Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 05.08.2018 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, May 8, 2018 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 3:05 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 East 711 St., Georgetown, Texas. The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 81h Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Ross, called the meeting to order at 3:07 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of Ty Gipson, Councilmember District 5. Mayor Ross, Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1, Valerie Nicholson, Councilmember District 2, John Hesser, Councilmember District 3, Steve Fought, Councilmember District 4, Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7 were in attendance. Councilmember Gipson joined the meeting at 3:25 PM. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:05 PM A. Presentation and discussion regarding proposed changes to Section 13.08 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) regarding Parkland Dedication requirements -- Kimberly Garret, Parks and Recreation Director Parks and Recreation Director, Kimberly Garrett, provided a presentation on changes to the UDC regarding Parkland Dedications. Garrett said the purpose of the presentation is to gain feedback from the Council on the proposed changes to the parkland dedication regulations in Section 13.08 of the UDC Garrett provided an Overview of Parkland Dedication • Land dedicated as part of a residential development • Fee is collected and used by cities to acquire and/or develop park facilities • Applies to both in -City and ETJ developments • Established by ordinance in 1995, fees and land dedication last updated in 2001 Garrett spoke on the Current Regulations and a recent City Analysis Comparison. City Analysis Comparison: • 100% require parkland dedication ■ 4 Cities use one fee in lieu of parkland dedication • 2 Cities require an additional parkland improvement fee • 4 Cities allow partial credit for private parks Garrett showed the Fee Comparison by City. Fee Comparison by City City Single Multifamily Parkland Improvement Fee Family Proposed Changes • Increase fee in lieu of parkland — Raise the fee in lieu of land dedication to be comparable with current land values — Propose $500 per dwelling unit for both SF and MF — 150 unit proposed development Parkland Curmnt Fee Propoeed Fee dedication In [IOU In lieu Cil�,�,f li,l,ti She noted that a fee can be used to purchase land or develop land, or an increased fee can be used in lieu of parkland. She explained that this brings a property in line with the current value of the land. Garrett spoke next on Park Improvement Fees. • Typical 3 acre (150 units) neighborhood park costs $250,000 to build o $250,000/150 units = $1,666 = $1,500 o Assumes full cost of park development; improvement fee could be less • Trend is for developers to develop parks. It is a selling point for the subdivision • Fees could be phased in over 2-3 years Garrett described Proposed Changes for Improvement Fees • Allow partial credit for Private Parks ■ Up to 50% credit given for private parks that meet established criteria • Park in the neighborhood will mainly be used by those residents • Burden to the City for maintenance and capital replacement is reduced A Slide showing Private Park Credit by the City was shown. Garrett spoke on the concerns with private park credit. She explained that a concern would be if the HOA does not maintain the park or the HOA dissolves. Garrett said there would need to be a plat note or strong HOA covenants. She explained that the argument would be that residents pay property taxes which should fund park maintenance. Garrett spoke on the Process So Far and the Next Steps. She asked the Council for their direction on an increased fee in lieu of land dedication, adding a park improvement requirement and allowing partial private park credit. Councilmember Fought said the proposals sounds reasonable except for partial private parks and said he wants to better understand what this means. Fought asked for confirmation that the effective date in January, will not impact developments already in process. Fought said he has concerns with developers not keeping up maintenance. He asked Garrett to explain partial private park credit. City Manager, David Morgan, said a private park credit is when a residential developer wants to get credit for parkland and fee requirements by building their own private park and saying that the HOA is going to maintain it and the City will not have responsibility to maintain it because it is a private amenity, inside a development, owned by the HOA. He explained that the City would not be paying anything up front for it and the property owners, themselves, would be paying for the maintenance afterward. Morgan said that in other cities, since there has been no up -front cost to them, cities have agreed to give credit for that amenity to be developed in that residential subdivision. Morgan said that staff is proposing 50% credit. He said the developer would still need to contribute to the broader parkland dedication, but at a 50% level, instead of 100%. Morgan noted that there is risk exposure for the City if an HOA goes defunct. He explained that the City can use language in the development agreement that would protect the home owners, or language requiring the home owners to maintain the private park. Councilmember Jonrowe inquired about private parks and said she understands that the maintenance would be the responsibility of the home owners. Jonrowe asked about access to these parks and if a development would be allowed to limit access. She noted an example of a multi -family development built next to a development with a private park. Jonrowe asked if a fence would be allowed to be erected, keeping the park private. Garrett said that, typically, a private park would restrict access. Jonrowe said she has an issue with that. Garrett said if a City allows access to a private park, they would be getting into liability issues and it is best to limit the private park to that development. Jonrowe asked about the fee in lieu per unit for single family and multifamily. Garrett said this is a preference. She explained that multifamily projects have to develop common recreation areas on less acreage or build amenities to their development, such as amenity centers, playgrounds or pools. Garrett noted that the costs are the same to the City to develop a park or purchase parkland. She said Chapter 6 of the UDC addresses common recreation area and says the amenities to the subdivision do not count toward the parkland dedication requirement. Gonzalez asked about governmental fallback, and said that it seems that things always fall back to a limit. He said he is concerned that partially city funded means the City could eventually have a responsibility. City Manager, David Morgan, said the City can charge fees in order to maintain the parks, but this responsibility has not happened in the City in the past. Morgan said it is very unlikely that it would occur. He explained that a developer might want to do a private park because of land types, or may want the park to be at a higher level than City standards. He said there could be a desire for a private park if the developer wanted the park to be more unique. Councilmember Hesser asked how many parks the City obtained through fallen agreements or improper maintenance. Garret said only the River Ridge pool, back in the 80s. Hesser asked if the pool needed repair. Garret confirmed. Hesser said the solution should be given in the language of the agreement. Morgan said language would give the City the ability to act as the HOA, if necessary. Morgan said staff will come back with suggestions for protections for the City. He explained that today's discussion is geared toward parkland development fees if a private park is developed. Councilmember Nicholson said she sees both sides to a private park, but would like to see more detail on solutions to possible risks. Councilmember Gonzalez said there must be specific language in the agreements and the City should encourage developers who want to develop their own parks. Mayor Ross said Council does not want tax payers to be on the hook if an HOA fails and would like staff to provide more details and solutions for safe guards. Morgan said he understands that Council would like to know if the private park credit will be an incentive for private parks and if this would possibly create more of an issue. Morgan said staff will be able to look at other cities and what they have experienced. Morgan said he also recognizes Councils direction to pursue the fee increase in lieu of park dedication and adding a park improvement requirement. Councilmember Eby said she is in favor of establishing fees sooner than 2 to 3 years. Mayor Ross agreed and said developers will need to know the specifics when developing. Eby asked if higher standards could be required of private parks. Morgan said staff would look into this. B. Presentation and update regarding amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC) relating to Mobile Food Vendors -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, spoke on mobile food vendors and amendments to the UDC to accommodate the Council's intentions, voiced in previous presentations on the subject. Nelson thanked presentation contributors, Jack Daly, Andreina Davila -Quintero, Keith Hutchinson and Kim McAuliffe. Nelson said that the purpose of this presentation is to present the feedback from public outreach with brick and mortar restaurants and to present additional research requested by the Council. Nelson said she will ask the Council for their feedback and direction for the permitting process for mobile food vendors. Nelson explained that Part 1 of the presentation would provide a recap of past presentations, Part 2 would present the public outreach, Part 3 would be a summary of recommendations and Part 4 would be her request for direction from the Council. Nelson provided the Project Timeline, a Recap of Current Regulations and a Recap of Previous Workshop meetings. Recap of Previous Workshop Vendor without Accessory Use Primary Use Fixed Site Only applies to vendors that sell at construction sites, neighborhoods and special events. The use of city parks or ROW would require a special event permit. A mobile food vendor that supplements a primary brick and mortar development All other days Temporary Use Permit Required (1 year) A mobile food vendor that is the primary use, and does not need a brick and mortar development. Outreach prior to the last workshop • Three UDCAC meetings held: — October 11 th — December 13th — January 101' • Feedback Received: — Concerns were expressed about enforcement of the times the trucks would be on-site and how inspections would occur. — The representatives of the properties using the food trucks asked for 72 hour windows of time before forcing a temporary use permit. Ci,,' �f "�,NvN Outreach since the last workshop • Restaurant visits • Restaurant Owners Survey — Survey sent to 35 restaurants within the area — Data collected from March 27 — April 6 — 6 questions (one open-ended for additional comments) — 17 responses GEQRGETQ1 N TE]tA5 Survey Questions • Do you support food trucks in Georgetown? —Yes=64.71% — No = 35.29% • Should the City regulate where food trucks can operate? — Yes = 88.24% — No = 11.76% • Should the City regulate how long food trucks can stay in one location? — Yes = 76.47% — No = 23.53% At6O _E%Aro �W' \ Survey Questions • Should food trucks be allowed to locate permanently in one location? — Yes = 47.06% — No = 52.94% • Should the public be notified when food trucks plan to locate somewhere permanently? — Yes = 82.35% — No = 11.65% 0Gior,c3P►� N if%AS Transient Use !7A !t1 1 Boom May include food trucks that come to a site for events Local Examples. Mesquite Creek and Rentsch Brewery Transient Use secondar, , Use • Mobile food vendor that supplements a primary brick and mortar development. ter, Local Example: Je Suis Coffee on 9' Street � Primary Use Required Zaafna Commercial districts, Multi -family districts. Connection to Utilities NotAllowed Public Facilities, Industrial, Business Timc Trucks permitted Thursday through Park, Affixed Use Sunday. May not operate when primary use is closed. districts Site Re uiremen ' Maximum Numberof Food Trucks - 2 Shall meet location and parking ermi Ing- o ermi squire excep � when seeking to have a truck outside requirements of rmitted da s. Enforcement: Amenities- Not Permitted 4D Complaint based secondar, , Use • Mobile food vendor that supplements a primary brick and mortar development. ter, Local Example: Je Suis Coffee on 9' Street ieccndary Use Zoning districts: '" Primary Use Required C-1 and C3 districts, Industrial, Business Connection to electric service Park, Mixed Use permitted districts Site Requirements: Shall meet UDC parking requirernents. Site plan riot required. FnfnrrPmant- Review of Teri=porauv Use Permit. Time - 1 year temporary permit. May not operate when primary use is closed. SUP rrquired for longer than 1 year. =Maxim um Number of Food Trucks - 3 Permitting - Temporary Use Permit Amenities - Tables, Chairs, Restrooms. Etc. Primary Use • rvlob le- food vendor( ) thclt Utilize a site that as the prifTlary use. 'This may inClride one mobile food vendor or developed as 'food truck park. Local Example -s- Black 'Box; Morrow Street food park . v 4 �. �t � � • + � '�, ��.- :� ,}tea.-.} 1 . Nelson provided a Summary of Recommendations • Transient Use o Trucks permitted Thursday through Sunday. May not operate when primary use is closed. No permit required. • Secondary Use o Permitted for 1 year with a temporary use permit. Longer time periods will require a special use permit • Primary Use o Permitted with a special use permit • Vendor Without a Fixed Site o No temporary permit required • City Parks and ROW o Special event permit Nelson asked the Council if they agreed with the UDC recommendations for transient use, secondary use and primary use. She asked Council if staff may start the coding process. Councilmember Jonrowe asked staff to begin to bring everyone into compliance. Nelson said the UDC amendments will be brought back to the Council for approval. C. Presentation and discussion of a Cooperation Agreement to continue participation with Williamson County as part of the Urban County Entitlement for the Community Development Block Grant Program for FY2019- 202 -- Susan Watkins, AICP, Housing Coordinator and Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director Housing Coordinator, Susan Watkins, spoke on a Cooperation Agreement with Williamson County to continue participation in the Urban County Entitlement for the Community Development Block Grant Program. She said she would be providing an overview of the Cooperation Agreement and speaking on the next steps for the future of the CDBG programs. Watkins provided a Recap of Recent CDBG Activity and spoke on the Williamson County Entitlement. Watkins advised that HUD has revised the estimate to say it will notify the City in May or June, but the agreement with Williamson County must be renewed by June 1st. This will require the City to renew the agreement before hearing about the City's entitlement status from HUD. Recap of recent CDBG Activity • February workshop — presented two public improvement projects for Council approval —171h St — Maple St • Late notice from HUD shifted dates for entitlement discussion • Cooperation Agreement deadline Williamson County Entitlement • Urban County Entitlement — In 2004, Williamson County was identified as an Urban County Entitlement for CDBG program — Since then, it has received yearly CDBG allocation — Georgetown population is included in qualifying population — County must re -qualify every three years W Watkins said that the City had applied for FY19 funds on April 4'h and it is unknown when HUD will make contact, but the deadline for the cooperation agreement is firm. She said that HUD will likely notify the City in May or June of the entitlement status and how much funding is available for Georgetown as a direct recipient of CDBG funds. She explained that, if Georgetown decides to accept those funds, the agreement with the County has a clause that says the agreement can be void. Watkins noted that Georgetown will have until July 27, 2018 to accept entitlement status. Watkins said that Georgetown has applied for CDBG funds through Williamson County from 2005-2016, with allocations between $50,000 and $392,000. She noted that a total of $1,816,639 has been spent on projects in the City of Georgetown. Watkins said that staff will return to Council on May 22 for approval of the Cooperation Agreement with Williamson County and to evaluate entitlement status if notified by HUD of eligibility and a funding amount. D. Presentation and discussion of the Fiscal Impact Model -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager, Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager, and Seth Gipson, Management Analyst Seth Gipson, the City's Management Analyst, provided a presentation on the Fiscal Impact Model. He said that in January 2018 the City engaged TischlerBise, Inc. to develop two fiscal impact models for the City that would objectively predict costs and revenue impacts regarding development and city-wide growth development patterns. Gipson said staff has worked diligently and closely with the consultant to build models that are completely tailored to the City of Georgetown, in order to provide a new tool that can assist staff and Council in understanding how these individual decisions impact Georgetown's long term fiscal sustainability and land use decisions. Gipson spoke on the purpose of the presentation. • Multiple scenarios allow testing and comparing o Property values o Timing o Type of land uses • Informed land use decisions and test "what if' alternatives • Test and compare potential financial incentives • Plan for short and long-term operational and capital improvement impacts • Help meeting City Planning, Financial and Economic Development goals Gipson spoke on Quality Control • Restricting and managing those that have access to the model • Creation of Usage Guidelines to address o Records Retention & Management Requirements o File naming protocols o Standards for file creation and storage o Public Dissemination Gipson explained that before any result can be disseminated to the public (i.e. City Council or an Advisory Board or Commission), a second staff member will verify the project level data and results outlined in the initial report. Councilmember Fought said, since this is supposed to be a predictive model, he would like to suggest that the disclaimer say that it is intended to show the differences among alternatives, but is in relative terms and not absolute terms. Quality Control for Maintenance & Staff Trainings was shown and described by Gipson. • Regular maintenance and updates ■ In addition to creating usage guidelines, three additional trainings have been conducted o December 11-12, 2017 —training with consultant o February 15, 2018 — in depth staff training and review o February 26, 2018 — additional training with consultant Gipson provided an image of the Model Overview and spoke on the Model Structure Input and Output Modules o Project Input o Demand Base Module o Tax Base Module o Revenue Modules o Capital Facility Cost Module o Budget Summary and Outputs Gipson provided a map of fiscal analysis zones and several slides showing model structure regarding project inputs, model structure regarding a demand base module, model structure for a tax base module, model structure for revenue modules and module structures for operating costs. A Capital costs model structure was shown, as well as a model structure for capital facility costs. Gipson provided a look at the budget summary model structure. He then described tables in the models and what they can report. Gipson showed a snapshot of the model structures and how charts can be utilized for reporting. He provided a demonstration of the available information and reports using Georgetown Village and Wolf Ranch Shopping Center as example projects. Gipson provided information on each proposed development, their project input, the output, the Net Fiscal Impact and Capital needs of the projects. Summary Charts were provided, as well as a depiction of zero net fiscal impact. Gipson explained the processes using three different scenarios. Councilmember Fought asked for more understanding of the results table. He asked if the net fiscal impact describes what the City has actually expended or if it is what the model said the City would expend. Gipson explained that the net fiscal impact describes what the model would expect for a positive impact to the City. Fought said this is a fabulous tool. Fought said a predictive model can only work if one analyses how it predicted the past. He reviewed scenario 3 in what the model says, but said he would like to know the actual results, as well. Gipson provided actual data vs. projected data in the Wolf Ranch demonstration. Gipson said this important tool will aid in the City's ability to evaluate the fiscal impact of policy, budgetary, financial and land use decisions. He noted that this will be used for the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Update and miscellaneous development projects. Councilmember Fought asked Gipson to send him a list of categories of housing. City Manager, David Morgan, said net zero of single family homes was provided, but understanding multifamily processes will be helpful in long range planning. Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.072 and Section 551.074 at 4:20 PM. Executive Session In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property Downtown Real Estate Sale - Rock Street/811 Street Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal Adjournment Mayor Ross adjourned the meeting at 6:00 PM to begin the Regular City Council Meeting Approved by the Georgetown City Council on 4�� JqOfiesser, May r Pro Tem 5L aa�� g Date Attest: CitySee etary