It’s back to the drawing board for Killeen city staff.
After an often-testy exchange between developers and the Killeen City Council on Tuesday, the council directed staff to meet with developers to iron out differences over the city’s architectural standards ordinance.
The problem is, the staff has been meeting with developers for the past 2½ years on this issue, according to Assistant Director of Development Services Wallis Meshier, and the two sides are at an impasse.
It’s hard to see where one more meeting between the parties will result in any kind of reasonable agreement.
Tuesday’s agenda included an item about discussion of amendments to the ordinance, which was adopted in April 2022.
Developers were quick to find fault with the proposed changes, which included a larger number of options of design features that can be incorporated into a house plan in order to meet the required standards.
Local developer Gary “Bubba” Purser challenged the city’s role in the design process. He said he doesn’t have the right to tell home buyers what to buy, and neither does the city, “within reason.”
No, the city doesn’t have that right, but it does have the right — and the authority — to establish parameters, and that’s what the architectural standards are designed to do.
Face it, Killeen has an image problem.
Drive to any newer subdivision in southwest Killeen, and the lack of aesthetics is disturbing.
Houses with cookie-cutter designs are placed on small lots, with very little in the way of setbacks or side yards. In addition, most lots were scraped clean of foliage before building began, so newer areas have few established trees or green spaces.
The design standards call for street trees, larger setbacks, wider side yards and include a prohibition on how many identical houses can be built in a given area — also known as the repetition standard.
Adding just a few design options can allow builders to comply with the repetition standard, even while using the same basic floorplan.
But to hear developers tell it, that’s just too much of an imposition.
In fact, Meshier said Tuesday that developers and builders have been philosophically opposed to the architectural standards ordinance since the very beginning.
That opposition was illustrated during Tuesday’s meeting, at which Purser railed about the amended ordinance’s option of an 80-square-foot porch, which was mentioned in the presentation.
“I know the market tells me what to do,” he said. “The market tells these builders what to do, what to build and what they better not build.”
City Manager Kent Cagle was quick to point out that the 80-square-foot porch was simply an additional option for developers and not a mandate.
“You can build a 20-foot porch or a 10-foot porch if you want,” Cagle said. “It just won’t qualify as a design option.”
The whole argument from those who took issue with the ordinance could be boiled down to one sentence: The developers and builders know best, and the city should just stay out of the way.
To be fair, the city has tried to involve the developers in the process of crafting and improving the ordinance. If the two parties have been meeting for the past three years, as Meshier said, that certainly seems like an adequate opportunity for input.
But on Tuesday, several council members pushed for still more developer input. Not coincidentally, the ones who spoke up for the developers are real estate professionals.
Councilman Jose Segarra repeatedly stressed the need for better communication with developers.
Councilwoman Jessica Gonzalez summarized the developers’ wish list in addressing Meshier: more flexibility in the ordinance, adjusting the repetition standard and dropping the 80-foot porch. Again — the porch was just a design option, not a mandate, but Gonzalez didn’t seem to pick up on that.
Councilman Ramon Alvarez called for reaching some middle ground, though that scenario seems highly unlikely. He went so far as to suggest the creation of two separate plans — one from the developers and one from the city staff — that the council could review.
Ultimately, Councilman Michael Boyd made a motion of direction for city staff to meet with builders and developers to get resolution on the amendments and to get final interpretation of all portions of the design ordinance.
So the staff has its marching orders.
Certainly, it makes sense to ensure that everyone is on the same page in understanding and interpreting all areas of the ordinance. That will go along way toward avoiding potential friction over the ordinance’s wording or intent.
However, the fact that developers are essentially being asked to make their own rules goes against the principles of regulation and oversight.
Why not let restaurant owners set their own rules regarding disposal of grease and fats? Why not let car washes do what they want regarding water use and environmental impact? Why not let automotive repair shops operate well into the night with no noise or light restrictions, if they so desire?
If Killeen’s building and development ordinances are inadequate, the city faces the possibility of more than just lackluster aesthetics. Building to the lowest common denominator can lead to a glut in rental property, poor resale values and potentially substandard streets and sidewalks, which the city would be obligated to maintain and repair.
The architectural design standards were adopted as part of Killeen’s comprehensive plan, for which the city paid $349,000 last year. The standards are designed to provide homes and neighborhoods that are appealing, both to the buyer and the passerby. They are an attempt to raise the bar for residential development, and improve the city’s image in the process.
But to hear developers and builders constantly whine about what they can’t build or what they can’t sell reveals more of a concern about their bottom line, and less of a commitment to working within the system.
At this point, it’s hard to know what will come out of another sit-down between developers and city staff. If the two sides are at an impasse after more than two years of discussion, it would be illogical to set expectations too high.
To some degree, the council’s order to essentially go back and get it right has to be somewhat insulting and humiliating to staffers who have worked for years to craft an ordinance that is both workable and equitable.
The fact that builders consider the ordinance to be neither is unlikely to change in one meeting.
Certainly, providing a little more flexibility or a small change in interpretation may be a positive step, with both sides going away satisfied. But it’s more likely that developers are looking for more than that.
If the council does opt to side with the builders and developers regarding any major changes to the ordinance, what has all the city staff’s work been for over the last two-plus years?
On top of that, how are taxpayers to feel, if compromises on design standards go against the direction of the comprehensive plan they paid for?
Councilman Joseph Solomon spoke out Tuesday against revamping the ordinance, saying, “There’s got to be a line that we draw.”
If the city council caves to the larger demands of the developers and builders in the interest of keeping them all happy, our elected leaders will be shortchanging the community in the process.
Killeen’s leadership is to be commended for trying to work with the development community as partners in moving the city forward.
But it’s not an equal partnership. Council members call the shots — and they should remember that.
The city sets the rules; it doesn’t wait for others to dictate what they should be.
If Killeen’s council, administrators and city staff want to raise the bar for housing quality, neighborhood aesthetics and the city’s image overall, they have to take a stand on this issue.
An unanswered question is hanging out there in the community: Who’s really calling the shots?
Killeen’s leadership needs to provide a good answer.
Click Here For This Articles Original Source.
