Staff presented proposed amendments to Garland's multifamily development standards related to state legislation often referenced as SB 840 during the Oct. 14 Development Services Committee meeting.

The staff presentation introduced a points-based amenity system designed to give developers flexibility while ensuring a minimum level of community-serving features. The proposed system categorizes developments by size and requires a points minimum tied to unit count. Examples in staff slides included categories for projects of 0'20 units, 21'75 units (minimum 20 points), 76'00, 201'500 and above 500 units (minimum 70 points for very large developments). Staff also added clubhouse and swimming-pool size thresholds in existing code: a clubhouse for developments up to 200 units would be 2,500 square feet, 3,500 square feet for 201'350 units, and 4,000 square feet above that; pool surface-area thresholds were also embedded in the draft and will be synchronized with the new point system.

To promote design compatibility, staff proposed entryway spacing (one entryway per ~75 feet of primary street-facing facade) and an alternative-compliance path that allows tradeoffs where developments use sustainable materials or other unique design features. Staff suggested that when a building exceeds 45 feet in height, a residential proximity slope could be applied (a 45-degree slope) to moderate the effective massing near single-family property lines and that perimeter screening (masonry walls, earthen berms, landscaping) should be strengthened in lieu of unlimited setback regulation, because legal analysis indicated SB 840 limits the city's ability to regulate some setbacks.

Committee members supported stronger protections for adjacent single-family areas and asked staff to explore taller masonry walls (8'10 feet) where multifamily buildings exceed certain heights. Staff agreed to research comparable city standards and to return with revised draft language for council consideration. The committee asked staff to expedite a report out to council due to growing developer interest under SB 840.