Loading...
10-05-2021 MinutesMINUTES REGULAR MEETING October 5, 2021 A Regular Meeting was held by the City Council and Planning & Zoning Subcommittee of the City of Schertz, Texas, on October 5, 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 Senior Planner Emily Delgado Planner Megan Harrison Councilmember David Scagliola P &Z Commissioner Earl Platt Mayor Pro -Tern Michael Dahle Deputy City Secretary Sheila Edmondson Call to order Councilmember Whittaker called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Citizens to be Heard No one signed up to speak. Discussion and /or Action Items Approval of the minutes of the meeting of September 21, 2021, and September 28, 2021. Chair Whittaker recognized Mayor Pro -Tern Dahle who moved, seconded by Commissioner Earl Platt to approve the minutes from the September 21, 2021, and September 28, 2021. The vote was 6 -ayes, 0 -no, motion passed. 2. Review Consensus of September 28, 2021, Meeting. • Curvilinear Streets • Usable Centrally Located Open Space • Mailbox Bumpouts • Lot Size Distribution 10 -05 -2021 Minutes Page - 1 - 3. Discussion regarding Straight Zoning with Improved Development Standards vs. PDD's. Chairman Whittaker recognized Assistant City Manager who summarized the consensus of discussion at the last meeting on R6 and R7- Straight Zoning. There was a majority of the sub- committee who agreed with Straight Zoning: R6 -30 acres and R7 20- acres. Mr. James stated that staff went back after the meeting and looked at current subdivisions. Staff is recommending that the Straight Zoning changes to: R6 -30 acres; changes to 40 acres R7 -20 acres; changes to 30 acres After comparing these acre numbers to other subdivisions in the community, staff realized that 20 acres with R7 was too small. There are very few 20 -acre subdivisions, and that option isn't really viable. Mr. James explained after staff discussing these options, they are recommending that the acreage numbers are increased by 10 acres each. The design standards would still apply with the Straight Zoning options. If the developer didn't want to that option of straight zoning, they could always go the PPD route. Mr. James gave an example that if a developer came in with 50- acres. They could go R7 with 30 acres and the 20 -acres zone R2. It is a simpler way to develop this property. Now if a developer came in with 70- acres, they could choose either R6 or R7 and the rest of the property R2. If they decide that straight zoning part of the acreage is not a good idea, they always have the option of going the PDD route. Mr. James asked the sub - committee if they agree to the increase by 10 -acres to the proposed R6 and R7 Straight Zoning option. Chair Whittaker asked if anyone had comments. Mayor Pro -Tem Dahle stated last time we talked about limiting the total number or R6's and R7's in a designated geographic area, how would that be handled? Mr. James explained that the concept staff would go and define some of the areas on the Future Land Use Map. The areas that staff is talking about is the area that is designated for single family residence. The area down south, east of FM 1518, and some areas off of IH -35, south of parklands. He continued to explain that in those areas staff would go in and define, basically draw areas of units, and based on the size limit the R6 and R7 zoning. Staff would draw those areas based on the current property ownership lines, natural and man -made features. Mr. James continued and said staff would adopt that with our UDC to say this is how we are going to limit R6 and R7's in this area. We don't want to cluster or pod these smaller developments and concentrate that area with R6 and R7's. Mayor Pro -Tem Dahle agreed and had questions about multi - family developments. He asked when we look at the comp plan, are we going to designate areas for future multi - family developments? Mr. James replied that we could, but how we handle multi - family developments so far is, we zone that area multi - family or when there is a specific project. Staff could look at the sectors and limit the multi - family to approx. 600 units. Mayor Pro -Tem Dahle inquired about a town - center concept that we currently have around FM1518- Lower Seguin, even the TOD area out near the northside. Consider having a town- center concept in the northern part of Schertz, and possible relocate the idea of the TOD somewhere else and designating a certain area for multi - family. Mr. James explained that there would be a need for multi - family in the denser part of the city, however, does not want to limit to certain areas. Staff would look at the criteria and decide if that area would work for that zoning. He also mentioned the 10 -05 -2021 Minutes Page - 2 - two apartment complexes we currently have in the city are not located near a town center but seem to do fine. Staff would approve multi - family around town - centers, but we do need to disburse them throughout the city. Councilmember Scagliola understood it to be first come, first serve basis with developers with smaller lots. His concern is that a developer who might come in later after this certain area has R6 and R7's on it, and he would have locked out and only have R2 as an option. Mr. James agreed that this system is a first come, first served system and what this inherently means, that the toughest part of this system to work, is to tell people no. Within this system when Staff says no, and Planning and Zoning say no, it would mean City Council would have to say no as well. That is what it will take to make the system work. He continued to explain that there will inherently be developers that come in and make out better than others, but that is no different than the decisions staff makes with road alignments. If there are no roads in the area, the developer gets to determine where that road is and get to set it where they want it. There isn't a way for staff to see that all land is equal. Mayor Pro -Tem Dahle asked with all these entitlements, is there anything in state law or could we have this provision that if the developer does not develop within 2 years, the zoning would expire? Mr. James stated in theory could set up zoning for R6 and R7 via SUP, and if you do not submit your plans in a certain time frame, you lose your zoning, and it expires. Mayor Pro -Tem Dahle stated he would like something in the provisions stating this, so it doesn't lock another developer out if the original developer does not move forward with their plans. Mr. James indicated that we could do something like that and model it after the SUP zoning. Chair Whittaker asked the sub - committee if they agreed to bumping up the R6 -40 acre and R7 -30 acres, an extra 10 acres vs. what they discussed previously. Commissioner Platt stated there is strong support on this sub - committee to enact this and make is easier and cheaper and get a better product. However, by your own admission it is possible that there is going to be a mad dash to secure this zoning. How is this going to help the smaller developers come in? Mr. James explained what you have heard is that we have talked about is modifying is requiring the SUP. He agreed that there might be some developers is some areas to rush in, but not all areas for different reasons. Now if these developers secure this zoning and wait to develop, their zoning expires. It does provide, though limited, to do something other than a PDD where you have to lay out all the subdivision in advance. Chair Whittaker says this is an option for a different type of developer who have smaller plot of land. Commissioner Platt stated that they are not making decisions on Planning and Zoning to save a developer more money. Mr. James explained that justification for this route available for developers with a smaller tract to go through more quickly and at less cost. It also goes back to the point Commissioner Braud stated earlier that we need some more affordable product. All these requirements we start tacking on zoning, pushes the price up. From a staff perspective, the reason we are doing this is because we do not have enough affordable housing. We are trying to provide the ability to bring in homes at a lower price point. Commissioner Platt stated that he could support this change if he could be shown that by doing this, it will lower home costs. 10 -05 -2021 Minutes Page - 3 - Chair Whittaker explained that looking at a community and where they set their prices, No. 1 is location and parts of town are more expensive than others. Amenities within the neighborhood is going to increase your cost. For example, when you have a neighborhood that has a several levels homes, the larger product is going to demand amenities, and they are going to spread the cost of those amenities across the entire community. If you are able to do a smaller neighborhood where all homes are on a smaller scale, it is easier to keep the prices more uniformed. Chair Whittaker sees this as an opportunity to bring in a product that is on a smaller scale and could be a little more affordable. Councilmember Scagliola stated that the current market is selling homes approx. $120.00 a sq. ft, a home that is 2200 sq. ft is not home is not what is considered "affordable homes ". Chair Whittaker explained that when it comes to "affordable" housing, it's all relative. We are not going to have $200,000 new construction homes, its not really possible, especially with these design standards. However, a smaller lot and a smaller neighborhood relative to what we have out there is going to offer a lower priced home. It will offer a variety of pricing within the community. Mr. James explained that if you have a developer and wants to do a higher end product and it's a garden home and they to sell them at $350,000, there is nothing we can do about that. He asked the developers in the audience that and see if they agree with that, if we can get you through the entitlement process more quickly, and you know coming in what your design standards, and you could get smaller lots, would that better enable you to keep the price down. Chair Whittaker recognized Mr. Marcus Moreno, with Scott Felder Homes and they are building in the Crossvine, did build in Homestead, however that was expensive. He currently is proposing a project off of Trainer Hale which is about 360 acres and 1000 lots. He stated that what Mr. James asked is a complicated question. It starts with the city investing in infrastructure, when the developer does not have to put in all that infrastructure it could save them that additional 20 million cost, it's a good thing. Streamlining the process, its all about efficiency. Anytime we can start a project, know the design standards, and put lots on the ground within a year, not three years that is a big factor that lowers the price of housing. He explained that having rules and developers knowing what those rules are, allows them to execute. Streamlining the process is very important, helps reduce the cost of housing. Impact fees, lumber, technology supplies, everything adds to the cost. The market is at a tipping point in the market where you cannot develop housing under $400,000 on a 50 -60 ft lot. It is getting very expensive, and we are challenged with how we create quality housing in these communities. It's not always the size of the lot with 10 ft side yards that will drive the price of the house, its other regulations such as curvilinear streets. Doesn't mean we cannot create nice communities that provide amenities and parks, we just have to do in in a way that arbitrarily says you have to do this. Master plans are a bit more complicated, there are drainage you have to deal with, sometimes utilities you have to expand. With this project he wanted to come in with straight zoning, so they wouldn't have the delay of going the process of PDD, but they wanted to add more diversity, so they will have to do a PDD. If you have 70 or 80 ft lots, that would probably be a $500,000 house, and have 1000 lots, it will take a long time to sell, and who can afford that? You would have to provide diversity and the city should look at doing multi -homes or townhomes which would provide affordable housing and then we could probably push it under $200,000. They have to 10 -05 -2021 Minutes Page - 4 - work with staff, get the right mix. Builders are building better houses than they did 20 years ago. We love the community, and we are trying to do more projects but there is no simple answer to lower the cost of housing. Chair Whittaker thanked Mr. Moreno and said this isn't a black and white issue. We will have to meet again to discuss the Tree Mitigation Program. She asked the sub - committee to decide if they are good with the R6 -40 and R7 -30 -acre changes. Commissioner Braud -yes Chair Whittaker -yes Councilmember Scagliola -yes Mayor Pro -Tern Dahle -yes Commissioner Platt-yes Commissioner Odom -yes and added to keep R2 with any size parcel with straight zoning. Councilmember Scagliola.asked what the process for townhomes. Mr. James said we have townhome districts, but staff needs to modify and create townhome district when they update the UDC. He continued that another zoning district they need to create would be the 4 -plex townhomes. Current standards are not up to date and will be modified with the UDC update. Mr. James stated with the developers with a lot of land. 300 or 400 acres, it will take a long time to finish out. With that, the market will change, and the developers will come in and ask to modify their PDD to adjust to what they need. Mayor Pro -Tem Dahle agreed and explained that they have already seen these developers come back and ask PZ /CC to modify their plans. Mr. James summarized the following information: • Developers can request a pod or R6 -40 acres and R7 -30 acres and request straight zoning, • Two off street parking spaces for the mailboxes • Mailboxes have to be covered • Curvilinear street standards • Usable open space- 1 acre with the 100 lots, '/2 acre for the next 100 lots. Open space needs to be disbursed in the development with a '/z acre minimum of open space • Straight zoning will be with an SUP with the 2 -year development window, you lose it if you don't develop within that window Chair Whittaker asked to explain the curvilinear street standard and how it is measured. Mr. James explained that it is a modification of our current street standard, that requires a certain number of curves. Residential street sections cannot be over 500 feet without the center line deflecting at least 30 ft. Shorter streets under 500 ft. can be straight. If you go over 1000 feet, the angle deflections have to be over 35 ft. It keeps us from having that gridded out pattern and gives a little deflection without going crazy. There is a provision that the city engineer can approve something different, if need be, to meet the intent of the standard. Councilmember Scagliola asked if traffic circles could solve the problem? Mr. James replied that traffic circles do have their place. The key is to look at that design and the traffic patterns and see if they are needed. When staff sees a potential area that might have speeding issues, developers might ask if a traffic circle could solve that issue. 10 -05 -2021 Minutes Page - 5 - Councilmember Scagliola continued and stated that curvilinear streets solve a problem that doesn't exist, and they don't work. If they worked, he would agree. Mr. James replied that you can have curvilinear streets and they don't always cut down on speeding problems. It is about the traffic flow in the neighborhood and how you disburse that. Mr. James cited that Fairhaven as an area with a lot of speeding issues and if you see, it is due to the traffic flow funneling a certain way, topography, uphill, downhill and it adds to the speeding issue. It is the volume and the length you have to drive on residential streets. If you drive further on residential streets, it tends to lead to speeding. Mr. James added that it is a variety of things. Staff cannot always dictate the entrances and exits and topography. He stated if the sub - committee doesn't feel the need to have curvilinear streets, they can take it out. Mr. James stated that staff would recommend leaving the curvilinear in to start, and if it doesn't work, we can take it out. He reminded the sub - committee that one of the things they didn't like was straight roads and this is a way to put some deflection in it. Chair Whittaker and Mayor Pro -Tem Dahle both agreed it adds an aesthetic feel as well as slowing down traffic. Mr. James explained for the PDD, that staff would cap the pod size, generally at 30-40 acres. They would also require the developer to meet median and mean lot size of 8,000 sq. ft. Chair Whittaker asked where did the 8,000 sq. ft number come from? Mr. James explained that one of the problems by using only zoning districts is that inherently the lot sizes: 6600, 7200, 8400 are minimum lot size. You can have lots that are 6600, but 90% will be larger than that. By using the median and mean on the lots, it gives the developer a bit of credit for that, and it goes from there. What you are doing is averaging the lot size. By lining them up from smallest to largest and picking the middle one, it avoids the skew of one really big lot and a lot of little ones. Most developers don't have a problem with this system. What the real issue is, what do you want to set that median and mean at? We have gone lower than the 8400 and picked 8000, because it will get us what we want. If it doesn't work, we can modify the sheet as needed. Mayor Pro -Tem Dahle asked if Mr. James knew what the lot sizes in the Saddlebrook Subdivision were. This was the subdivision that kicked all this up for discussion. Chair Whittaker asked if you had 100 acres, how could be proportioned? Mr. James explained that it is a complicated answer, some developers who come in at R7, they will have very few lots that hit that minimum. They might on average 200 sq. ft above that average minimum, and that will skew it. What this system does is give the developer benefit if you just don't try to skirt and do the minimum. If you come in larger, it helps the developer. Councilmember Scagliola stated that 8000 was a higher number than he thought would come in. Chair Whittaker summarized the following: the average looking at the single - family zoning would be 8000 sq. ft, and the three zoning districts are R6 -6600 sq. ft, R7 -7200 sq. ft. and R2 -8400 sq. ft, the average being 8000 sq. ft which higher than R6 and R7, but lower than R2, so it is somewhat an arbitrary number. Chair. Whittaker stated that this is a conservative number. Councilmember Scagliola stated that with this average, half the houses would be over 8400 sq. ft or over. Mr. James agreed and explained that if a developer comes in with a big parcel, at least half would need to be R2, and the rest can be smaller. 10 -05 -2021 Minutes Page - 6 - Mr. James stated he would send out 3 or 4 subdivisions with their median and mean and you can use that to look at with the layout. Summarize Consensus: Chair Whittaker stated we will confirm that average median and mean is good for the PDD lot sizes and then next week will get into the Tree Mitigation Program. We should only have one more meeting and then this will be complete. Ad i ournment As there was no further business, Chair Whittaker adjourned the meeting at 4:59 p.m. 'ouncilmember Jill Whittaker, Chair AT Ar Sheila Edmonds' , Me puty City Secretary 10 -05 -2021 Minutes Page - 7 -