and as much as you may not like it, it would have to be approved, thus again very gridded out streets, not required to have any open space within the subdivision, not required to do mailbox bump outs — very uniformed lot sizes. One of the reasons we have gone to the PDDs is to be able to tweak and require those. What we have talked about is benefits (1) establish some general standards, so that when someone comes in we have something to measure the development against — we have laid out how much open space you need for every so many lots, how big that space needs to be, curvilinear streets and things like that; (2) someone comes in and has a small project and just come in and develop it as R2 we still have criteria that requires them to do those things within those. (Discussion more later in the presentation) Mr. James stated that we will never quite achieve the same standards as much as we try to articulate those requirements — there are those that can figure away around the ordinance. • Mailbox Bumpouts — to accommodate 2 cars or 3? Mr. James stated that one of the things people like are the mailbox bumpouts. We have the subdivision, they have the communal mailbox, its out by the curb, but then there is on- street parking and at times that can be problematic. Concept that was talked about is you have that notch out in the road that allows cars to pull off the lane of traffic. Typically, it is a 12ft. indentation or expansion of the road to accommodate that parallel parking (sometimes we tend to go a little wider) Question is how many cars do you want to accommodate in that area? How long do you want that section to be? In theory if you wanted 2 cars you would probably go 40 to 45ft to give it a little extra cushion. And in theory if the school district wanted to locate bus stops there — they could use it as a bus stop if there is not a car there. Discussion with members were in consensus of accommodating 2 cars and if the school district will be utilizing that as a temporary bus stop to accommodate for a bus, which the bus is roughly 40 to 42ft long then adjustment can also be made to accommodate them. Mr. James asked Megan if she knew how many different mail stations are required based on lots they typically come in with? She was unsure but Mr. James stated he would come back next week with the information. Commissioner Braud suggested a possible cover for those areas — not sure if these could be mandated or not. Mr. James stated that if that was something everyone like, then we could run it through to see if they could. Mr. James received consensus of accommodating 2 cars and seeing the possibility of a cover for those areas as well. • Usable Centrally Located Open Space — consider in terms of lots — how many lots triggers an open space and how big (in terms of lots) for the size wanted. Mr. James stated that when you talk about centrally located open space — when staff is dealing with a PDD they typically eyeball the subdivision and see a bunch of lots in an area and not 9 -21 -2021 Minutes Page - 3 - open space — staff looks at the lotting pattern — then staff makes suggestions of 2 to 3 lots to be converted into open space. Normal criteria for open space is based upon the number of lots in the subdivision. Mr. James stated for example — you have a subdivision with 200 lots — you would need to have an open space that is 1/2 acre or 2/3 acre — that is likely how they would write the standard. Mr. James provided several examples of subdivisions through Google Earth that look right to the committee, and they will calculate how many lots that is and how big that is and provide that information. This is sort of an abstract concept as we have talked about lot size and lot width. Chair Whittaker asked can't you just say for so much acreage that has home coverage on this many acres, you need these many acres of open space? Because you are saying # of lots, if you are in a neighborhood with larger lots, how would that be? Mr. James stated you could have a couple of standards that could be done. You could come in and say for every 100 lots you need a' /z acre of open space; or for every 33 acres that you come in with your plat for residential uses you have to provide open space — the question really is do you want to deviate or a different standard depending on the lot size for the subdivision? In answer to Chair Whittaker question on requirements for different number of lots and sizes could there be different standards. In answer Mr. James stated you can do something like for every lot that is zoned R7 you need to have a 1 -acre piece of open space for every 75 lots; for R6 you would have to have 3/ acre for every 125 lots. If the concept is if the lots are bigger, kids don't need as much open space — you could word it that way as well. What do you want this opens space to be for, just a place for kids to go out and play a touch football game — you do not need a big area to do that. Councilmember Scagliola asked what were the green space requirements for Parks and Recreation right now? How many acres? He knows that they shy away from the 5 acre lots — due to city having to maintain those. He stated that if those were broken up into smaller pieces, then the city could get our requirements — instead of Parkland in lieu of funds — which he is against. He stated that we have sufficient green space allocated for subdivisions just in the Parkland requirement. Mr. James stated that he is right — the issue is when we have a subdivision that comes in and dedicates that park, that has at least 5 acres, the idea would be generally they would not have to have that open space, but where we take cash in lieu of, there is no open space — the idea is how do we come up with that. Again, Councilmember Scagliola stated that he doesn't have a problem with them owing is more than 5 acres he just doesn't want the city to be saddled with it. Would rather partition up those 5 acres into a couple of 1 -acre open spaces and disperse those throughout the subdivision. He stated that every subdivision needs a little open space if nothing more than an old oak tree in the center with some benches. Not City owned parks — do away with City owned parks — not pocket parks. Mr. James stated the ideas to disperse them because typically if it is a big neighborhood the city's going to want to park. Then what we would like to have them disperse that the kids would to be able to access that in the neighborhood. Mr. James stated they are trying to get away from the city owned pocket type parks — too expensive to maintainL Megan Harrison Planner read the current Parkland dedication standard: Development of Areas 9 -21 -2021 Minutes Page - 4 - Smaller Than Five (5) Acres. The development of park areas smaller than five (5) acres for public park purposes is deemed to be impractical. If fewer than five (5) acres are proposed to be created by a plat, then prior to filing the plat, the subdivider shall be required to pay to the City the applicable cash payment -in -lieu of land. No plat showing a dedication of less than five (5) acres for a public park shall be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. While dedication of parkland to the City in an amount less than five (5) acres is deemed impractical, it is the City's policy to encourage the development of private parkland in accordance with this subsection and provide credit for development of these private parklands accordingly. Mr. James asked if she knew how much land that they have to give per lot? This is located in the Fee Schedule, and it states the amount of land of land to dedicate per lot — it is 1 acre per 100 dwelling units. That is the normal standard for parkland. Mr. James stated if you wanted to go with that we certainly could and say 1 acre per every 100 units and then we could put in a provision that says they can't be less than 1/2 acre in size each. What we could also do not require the full amount within the subdivision, and they also would pay the difference in the fee. Mr. James continued providing examples of how much land they could require as the members discussed. Members discussed City park standards, but again Mr. James stated that we are not trying to modify that criterion. He thinks that if the developer comes in and has enough land to dedicate a city park then were going to say generally you met your obligation for it. We want to avoid a Mr. James showed an area on the overhead which was the property that has Wendy Swan then how much land would we want and how we would want it spaced out. Mr. James continued to show examples. Chair Whittaker stated we already have requirements for open space within a development so what we're talking about here is in addition to, or if they don't meet that, and how do the two relate. We have either the Parkland requirement or cash in lieu of so how does this relate to what we're trying to decide on for open space. Mr. James says is a couple of things typically the first area that were talking about is if they're not going to dedicate his city park, the concept is we still want you to have usable open space for kids to play because you don't have that City Park. The flipside is if you have a full city park within that neighborhood and he would say generally that would satisfy the requirement. But who would likely come up with a standard that says depending upon how big we may want a couple of pocket parks, so there may be a city park and a couple of pocket parks to have some usable land because it's a big. This is what we are trying to do. So, what we need to talk about is assume there's not even be any city park how much open space do we want and where and how do we want to locate it. Chair Whittaker stated she would like to have something like a half -acre. Again Mr. James showed Wendy Swan and the track land that we got is two acres. And in his mind for talking about half -acre that's enough area for kids to play football game and sit out there with a park bench or something like that. He was saying the minimum size that we would want is a half - acre. Maybe we would say for your first 200 lots it's 1 acre per hundred, so your first 200 lots have to provide 2 acres and then beyond that it's a half -acre for every hundred lots. Commissioner Braud asked if this would be HOA maintained, Mr. James indicated yes. Mr. James stated to be clear we are not going to require anything be built in it, if the developer 9 -21 -2021 Minutes Page - 5 - wants to use it as a selling point, they are welcome to, all we really want is (Mr. James went back and showed Willow Grove) all we are really after is they have open space within the subdivision and kids can go out there and play on it. Mr. James also stated that we probably would have them graded it but if it's wooded you don't have to. Mr. James went back to the piece of Willow Grove said it's about 2.602 acres. Commissioner Braud asked if detention ponds count as open space, answer was no it has to be usable open space, area accessible. Mr. James also stated that the retention areas maintained by the property owner, but the property owner could've made an agreement with the HOA to maintain it. Mr. James stated has to be usable open space, it has to be located in an area that is accessible by the lots. Can't be out on the perimeter and tucked away behind some lots. We can have some requirements for an amount of street frontage within the neighborhood. We can see what we have and scale the lots for the criteria. As Mr. James was reviewing Willow Grove, he stated that for the first 200 lots it would be 1 acre per hundred and then a half -acre per hundred thereafter. It has to be usable, can't be detention ponds and centrally located. Mr. James and the committee members reviewed other subdivisions like Kramer Farms and how that was laid out for open space. Councilmember Scagliola asked how that is going to affect the parkland dedication. In answer Mr. James stated it's not going to our current code allows and requires credit for private open spaces. But it likely means we are going to require it then we will probably have less cash coming in because they are required to do the open space. And moving forward if we need to revisit our parkland dedication requirements and fees, they can do that. Mr. James explained depending on the plans, staff will see where the open spaces are planned and if not usable, they will make recommendations to correct it. He wants to make sure the subdivision lots are broken up for adequate open space. Councilmember Scagliola mentioned Kramer Farms and the small pocket parks and stated that he would want something larger than that. Members reviewed the Kramer Farms area and not enough land if we had another Kramer Farms come in. Committee members and Mr. James stated that Willow Grove example is what we are looking for and Kramer Farms is not. Chair Whittaker stated in reiterating it is for 200 lots 2 acres and for the next hundred lots half - acre which is similar is what we are seen in Willow Grove. Committee members were comfortable with that. • Curvilinear Streets Mr. James stated that we have requirements in our code for amount of curve a street has to have if it curves. He stated you could have a straight street, but what we have is if you are going to have curve in it, it has to have the appropriate about of curve in it. Don't want to slight of curve. The example Mr. James provided was the streets curve enough to be fun driving but not enough to force you to stay in your lane, this is what we want to avoid. We have requirements for tangents on roadways, but we want to get a check from the commission what it is you like, we can then go back and measure those and then that would become our standard. He provided the example of Cherry Tree and to him is a problem, it doesn't have enough curve in it as you are looking at the length of it, this is what we want to avoid. 9 -21 -2021 Minutes Page - 6 - Mr. James brought up Fairhaven as an example and asked if that road had enough curve in it. He stated that it has a fair amount of curve in the middle but no curve on either end. To him this is not what we want. Chair Whittaker commented that if you look at the street in Willow Grove the curves make it feel cozier not like a raceway. She likes how the streets are in that area because of the shorter curve segments. Committee members discussed the benefits of curvilinear streets, provided examples of subdivisions with and without. Mr. James asked the members to tell him what streets they like and which streets they do not like and will come up with the criteria. Councilmember Scagliola commented on the Fairhaven area that it is not what we want due to it being an area where those tend to speed. He also commented on Fairway Ridge which was another area that encouraged speeding. Chair Whittaker spoke about the Willow Grove and Belmont Park areas that this seems like the street patterns we may like. She stated create the standards based on Belmont Park and Willow Grove. Commissioner Braud stated that if we look at the Parklands, they asked them to provide the type of street patterns we want, even somewhat in Homestead. Mr. James asked that the members let him know which street patterns of the neighborhoods they like. Chair Whittaker stated that she likes Willow Grove and Belmont Park as an example. Commissioner Braud stated that in his subdivision there should have been more curvilinear street standards, some of the areas on the straight -a ways residents tend to go pretty fast. Mr. James stated that maybe we need to look at the typography of the area, specifically the slopes. Commissioner Braud stated he is not opposed to Belmont Park but if they were to do it again, maybe put a little more curve in it. Commissioner Platt stated that he never considered the street typology, he doesn't think it will impact the speed people drive. It comes down to what people like, such as aesthetics. He is not opposed to requiring standards, he just doesn't think it matters. Commissioner Odom state he is the same way in that he is not opposed to the Curvilinear streets it does look better and does control the speed limits. His example would also be Belmont Park with a little more curvature. He agrees that typography will have a play in it and keep in mind the size of the development, smaller developments you may not have that ability due to the amount of land. The larger developments we have seen come in over the last year he thought that they looked good as to curvilinear streets and what staff is having the developers move to. Belmont Park with a little more curvature and is also not opposed to the straighter streets. Commissioner Platt stated that he does not support and does not like the majority of cul -de -sacs and the dead -end streets. He believes they h be regulated that a little more — this is just his personal preference. Councilmember Scagliola stated he is a little indifferent when it comes to curves. Up in Fairhaven they get the biggest complaints because it isn't about the curve, it's about the length of the road. If 9 -21 -2021 Minutes Page - 7 - you were to break that length up it would be better. He likes Belmont Park and likes that parkway and if that was a straight shot, he would have no problem with it, because it is a parkway and there are no houses on either side of the parkway, it does what is supposed to do, it gets you from the frontage road down to Wiederstein. Mr. James stated, again what he is hearing is some don't mind if you want to put curves in, they don't really add a lot and there are those that say put curves break of the view quarter, really helps the aesthetics and we want to make sure we take that into account. Commissioner Odom added stating that he lives in Reita and they Fairlawn Avenue, it's bordered on both sides with a round - about, that helps control the speed of traffic. But if you look at the actual street between the round - abouts they still have a lot of complaints on speeding in that short of that distance and believes that if it had more curve, it would slow down the cars. Chair Whittaker stated so what she is hearing is people do not want straight -a -ways or gridded out streets and there are those that are indifferent. What she would say is air on the side of concerns which would be to have shorter stretches, more like Belmont Park and Willow Grove, that they are good examples. Mr. James concurred and now has a better feel of what the committee wants to do and will bring back some criteria and standards at the next meeting. • Lot Size Distribution — skipped this item discussion and went to Item 4. 4. Straight Zoning with Improved Development Standards vs. PDDs Mr. James discussed with the Committee members the following: Straight Zoning with Improved Development Standards vs. PPDs — Can prevent gridded street pattern — Quicker than a PDD — Can zone a mix of districts — Don't have quite the same level of control. — May allow more lots or smaller lots with a PDD Mr. James stated next he wants to discuss the concept of straight zoning vs. PDD's. A couple of things to think about. Assuming we that we can prevent the gridded -out street patterns with the development standards, we can require the open space and other things as discussed. The benefit of straight zoning is that it is quicker than a Planned Development District because as long as you meet the criteria, we will move you forward, you do not have to show us the layout on the straight zoning because it is in the development standards. On a large subdivision, a large tract of land they would essentially just zone smaller pieces, different zoning districts. He stated that if we took Willow Grove and said we were not comfortable with it and take the exhibit and as he showed areas and circle, stated that there could be R7 and other area R6 and the other half R2. You could effectively achieve the same things by breaking it up. Again, we can have criteria you can have certain number, you have to come in and zone all one zoning event, but you could basically go base zoning districts and that lays it out. Mr. James stated the problem is you will never be able to get the same level of control as you are with a PDD where you have the layout in front of you. As much as we write the criteria never the same level of control. He stated that as much as we write the criteria, never the same control. 9 -21 -2021 Minutes Page - 8 - Chair Whittaker asked if he had skipped item 4 — lot sizes — in answer to her question, Mr. James stated that he would be discussing it in this section. Mr. James stated that one of the things that we've talked about is how big a pod do you really want other smaller lots, and what we talked about last time, when you do the smaller lots on that section of road, and you have a narrower lots you have to break it up with a larger lot dispersed throughout. This was sort of the concept, if we go back and have a developer that says I want to do a pod of R7's and is going to be 75 lots, the concept was you have to provide periodically a lot that is wider than the 60 feet to break up those. So, every nine lots the 10th lot has to be at least 70 feet wide. That would be the concept of entered dispersing that we talked about last time. Chair Whittaker stated she actually think that works in reverse equally. She was talking about her cul -de -sac earlier today and they have several large houses and because we have a couple of small houses next to them it breaks up the mass of the big houses, which she thinks as they did discuss before, it breaks up the congestion. So, adding in a small house within that kind of makes it feel more open. Again, she stated it can work both ways. Mr. James stated what he kind of kicked around was really every 10`h lot can vary. So, if you go R2 you can come in have a smaller lot that isn't the 70 feet wide but is a 60 foot wide thrown in and then conversely you do the smaller district, the R6 or R7 you have to have a 70 -foot lot thrown in every 10th one, that's an arbitrarily random number. The problem we have heard from developers on this, they are saying okay you got a pod, their marketing one product type and you have bit a variation in terms of lots, but they are not really going to intersperse the lots. Say you have a pod of 100 lots and then literately randomly mix throughout they have R2's in R6's. They just will not do it. What we thought about is the way to throw in a little bit of variation, so if you want a little bit smaller lot, there's one in there, and if you want a bit bigger lot there's one in there that breaks up the monotony of the view a bit and we think they will market that. But the concept of within that pod have three different lot sizes, 60,65, 70's we cannot get anybody to do that because of how they market the home type. The variability that they have is a function of the curvilinear street that would require them to do it becomes problematic for them. It would be by happen chance to get it because of the curvilinear pattern requirement. Chair Whittaker stated so the lot size distribution that you are saying is not feasible for the developers. An answer, Mr. James stated the developer say that if you really want to mix those lot size within a pod that's not feasible. Chair Whittaker asked what if they did a requirement for single -story versus two -story within a 10 -home pod or grouping, for every 10 homes there has to be 2 2- stories, within the 10 homes there has to be something like two single stories and something like that. In answer, Mr. James stated that staff is not real enthusiastic about it, we get why, but the problem becomes because the zoning and runs with the land and may not an issue for the first 30 -35 years, someone sitting here 40 -50 years from now people are wanting to add on to houses or make adjustments and we say no your neighbor can do it you can't because you're capped at the single -story. That's where that becomes problematic. There is also that issue and how we pick which ones, are you going to alternate, are you going to randomly do it, I was going to pick one. We say okay you have 100 lots, 50 can be one and 50 can be the other and will keep track as we go. If one proves more popular it is what it is over left to tell the builder sorry these have to be single -story, then say that's not what the market is bearing. Mr. James stated that's where that is a problem. Chair Whittaker stated that while they already do it by picking a different layout because the developer says now you can't have that one, you have to pick another even with elevation but sometimes the elevations change, and they want certain floor plans like across the street are side -by -side kind of thing. The builder does it but what you're saying is a zoning requirement it becomes problematic. Mr. James stated yes it becomes problematic because they sort of control that, and they had the ability to say how much they want to 9 -21 -2021 Minutes Page - 9 - allow and how they very. The problem is us on the front end dealing with the developer and they don't even know who the builders are, we are trying to determine that on the front end and it becomes problematic. Mr. James stated he gets the concept of one of the questions is, is there a neighborhood you can point to that you feel like has too many 2- stories and then we can come back and say, why they have all those 2- stories versus one story and why does it have all those 2- stories vs. one story. Or does it work itself out in the end? Chair Whittaker stated that she thinks what works out in the end and over time the landscaping and the trees get taller you don't notice that things look so cookie- cutter because the trees, breakup that monotony. Chair Whittaker provided an example of a neighborhood in the New Braunfels that is painfully monotonous — long straights street and one little live oak etc., is all two -story after two -story. Mr. James was able to pull it up on the Google search is a this is a great example of probably what we don't want. He stated what they have is long straight shots, it's a really gridded pattern there is not a lot of curve and this is probably where we want to discuss this, is where you get into that variation you tend to go with a, and he bets the price point is a lot lower, it's like younger families need two -story house they can afford it and the builders are cramming the homes in there. This would be his guess. Chair Whittaker stated it was Dove Crossing Road. Mr. James stated to me what it comes down to what's the look and feel of the subdivision and where we think there is a problem. Chair Whittaker asked what the tree requirement in a new subdivision was. In answer, three trees and you have a choice of where you want to put those trees, but you have to have one in the front yard and one in the back and then put the other wherever you want it. Chair Whittaker stated but the builder can put the same tree in the exact same spot in every front yard, in answer that is correct. Mr. James stated okay we talk about neighborhoods that we like; Jonas Woods is one that we use as an example of where they did a really good job of preserving trees. It has bigger trees, it looks really great, where you have some typography that helps break it up. Or where you have the flat field and no trees that is where it doesn't look good on the front end. He also thinks it has to do with price point. If it a much more expensive subdivision like Laura Heights, you tend to find that people do a bit more with landscaping out up by the houses and it looks a little bit better. If you take a subdivision that isn't as high as price point you will see where there is not as much done, and it doesn't have the same look and feel - it is different and those are things he believes affect it. He stated that if you go back to the first point that was made at the first meeting, we want to consider affordability, this is part of the stuff that plays into it. He stated that what he is hearing is that the committee members are ok with some of this (as he was showing example) done a bit better, not as many lots, not so massive and that's ok, but it's the balance. He received concurrence. Councilmember Scagliola stated that Mr. James earlier was talking about straight zoning — 8400 sq. foot lots, he really doesn't see them doing that they have that option or going with a PDD, you know their going with a PDD. Mr. James stated that what we would do is essentially go back and eliminate the ordinance and say we won't grant R6 and R7, and someone could walk in and go straight zoning, if they had 100 acres, they could say they are doing 25 R7's, 25 R6's and 50 of it R2 and it is straight zoning and don't need to see the layout and they are just defining those boxes. Chair Whittaker stated that if they are going to do that with a PDD, because you are telling us they can't intersperse the lot sizes, they are going to do it anyway but what she and he talked about all of these requirements being part of a PDD when they come to us, if you incorporate that into the straight zoning then you already say here is your requirements, if you want to do that straight zoning in those little pods, you still have to do those things, yes in answer by Mr. James. She is ok with that if we are allowing that anyway and we are not going to get that intermingling within a PDD. She asked do you limit the size of that. In answer Mr. James yes he believes that is what they would do, we would come up with criteria to limit the size of those pods and say as much as we try to lay out that criteria we are never going to have a much control, If 9 -21 -2021 Minutes Page - 10 - you want to get a bit more density with the PDD that he can see the layout, and air on the side of caution on the straight zoning. We would probably not give you as much density as many small lots as straight zoning as we would potentially through a PDD, but you don't have to go through that. Councilmember Scagliola stated that if they are going to do straight zoning for a garden home, or straight zoning for R7 or R6 — No thank you, but if they want to do R2, 8400 sq. ft, then ok we will allow you now to go that straight zoning with the other two categories or three categories as well? Is that what he is hearing? In answer, Mr. James stated yes that makes sense, so the question for the committee is are you willing to allow small lots at all, even if revised development standards from straight zoning or inherently are you saying if you want to R6 or R7's as much as we have this criteria and we now apply it to bigger lots, I want you to go with a PDD and you want to see that layout? That's the policy question. Councilmember Scagliola stated that it was interesting even a PDD the direction we are going in is you are not going to have a PDD with all R7's. In answer, yes. You can not have all R7's, you have to have that mix of lot sizes, but the question again, is if someone walks in and says they want to do a mix of R6, R7 and R2 is the direction we are going, if you want to have any R6's and R7's then you have to go PDD. If you want to walk in and do all R2's we have the criteria now, don't need to see the layout. That's the crutch, and he believes staff understood is if we could come up with some of these criteria, there would be a comfort level allowing some of the R6 and some of the R7's straight zoning as long we had the criteria that controlled the things that we have been speaking about. Councilmember Scagliola stated that brings him back around to the question on percentages of the other lot sizes, because apparently it is a little easier to go straight zoning for the developer and for city staff. In answer, Mr. James state it is. Councilmember Scaglione stated so if we establish, and he's thrown a number out here, like 40% R2 40% and 40% R6 and 20% R7 you could do straight zoning with that. Okay here's the ball go and run with it, and it would cut down on a development timeframe that would be his guess. Mr. James stated that would be essentially the issue we would say if you're getting a straight zoning, we are going to limit the smaller lots whatever that number is appropriate or percentages we are going to have this development criteria and you can go straight zoning. Chair Whittaker stated she wanted to chime in because she thinks they're talking about two different things. The percentage of different size lots has to be a PDD, you can't have a straight zoning unless it's larger, correct? You can go straight zoning R2 as long as it has a minimum of 8400 sg. ft and larger, we are talking about R6's and R7's and so the smaller lots, if you want to come in and do just those lots sizes and is not part of a larger lot , it's just a development with these smaller lot sizes, incorporating in all these criteria that we just talked about — incorporating that into the straight zoning, would we be ok with a smaller development of all the smaller lots? She would say, yes if we limit the land space used or total number of lots per neighborhood. And back to the concern of affordability, she believes that this is one way you could fine more affordable new construction houses if you did allow, a bit small, but she again needs to see a neighborhood that feels like if we just took this amount of land space and just put the smaller lot sizes, as with all the other things we just talked about, we would be comfortable seeing that in Schertz — but not like 400 acres. She went back to Willow Grove as an example — and you say % of that neighborhood, would you feel comfortable because the south side of Willow Grove is just Willow Grove and the north side is Willow Grove estates and they have the larger lots, south side has the smaller lots. Is that the land mass we are comfortable with saying "Look at this cute neighborhood "? Chair Whittaker stated back to the subcommittee how does each one of you feel about allowing a developer to come in and take a smaller mass of land, and you keep it within a certain size, we would allow you to do R6 or R7's. Councilmember Scagliola answered No. Councilmember Platt is also opposed. He doesn't think under straight zoning, even with a PDD's and the justification and is too time consuming and too expensive for developers to come in and go through the process, He doesn't want developers to come into the city that don't have the resources and not proficient enough to go thorough the PDD process and give us a good product. He doesn't want us to make it easier for a smaller company to come in and just throw some houses 9 -21 -2021 Minutes Page - 11 - up in substandard smaller lots packed together and they can do it now because we have changed this zoning for them. Chair Whittaker stated that all the criteria we just talked about for a PDD, for example, looking at Willow Grove a standard new neighborhood coming in would be about 4 times the size of Willow Grove, developers are telling us that they are going to use 4 tunes that land mass, 4 times the number of houses, and because they can't intersperse their lot sizes, what they want is pods, so what they are going to do is a pod of R6's and pod of R7's and a pod of R2's because you just told us we cannot intersperse so I am going to do a pod and when all said an done it is going to look like Willow Grove with a section of R6, a section of R7 so you are comfortable him doing that but you are not comfortable with him doing one neighborhood small the size of one of those pods individually. Commissioner Platt stated he doesn't know why they couldn't intersperse the different zoning into the communities. In answer, Chair Whittaker stated a developer may just want to provide one product and keep it more consistent for cost reasons and marketing purposes. Maybe they just don't want a neighborhood with those between $200,000 and $300,000 and $600,000. They just want to have a neighborhood that advertises as in the low $300,000's. Mr. James stated, and he thinks that if the developer doesn't have a lot of land, they don't have enough to do two pods, so for instance if we go back to Misty Woods, that was so small that they could not have done two different pod types. So, we certainly could come in and say I want to do straight zoning, the biggest pod or the biggest zoning parcel could go R7, which is X number of acres, we will cap it at 30 acres, and R6 you could do 40 acres maybe a little bit bigger, so maybe we can cap it that way. So, the question is if somebody came in and said they just have a small parcel of land and have like 25 acres and it makes sense you can't mix product type in there, and we say this is a good area for some smaller lots, and we think that would be a good area to do a relatively affordable residential neighborhood, say R6's — 20- we have this development criteria would we be ok with going straight zoning on it? The difference that would get us from straight zoning to PDD is the PDD would let us look at that street layout and lotting pattern. Commissioner Platt also stated that you could have input into the platting process as well. Mr. James stated that what he is hearing from some of the subcommittee members is nope, if they want to do that, yes, we want to see that layout because no matter how we come up with that criteria, they will know it when they see it a bit and they can take it and tweak it and run the risk to play with it. Other members are saying Nope, we want to try and make it a little easier to get through the process for that affordability, we have the criteria now, we have limited the worst -case scenario. Chair Whittaker stated that she feels like part of the purpose of the Subcommittee is to reduce that micromanagement when we get to the PDD discussion. If we have spent this much time over four weeks trying to hammer out what we as a group and as a city see as our minimum standards then applying that to either straight zoning or PDD process, it should streamline the whole process. But if we are saying we are good with it right now and all these standards, to her forcing them into a PDD and having to review every single neighborhood is very much micromanagement. To her it is just a philosophy she is not comfortable with. She loves that Schertz has higher standards and you can see the affect of that but from a development side of it, and she has probably heard it the last five times where Schertz is difficult to work with. To her being the new councilmember this is where she would see it being the realization of that reputation is because we are being really hard on providing opportunity of a developer to come in making it a little easier for them, because if we say we have to review every single development, and again she is calling it micromanagement, she feels we as a city should probably work a little harder to allow a little bit more streamline opportunities for people. She feels like if we are ok within a PDD of allowing a pod of certain size of R6 and R7, she feels like it's equally safe to say a developer should be able to take a smaller plot of land and do the exact same thing he was going to do in a PDD with out us looking over his shoulder because we have incorporated these things that we have worked really hard to agree on is what we want to set as our minimum standards. That is why she would suggest allowing R6 and R7 straight zoning options for developers is a good thing, it would actually provide more variety within the city as long as we keep it as a 9 -21 -2021 Minutes Page -12 - smaller development. Councilmember Scagliola stated that he kind of takes exception to that because there was a specific reason we did away with the smaller lots — they renamed them. That discussion goes back about ten years almost. As far as PDD's go the way he sees it now some developers, and he isn't going to name names, but is taking advantage of the PDD process, allowing to back door some of the really small lots in the name of a PDD. Chair Whittaker stated that if you have straight zoning and you have requirements in that straight zoning, there is no back door, there is no coming to PDD and say I am going to slip this in and get approval because there are gray areas, straight zoning has very clear restrictions and they can't back door any of those. Commissioner Platt stated that straight zoning would just allow them to come in and skip that PDD process and the planning and zoning commission and just do it anyway. Chair Whittaker stated that within the straight zoning all the things that you are going to be checking for during the PDD process they could sneak in again because there is a lot of gray areas, we are already establishing those minimum requirements, 10 foot setbacks, curvilinear within so many spaces, bumpouts, open space etc., we are incorporating that into that straight zoning and reducing the land mass, so she doesn't know what that land mass allowance was back when your cut it, so if there were no restrictions, yes you could come in and have thousands of acres and say all 50 ft lots, yes it would be a nightmare but we have gotten to the point where we have bored down to the, what is it that is really bothersome about these small lots. She thinks that they have identified, each person has said what they don't like the way that looks, or the way that looks, and have said what can we do to make not look like that. She thinks bringing back those R6 and R7wit the different zoning, not the same as before, it's a new category with new restrictions on it, it is getting us where we want to be and also allowing some opportunities for developers to streamline their processes. If they so choose, there may not be a demand for smaller developments. Mr. James stated that there would be a demand for smaller developments and he offered what staff can do for the next meeting we will try and work this up this week and send it out Friday so you can review it, and we will come up with what these standards would look like, maybe not the final be all, but we will basically say here is the curvilinear standard, here is the open space standard, here is the bumpout for mailbox standards, some variability, this is the maximum acreage you could come in and just go as a straight zoning R7, the maximum, you could do R6 and lay that out so you could see what it looks like. The fundamental issue really comes down to, is at the end of the day can be get there? How much do you want to say, put these standards in and within those criteria you are fine with them doing what they are going to do on straight zoning versus the other side, and say I am so concerned and cautious about that, even with the new requirements, because they can manipulate and play, if we are going to let them do the smaller lots you are going to want to look at that layout and be able to make those adjustments and qualitative changes. He believes that is what the balance is and a couple of things that staff would say is, we would agree with developers say Schertz if very difficult in terms of staff and things they have to work with in what they are pushing for on residential subdivisions, that is accurate. What we understand is that what Planning and Zoning and Council expect of us to do in the past, and yes, you guys are supposed to hold firm to that. Staff would agree. Commissioner Platt stated that he doesn't think that that is a bad thing. Mr. James stated yes, that is not necessarily a bad thing — yes staff would say we are more difficult, it takes longer to get though the process for residential layout. There are drawbacks to that, in terms of cost, in terms of time and frustration, but the flip side of that, and staff would tell you, folks here are hypersensitive, and this is meant to be boards and commissioners, engaged citizens on something being built here that does not meet their expectations or desires. 9 -21 -2021 Minutes Page -13 - We are littered with ordinance provisions that came about because one person came in and built something, we didn't like it, and — forbid it every happens again, and I have to regulate it out. He doesn't mean this as a criticism but inherently when we write regulations, if we want to prevent anything bad happening, we are going to hang up a lot of people that we did not intend to. We can make it easier and not hang up as many people, but it is going to mean we are going to have a couple of people slip by. He gave an example of this, the color of the building on main street, he has not heard anyone say they like it, but the question is, is that coming in as we need to regulate color, that the bit of flip side. Inherently we are going to have some one come in do something, and then we asked is that the way I would have done it and is it really the end of world going forward, and he thinks that's the balance we have to strike. Lastly, it was mentioned that we need some affordability, and doesn't think anyone in the group is going to point to the more affordable stuff that comes in that achieves that goal and say that's the neighborhood I like the most. If we want this, we have already had some new criteria, it is going to mean that it is letting them come in and lay it out what meets and not micromanaging, which he thinks is an accurate term. Commissioner Platt asked the PDD's were developed based off of the statue, government code 7a211.0 gives us the ability to regulate a lot of things, lot size, coverage, etc., that's what the PDD is based off of, so how would that apply to straight zoning? This takes the oversight and the ability to regulate and leave us out of it. Mr. James stated we can put a lot of that into our straight zoning development standards. Think about the site plans we do, most of commercial site plans we do are straight zoning, they are not PDD's, we have a few that are PDD's that come in, so think about gas station/convenient stores, they are an SUP, it requires the layout, that SUP is like a PDD, you get to look at the layout. We can build in those development requirements and as Commissioner Braud has said in the past, when these commercial plans come in, he is not thrilled with the anything about them, didn't like certain things, but we are ok letting those go in and it would be the same thing with residential. That is the analogy he would give. What you really give up with straight zoning is you don't have that lotting pattern, you have the criteria of the minimums, curvilinear streets, etc., but you don't get to look at the layout in advance. Councilmember Scagliola stated that the other big key that he sees is the lot sizes, because he can almost guarantee if you open up R7's or garden homes you are going to get flooded with people who have 100 acres, they want to put 100 acres worth of garden homes, or 100 acres of R6's. Mr. James stated so this would be the example of what we have talked about is, if some one walked in with 100 acres and said that they want to go straight zoning and want to come in with all R7's we would say No, you are not going to get it. We would tell them and say the criteria we established, and he is going to make this up, if you are doing R7 the biggest pod you could have of R7 is 20 acres and you can't have more than 25% of that land mass you come in with the 100 acres designated for R7. Councilmember Scagliola stated that that is what he had recommended before 40, 40, 20 and I was told no you can't do that because that by defmition is a PDD. In answer, Mr. James stated to be clear we can get most of what you wanted to do with that, we can't regulate the number of lots but can regulate the acreage. Councilmember Scagliola stated that you could also do that as a percentage of the acreage, as to oppose the percentage of the homes – where do we get it drawn out? Again, just as an analogy, as Mr. James is showing on the computer view, imaging that this is 100 acres of land, what they can walk in and do is basically with the zoning exhibit, they can come in and say – as he was showing – this is R7, this is R6, and the rest is R2. As he was still showing, if we know that this is 100 acres, he can cap a certain piece at no more than 25 acres, and do 40 acres, here and do 55 there and it is not to scale, he can do that, but I can't regulate the number of lots within each of those areas. Question from Scagliola, that's acreage, answer, that's acreage. Councilmember Scagliola stated that he has no problem with that. He wants to discuss the appropriate number, in answer Mr. James stated he can lay out the criteria as a percentage and then when he goes to zone, he does it by acreage, he just can't cap the number of lots. 9 -21 -2021 Minutes Page - 14 - Councilmember Scagliola stated that is fine and you have to do the curvilinear streets, the bumpouts etc., you do not have to do a PDD. Answer yes. Don't need to see your lotting pattern. Councilmember Scagliola would like to see some of these examples, because in Saddle Wood that is not what happened, it was like 45% of those were smaller lots and where the median is, no that isn't right. You have 49 R7's and 51 R6's the median is an R6. In answer, Mr. James stated staff does not use median, when they talk about it, we use a median and a mean together as a measure. Councilmember Scagliola stated that he doesn't have a problem with what he drew out he thinks it's feasible, now if we can just come to the consensus basing it on 100 acres or so the correct number acres for parts A, B and C. In conclusion, Mr. James stated that he will come back next time, and by Friday he will email out the criteria for them to review. He will layout how this concept would work and then next time what we really need to talk about is what is that mix in terms of, if you have that 100 acre track how many acres R7, how many acres R6 if you just have a smaller track of land, how big are you willing to go R7 or R6. Commissioner Braud stated to save time he is with Chair Whittaker that if we make these modifications the R6 and R7 won't be the ugly duckling that they have been in the past. He likes what Mr. James is saying, give us some examples of what putting in all these new regulations would look like and modifying R6 and R7 to fit this, he believes it will work. 5. Summarize Consensus. Chair Whittaker stated the last thing is summarize consensus and we have gone through each of these in depth so we will trust that Mr. James will basically put in on paper what our consensus was so we can visually look and think about it before we come back to the next meeting. Mr. James answered correct, and he will send that out Friday. Adjournment As there was no further business, Chair Whittaker adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m. Cl +uncilmember Jill Whittaker, Chair AT T: renda Dennis, Ci y ecretary 9 -21 -2021 Minutes Page - 15 -