Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 11.12.2013 CC-WMinutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Tees Tuesday, November 12, 2013 The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date with Mayor George Garver presiding. Council Present: Council Absent: Patty Eason, Tommy Gonzalez, Rachael Jonrowe, All Council Present. Jerry Hammerlun, Steve Fought, John Hesser Staff Present: Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; Bridget Chapman, City Attorney; Jessica Brettle, City Secretary; Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Jim Briggs, General Manager for Utilities; Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director; Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner; Matt Synatschk, Historic District Planner; David Munk, Water Utility Engineer;. Minutes rolicy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 02:00 PM A Presentation and possible direction to staff regarding the development of financing districts, including Municipal Utility Districts (MUD) and Public Improvement Districts (PID) -- Micki Rundell, Chief Financial Officer; Andrew Spurgin, Planning Director; and Jordan Maddox, Principal Planner With a Powerpoint Presentation, Brandenburg summarized what will be covered at this meeting. He said staff wanted to lay out perspectives for the Council regarding special financing districts. He said they also invited members of the development community to speak about their perspectives on MUDs and PIDs. He said this will be a full 360 comprehensive report on MUDs and PID. He said the discussion of MUDs and PIDs came about after the September 24 annexation workshop.He provided a recap of the discussions at that meeting and listed the speakers who are at the meeting today to provide input. He introduced Rainer Ficken of Newland Communities. Rainer Ficken of Newland Communities and Cheryl Allen of Southwest Securities spoke in length about their opinions on Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs). Talley Williams of Metcalke, Wolff, Stuart and Williams, LLP spoke about Public Improvement Districts (PIDs). For a full version of these presentations and discussions, please visit the City of Georgetown's GTV website at http•//government georgetown orgtgty/ Spurgin continued with the staff presentation. He spoke about the district creation and the evaluation criteria used to create a MUD. He described the strategy behind determining where a special district can be located. He reviewed the standard conditions for districts and the process for how a MUD is created. He noted the infrastructure should be built to city standards, the conditions on bond terms, the size in general should be no less than 200 acres nor over 500 acres. He said a development plan must be submitted, City permitting and inspections must be done and a compensation fee would be established tied to residential permits. He spoke about the consent process for MUD creation. He listed some of the advantages as well as disadvantages of MUDs and PIDs. He spoke about some of the long term considerations for MUDs and said they can be a barrier to annexation. He said some other considerations are that locations with strong utilities may not need districts to provide services. He said the City needs more residential to drive retail and economic development. He said there is a market expectation to allow even more districts. He spoke about the staff impact if the City becomes open to accepting these MUD and PID proposals. He described this for Council. City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 4 of 351 Pages Rundell spoke about the existing Georgetown Area MUDs including Terra Vista, Oaks at San Gabriel, Water Oak and Cimarron Hills. She reviewed the basics of Public Improvement Districts and said they are allowable under Chapter 372 of the Local Government Code, whereas a MUD is not under the LGC. She said the PIDs are created by City or County. She said a PID is created through a petition by the landowners, created by resolution through the City, public hearing is required and there is an assessment plan. She said the development can be reimbursed in a number of ways, including PID bonds and development reimbursement. She spoke about Cimarron Hills PID and Village PID in great detail and the pros and cons of those developments in the community. She reviewed the staff recommendations and said they think districts are appropriate in some situations. She said they are appropriate in locations that can support urban levels of density that are not planned in the CIP for utility services. She said they allow for incentives for unique, special projects beyond the minimum UDC standards. She spoke about the regional benefits beyond the district. She said, when the City did MUD 15, there were utility improvements that had to be made and those same improvements allowed the City to land the CityCorp deal three years later. She said districts also serve as an alternative to reimbursements as well. She spoke about the next steps in the process and said there will be a stakeholder forum in order to discuss financing issues with developers. She said some of the potential outcomes are to clarify UDC when and where districts are suitable, include long-term District planning in upcoming annexation policy update and update the utility master plan in consideration of the Chisholm merger. Eason said it is a problem that she was hearing conflicting things about MUDs and PIDs. She spoke about dealing with some of the problems the City has had in the past regarding MUDs. She noted the City really needs to define the parameters of establishing a MUD and how it will be administered for long periods of time. She said, if we can work to ensure the good things for the City and its taxpayers, it is a possibility. She noted she sees some real problems with a MUD and the potential differences between the political entities. She said there needs to be more fine tuning of the city's own issues. She noted we will need to have better administration of those types of projects. Hesser said he would like to know where he can get more training so he can better understand this. He asked if there is a cost variance between the different special districts from the developer's perspectives. Ficken said it varies greatly depending on the project and other components. He noted it usually boils down to the consent agreement and development agreement. Hesser said we need to make sure the City obtains all of its objectives, especially when annexing donut holes in the city boundaries. Fought said he enjoyed the presentations asked that the presenters leave their cards in case he has more questions. Fought asked about the potential experience if the city annexes a MUD and the project does not go to full build out. Rundell said the city has not had the experience of annexing a MUD but noted everything will be outlined in the consent agreement. Hammerlun thanked them for the great presentations. He clarified the existing PID and said it is a maintenance PID. Rundell confirmed and said it is a maintenance PID and was the first one in Texas. Hammerlun said he needs to understand where the disconnects and gaps are regarding how the City can facilitate these type of developments. He would like to have staff help Council lay out the projects and the pressure points and where that fits within the City's utility plan. He said the Council needs to look at the long term benefit. Jonrowe spoke about her understanding of some of the benefits of MUDs including lower home costs but higher taxes. Jonrowe asked and Rundell said the City provides the utilities for two MUDs. Rundell said the City would not want to consent to a MUD that provides its own utilities. Gonzalez said, overall, he thinks MUDs are valuable tools to encourage growth. He noted he would like to see a more active promotion of these districts. He spoke about discussions that should occur with developers prior to the formation of these districts. He said he would like to see the City create a map of where land is available and whether or not that land is "MUD friendly." There was much discussion. Mayor asked and Brandenburg outlined the next steps of the process. He said this is a complex issue but it will not go away. Motion by Eason, second by Fought to move forward with the next steps as presented by staff and listed on page 12 of the presentation. Approved 6-0 B Bed and Breakfast Establishments Update -- Matt Synatschk, Historic District Planner and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager With a Powerpoint Presentation, Synatschk spoke about bed and breakfast establishments in the City. He spoke about how this issue applies to the recent visioning session and the hope that Georgetown can become a "signature destination." He said Bed and Breakfasts tend to attract heritage tourists. He described heritage tourism for Council and spoke about why it is important. He said the Unified Development Code defines Bed and Breakfast as a private residential structure used for the rental of overnight accommodations and whose owner serves breakfast at no extra cost to its customers. He said the primary use of the property shall be residential with the B&B use considered an accessory use. He listed the zoning districts where B&Bs are allowed by right as well as the districts where they are allowed with a Special Use Permit. He listed the limitations that are applied in B&Bs in all zoning districts including no more than eight guestrooms, no food preparing within guestrooms, no parking in front year, operator is required to be a full time residents, they must keep a guest City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 5 of 351 Pages register and the rentals can not be for more than 15 days. He said, up to this point, they presented to Council on May 28, individual meetings with current and potential B&B owners were held and there was a Public Meeting on September 5. He said, in doing research, staff has identified two areas for possible changes to bed and breakfast regulations to ease start up costs. He said the current UDC definition is different than the international standards for B&Bs. He described the differences between the two regulations. He summarized the possible direction to staff including maintain current UDC and Life Safety requirements or to create a tiered system based on guest rooms and number of stories. He described the proposed tiered system for Council. He spoke about the tier system implementation and what would need to take place for this to happen. He described some of the challenges to sprinkler regulations as it relates to bed and breakfasts. Mayor asked about the community involvement and feedback and Synatschk said most of the people who spoke were in favor of this. Jonrowe asked about the costs differences between the three different tiers in terms of the sprinkler systems. Sunatschk said the cost per square foot is different from the three systems and he described this cost difference. Jonrowe said she is just trying to get an idea of what the cost savings would be. She asked and Synatschk described what is currently required by the code. He said this proposal would put the City in line with what other cities do. Jonrowe asked if this would affect our fire ratings. Synatschk said there does not seem to be a feeling that it was affect insurance rates. Jonrowe asked if there was a conversation about a financial incentive package similar to Grape Creek Winery. Synatsck said they have spoken about incentives and fee waivers. He said GUS offer fee waivers for downtown projects in general and they spoke about extending that to B&Bs. He said currently there are only three companies in Texas that insure B&Bs and it poses a challenge to the business owners. He spoke about the available sign and facade grants as well. Jonrowe said all of that information should be put together in a packet that an be sent out to potential B&B owners. Hammerlun asked and Synatschk said the San Gabriel House would be in the proposed Tier #3 if they were coming along today. Hammerlun asked and Synatschk said they do not have self closing doors but they do have sprinklers in some parts of the property. Fought said he would like to nail down any liability. He asked what it would cost us in terms of grants to help B&B owners meet the new standards instead of lowering the current standards. Hesser asked and Synatschk said the recommendation would be to lower the standards from where we are today. There was much discussion regarding the current standards versus the proposed standards. Eason said the City really needs to verify the liability issues and the insurance rates. She said she kind of likes the tier system in terms of definitions and cleaning things up. She asked how they would classify a B&B that has multiple structures on one property. Synatschk said the property itself is capped at a maximum of eight rooms. Eason asked about the full process and the next steps needed to accomplish these changes. Synatschk said a lot of these changes would go through the chief building official for the 2012 building codes. He said, at that point, the City would look at doing the local amendment. Eason said she would like to see something between now and then. Synatschk said the incentive piece of this can be put together sooner prior to having to change the codes. Mayor asked and Synatschk said this would not affect the home construction business. Mayor asked and Dave Hall, the Chief Building Inspector, reviewed the process necessary to update the building codes. There was much discussion. Meeting recessed to Executive Session under Sections 551.071, 551.071, 551.086 and 551.087 -- 4:23PM Meeting returned to Open Session -- 5:52PM C Discussion and Status Report on the Georgetown Salamander issue, including the next steps -- Paul E. Brandenburg, City Manager; David Munk, Water Utility Engineer and Valerie Covey, Williamson County Commissioner Mayor introduced the item and Commissioner Covey to the Council. Brandenburg briefly reviewed the update on the issue of the Georgetown salamander. He said, in August, the listing of the salamander as endangered was delayed six months. He said this is time for negotiations and the deadline is in February. He said an Ordinance would need to go through the City process prior to the listing of the salamander. He reviewed the timeline for the City Council. Covey said they were having a very important meeting with the Wildlife Service today about this matter. She said she appreciates Brandenburg and his staff for working with them. He said this is an issue they have been dealing with for the last two years and it is coming to a close. Covey showed Council a map of where the salamanders are known to be located and the effect this would have on development in Georgetown. She said the salamanders are typically located over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. She described the "red zones" and the 'orange zones" on the map and the kind of development that can take place in those zones. She said most of these sites are all around the lake. She spoke about putting some best practices in place for those areas which would help the salamanders but not have a negative effect on development. She said they are asking for an Ordinance from the City to lay out these best practices and discouraging listing the salamander as endangered. Mayor asked and Brandenburg reviewed the next steps of this process. There was much discussion. Jonrowe spoke about the importance of telling the public why the City is not wanting the salamander to be listed now. She noted she wants to make sure it does not seem the City and County does not care about the species. City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 6 of 351 Pages Motion by Fought, second by Gonzalez to direct staff to work with the County to bring back an appropriate Ordinance to address the salamanders. Approved 6-0 Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 06:11 PM. Approve Mayor George rver City Council Meeting Minutes/ Page 7 of 351 Pages e t: i Vec etary � ssica Brettle