Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 10.09.2018 CC-WMinutes of a Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas Tuesday, October 9, 2018 The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 3:30 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101 East Th 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 8' Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Mayor Pro Tem, John Hesser, called the meeting to order at 3:30 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance, with the exception of Mayor Dale Ross, Steve Fought, Councilmember District 4 and Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1. Valerie Nicholson, Councilmember District 2, Mayor Pro Tem, John Hesser, Councilmember District 3, Kevin Pitts, Councilmember District 5, Rachael Jonrowe, Councilmember District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7 were in attendance. Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 3:30 PM A. Presentation and discussion on proposed cemetery and columbarium fees -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director Parks and Recreation Director, Kimberly Garrett, spoke on the proposed cemetery and columbarium fees. She said the purpose of the presentation is to obtain feedback and direction on the proposed fees for the columbarium and traditional cemetery lots. Garrett spoke on the background and history of the proposed cemetery and columbarium. She noted that a cemetery reserve fund was established during FY14 with $100,000. Garrett, explained that, since FY15, $75,000 has been transferred annually from the general fund to build the reserve cemetery fund. She said, in response to an increase in cremations and requests for urn burial, the Council approved building a columbarium in the cemetery in the FY17 budget. Garrett explained that the design and construction of the columbarium was funded from the cemetery reserve fund. She said, as niches are sold, the revenue goes back into the cemetery reserve fund to replenish the initial investment and build the fund to help with ongoing maintenance. Garrett spoke on a fee review for columbarium fees and setting fees for columbarium services, as well as traditional burial lots. She provided rendering drawings of the Columbarium location and the columbarium layout. A photo depicting the work that has already begun was shown. Garrett provided a Fee Comparison Analysis. She spoke on Current and Proposed Fees and Additional Fees Collected. Garrett said, generally speaking, a location for burial is chosen by where the family wants the burial, rather than price. She noted difficulties with families when charging by resident or non-resident. She explained that often a family member from out of the area is the person making the arrangements, and they may not be a resident, but the deceased relative was. Garrett said staff chose to not decipher this, and have set fees. Fee Comparison Analysis • Single burial space cost — $900 to $3,000 for public — $3,500 to $4,400 for private/church • Columbarium (niche cost - single urn) — $875 to $3,000 for public — $1,000 to $3,500 for private/church c � ��xce roinr� rtx�s Fee Comparison Analysis • Each cemetery and community are unique — Difficult to compare — Public vs Private vs Church owned • The approach staff took in setting fees was to ensure maintenance costs are covered, there is a plan to fund going future maintenance in perpetuity and Central Texas market pricing. Crf,lfkf ?cN'N itii Garrett explained the need for consistency of the look of the columbarium with engraving, etc. She noted that the Parks & Recreation Advisory board had unanimously recommended approval. Garrett described the Next Steps: • Work with the funeral homes in Georgetown to communicate new rates and that the columbarium is complete • Update the City's website ■ Work with Legal to revise the cemetery ordinance to reflect the columbarium • New fees to be effective when the columbarium construction is complete Garrett asked the Council for their direction on the proposed fees for traditional burial lots and for the niches in the columbarium. Councilmember Gonzalez said he appreciated the presentation. He asked Garrett if a percentage of the sale of traditional plots still goes into the Cemetery Fund. Garrett confirmed that $300 of every sale is going to a maintenance fund. Gonzalez said this must continue in order to build this fund slowly. He asked staff to review and set a goal for the fund to be at the right level with a conservative nature. Councilmember Jonrowe asked if there is a goal to incentivize one type of burial over another. Garrett, said the City will run out of both at some point. She noted that there are 215 double lots remaining and 420 single lots. She said, currently, it is based on the family's choice. She said the Parks Board has discussed this, at length, but it is hard to predict. She said research shows cremations are on the rise, although it still has substantial cost. Garrett said it could be a Council choice to incentivize. She suggested one spot priced at $1,500 and two spots priced at $2,500. Councilmember Pitts asked about the earn lot size. Garrett said an earn lot is 2'x 2', while a traditional lot is 5' x 10'. Pitts asked if the pricing was based on square feet of land. Garrett confirmed. She said there has been little demand for earn lots. Pitts asked if earn lots could be turned back into traditional lots. Garrett said the area is odd shaped and would not be able to take on single lots. Pitts asked if earn lots should be taken off the table and more columbarium spots created. Garrett said the odd space has been suggested to be a memorial garden. Pitts said, since one dies, the demand for space is there, and it might be wise to charge the same price for both types of lots. Nicholson agreed with the one price and asked about the inscription services being included in the cost. She said cremation, is a financial decision, in her perspective. Garrett said this would take longer to get the reimbursement back, but could be done by building it into the cost. Jonrowe asked if someone has to buy the whole niche. Garrett said yes and noted that the Legal department is working on the details. Garret said a niche is one area but can hold 2 earns. She explained the area to be one box type structure or cubby area. Garrett explained that whoever purchases the niche owns both spots. Garrett said it would not be proper to sell a half or give a half to a person not specified by the owner. Councilmember Gonzalez said there might need to be a sublet contract, if someone wanted to sell the other portion of their niche. Jonrowe said they could give the option that they do not mind sharing the space with someone who may need the space, or donate it to someone in the future. Gonzalez questioned what the price would be ten years from now and explained that someone purchasing space today might use this as an investment opportunity. City Attorney, Charlie McNabb, said there is a discreet area of law that deals with ownership of burial places. He said the legal team is looking at this and will come to the Council with possible options after their review. McNabb explained that the City owns the cemetery land, so it is not like selling a single family lot, but the City has divided it up that way. He noted that ownership is not exactly conveyed the same way. McNabb said the Columbarium is a different creature than the plots in the ground. Garrett said staff will be working with the legal team on specifics, but she would like to ask the Council for their feedback regarding the right direction for fees and if they agree with the proposal or would like to see modifications or adjustments. Councilmember Hesser said there is a need to look at how much money should be in the cemetery fund to assure that it is self -sustained. Hesser asked if a concrete foundation is still being put around the lots. Garrett explained that this is not being done in the 2007 addition, but anything prior to that may have the concrete. Hesser said it makes it difficult to maintain the area. She said it has been difficult to enforce no concrete in the earlier additions, because people see it and want it for their own spot, but it has been easier in the new addition since there are no lots with concrete. The Council told Garrett that they believe she is going in the right direction regarding pricing. Mayor Pro Tem, John Hesser, announced that he had forgotten to mention the quorum language at the beginning of the meeting. Hesser said there needs to be 4 Councilmembers present for a quorum. He noted that 5 Councilmembers were present. He said Councilmembers Nicholson, Hesser, Pitts, Jonrowe and Gonzalez were present. Hesser said that Mayor Ross and Councilmember Fought were out of town and Councilmember Eby was ill. B. Presentation and update on use agreement for Grace Heritage Center with Preservation Georgetown --Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager Assistant City Manager, Laurie Brewer, spoke on a use agreement with Preservation Georgetown for the Grace Heritage Center. Brewer noted that Council, at a July workshop meeting, had indicated their desire that the building be activated more often. She explained that this was not for a market drive or a revenue goal, but rather to allow more people to use the facility. Brewer said that the City owns the Grace Heritage Center and has leased it to Preservation Georgetown since 1994. She noted that the City had spent $419,000 to renovate the facility in 2017, and it is Council's direction to increase the utilization of the facility and promote downtown activities and further recover costs for maintenance. Brewer said she has visited with Parks, CVB and Library staff and feels that the City can promote the space as a venue and for rentals. Brewer said she had visited with Preservation Georgetown to discuss the City's need for the collection of revenue to offset maintenance. She said the City would pay the utilities and insurance and evaluate the market and adjust the fees, expected to be $800 for 4 hours, or $200 per hour and $300 for a wedding rehearsal event. Brewer said the facility holds approximately 82 people for a wedding or that type of event. Brewer said the City has agreed to honor existing commitments made by Preservation Georgetown for already booked events and weddings. She said that everyone is interested in preserving the building and keeping it maintained and usable. Brewer spoke on the possible need for a lease or a license, and said staff is working with the Legal Department regarding this. She noted that Preservation Georgetown asked for the use of the facility 24 days per year and to be able to utilize the office space. Brewer explained that Preservation Georgetown's historic records will be indexed and kept at the library for public use. She said the staff and Preservation Georgetown will continue to work together on joint events and promotion for downtown activities and preservation. Brewer provided a Summary and Next Steps. Councilmember Jonrowe thanked Brewer for the presentation and the effort to engage and be responsive. She said this has been a long process and hopes it is finalized soon. Jonrowe said she likes this agreement and is in support of it. She explained that it allows the City to generate revenue events in order to maintain and preserve the facility. Councilmember Gonzalez said things are moving in the right direction, but the City should not be the landlord. He said any organization wanting to use the facility should have a fee schedule and Preservation Georgetown should have the same fee schedule. He explained the need to be fair to all, without favors to one group and not another. Gonzalez said it is not possible to maintain the building without a fee schedule followed. He noted that Preservation Georgetown did not contribute anything to the preservation of the building. Gonzalez said that the President of Preservation Georgetown had said they have no confidence in the City Council, which makes it hard for a good relationship. Councilmember Pitts asked what the existing commitment list for weddings looks like. Brewer said she believes there are 2 or 3 weddings booked. Pitts asked if the lease is month to month. Brewer said, in absence of a new agreement, that is the case. Pitts said the indexing of the historic documents sounds like a good thing and fits in line with the mission of Preservation Georgetown. Pitts said he agrees that the City cannot show preferential treatment. He noted that there are many great nonprofits in Georgetown. He said there is meeting space at the library with a fee schedule and this should be the same. Councilmember Nicholson asked if this is an exchange for man hours. She explained that she does want the facility open for visitors, and an agreement for the exchange of man hours to make this possible would make sense. Nicholson said having the doors open on Thursday and Friday is important. She said the exact exchange will need to be established and needs to be quantifiable. Brewer said the Library and Parks Department have low non-profit rental rates and asked if Council would want the same fee structure used here. Nicholson said she wants it to be helpful to Councilmembers' Pitts and Gonzalez concerns. Nicholson said she supports moving the records to the library, as well. Councilmember Jonrowe asked if Preservation Georgetown was instrumental in financing the initial move of the building to its current location. Brewer said that is her understanding. Jonrowe asked if the revenue from events would be transferred to the City and no longer be that of Preservation Georgetown. Brewer confirmed. Jonrowe said the City does own a list of properties, with a history of giving advantageous terms to certain organizations, which is a demonstration of the City's priorities and its commitment to those services. Jonrowe said she does not believe the Council will achieve consensus in this matter and there are Councilmembers who are missing at this meeting. She asked that this be taken to a vote at a future meeting. Gonzalez disagreed and said a workshop is workshop and when asked for Council direction, the staff will get it. He said there could be an equitable fee arrangement for the trading of man hours for making the facility available to the public, but office space is a totally different thing. Gonzalez reminded the Council that Preservation Georgetown gave the building to the City because they were unable to maintain it. He said he is in favor of getting rid of any building the City has because the City cannot be a good landlord. City Manager, David Morgan, said it sounds like there should be consideration for a trade for hours making the Thursday and Friday opening available. He said staff will work with Preservation Georgetown and come back with a proposal. Brewer said the Thursday and Friday availability is only when the part time staff is available. Jonrowe asked if staff is only there during those hours. Brewer confirmed. Pitts said he liked Morgan's comments. Nicholson asked if the agreement was a lease agreement. Brewer described a license agreement and explained that it is more of a use type of agreement. McNabb said the City could consider a maintenance agreement, as well. Hesser said it is a lovely building and the City needs to find a way for it to be self- sustaining. He said a lease agreement for the 24 days could be conflicting with other needs and the CVB should have access, as well as the Library. C. Presentation and discussion of the Public Improvement District (PID) Policy -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Seth Gipson, Management Analyst Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager, spoke on the PID Policy. She said Council adopted a MUD Policy earlier in the year and the PID Policy approach would be similar. She spoke on the financial responsibility in a PID and noted that a PID is created and maintained by the City. Brewer explained that a PID must be financially feasible and sustainable and provides a higher level of development that is obvious to tax payers. She explained that the PID Policy would give Council flexibility to work on development on a case by case basis. Seth Gipson, Management Analyst for the City, provided the presentation. He explained that staff had prepared a draft PID Policy, based on discussion and direction at the March 27'h City Council workshop, and would be seeking Council's feedback on the proposed policy. Gipson described the basics of Public Improvement Districts in detail. . ��If li Ni .I Il)1tin� Public Improvement District - Basics • Allowable under Chapter 372 LGC • Created by City or County — Defined area in City or ETJ — Dependent District— financial responsibility • Reimburse costs of development — Can fund on-going maintenance of specified public improvements i�n,acllulvn� Public Improvement District - Basics • Resources — Assessments are levied on property owners within the PID based upon % of benefited property — Liens placed on individual property owners — land/homeowner responsible for payment — Assessment liens subordinate only to taxes • Financings — PID (City or County) may sell assessment revenue bonds — Annual revenues pledged towards debt payment Gwv.td 1'1%'N1jjjWr� Public Improvement District - Basics • Governance — Appointed by Council (dependent district) • Eligible Costs— public infrastructure and development — Landscaping, parks, lighting, signage — Transportation, parking — Utilities — Administration and Operations Gipson described the elements of a PID Creation. PID Creation • Petition by landowner — Feasibility study and findings • Public Hearing is required — Must evaluate feasibility before PH • Created by resolution — Service Plan w/ improvements & related costs • Assessment Plan — Adopted by Ordinance Types of PIN were shown and described. Gipson explained that, in the case of a cash flow PID, there is no plan for debt being issued. He said the developer used the annual assessments toward maintenance or to reimburse for capital. Gipson noted that the Georgetown Village PID is a maintenance PID. He said that, for most PIDs, developers are planning to use debt toward development, using bonds, similar to how the City has treated MUD agreements. . city fAMARV.C's Of e DRE212 71 Types of PIDs Cash Flow PIDs — Maintenance - similar to HOA in that it funds maintenance, fencing, landscaping — Capital cash flow — landowner constructs improvements, gets reimbursed over time through assessments — Annual assessments used on a cash basis Types of PI Ds • Debt PIDs — Dirt Bonds — bonds issued by city to fund improvements (up front) — Project Finance Bonds — bonds issued during development — Reimbursement Bonds — developer provides financing for infrastructure, city agrees to issue bonds after benchmarks are met io Gipson spoke on PID Assessment Plans. PID —Assessment Plan "Levy" amount determined by either: — Set amount to repay proportional cost of infrastructure — Per valuation rate pay cost of maintenance of infrastructure — Assessment roll is prepared for property • Ordinance adopts Assessment Plan & levies the assessment — Can include interest and penalties The Purpose of a PID Policy was outlined. �� it UNc�I Il �\YNR Purpose of PID Policy • Outlines when the Council could support using a PID for development • Provides for a process to review and analyze • Establishes safeguards for successful debt issuance (if appropriate) • Provides administration guidelines • Protects future homeowner/property owner interests • Ensures consistency in review • Provides guidelines to ensure project is viable and sustainable Gipson said staff had found that policies vary in Texas from being very restrictive to those that are fairly broad and that have chosen not to implement a policy and remain very flexible. Gipson said, based on conversations earlier this year, staff recommends establishing a policy to provide consistent and predictable review and analysis, as well as to provide a framework for legal requirements to approve and administer a PID. Gipson said, when a developer petitions for a PID, the future homeowner is not necessarily represented in full. He explained that the City acts to ensure justification for the future financial responsibility of the homeowner. Gipson said staff sees the advantages of enacting a policy to include: 1) Consideration of future homeowner and their tax/assessment liability 2) Consistency in review 3) Guidelines to assure the project is sustainable and that the debt being issued adds enough value to the project to have positive equity and sustained value after debt is paid off. Gipson provided an Overview of PID Policy • High level of how a PID is established • Reimbursement PID Structure o Developer will fund improvements and once key benchmarks are met, the City will issue bonds to reimburse the authorized expenses. Community Benefits of a PID were discussed: • Quality Developments • Extraordinary Benefits • Enhanced Public Service and Safety • Developer must clearly identify whet the special benefit is to the district and the City General PID Policy was shown. CftV M -al" :■ UMtr .... PID Policy —General • Authorized Public Improvements: — Landscaping; — Enhanced entry features; — Signage, distinct lighting, fountains; — Art; — Pedestrian trails and sidewalks; — Parks and recreational amenities; — Regional drainage improvements; — Off-street parking facilities; • Other improvements that are not listed, but are allowed by statute will be reviewed and considered individually by the City. TAT L II OR( 110%%fniiiiiiijBIN01W PID Policy—General cont. • Improvements not eligible for reimbursement: — Swimming pools; — Travel expenses; — Perimeter fencing; — Acquisition, construction, improvement or maintenance of privately owned facilities or land; and — Any trails, parks, streets, or other public amenities that are located within a gated community or are inaccessible. �'�_ CirciRCl mwn� PID Policy — General cont. • Miscellaneous General Items: — Must be self-sufficient — Use of assessments may be used to recover capital costs where an extraordinary benefit exists — Must include a title encumbrance that notifies the prospective buyer of the PID — Boundaries cannot overlap with another PID — PID improvements must be designed and constructed to City standards — Establishment of an HOA is encouraged — Rental multi -family unit assessments must be prepaid by the developer or builder Gipson spoke on the PID Policy Application Requirements. t �Il)Ri,F R)1tiN PID Policy —Application Requirements • Petition must contain the required elements outlined in Local Gov't Code Section 372. • In addition to the petition, the following will be required in order for the City to evaluate the proposal. — Identification of the benefit; — Map of the district boundaries; — Market Feasibility Study; — Preliminary Service and Assessment Plan; — Financial Plan and phasing forecast; — Procedures for eventual termination of the district; and — Application Fee The Bonds and Financing Criteria for PIN was shown. •I$111:.- W PID Policy — Bonds and Financing Criteria • Min. value to lien ratio at date of bond issue: 4:1 • Max. annual permitted increase in annual assessment installment: 2% • Max. maturity of each series of bonds: 25 years • Max. time allowed between the first and last bond issuance: 10 years. • Reserved Fund will be established. PID Policy — Bonds and Financing Criteria cont. • The City will apply the same -post issuance compliance requirements to PID Bonds, as are required for GO and CO debt. • The City will require a PID agreement to be established in order to outline: — The basic terms and conditions — Payment or reimbursement of costs — PID improvements (planning, development, construction, management, and maintenance) — Terms and conditions for ongoing PID administration, operation, and management. Gipson asked Council for their Feedback. • Comments and direction on: o The policy focus of Reimbursement PIDs o The approach of drawing similarities between the PID and MUD Policies o Placing emphasis on funding the enhancements and the quality of the development, as opposed to basic infrastructure Gipson explained that staff had looked at this with a conservative lens and settled on reimbursement PIDs but need the Council's feedback. Councilmember Nicholson asked about a map of the GVPID. She asked where other PIDs exist. Gipson said the Georgetown Village PID is the only PID in Georgetown. Councilmember Pitts asked what type of PID the Village PID is and if it is a reimbursement PID. Gipson said it is a cash flow PID and described the structure. He said it is a maintenance PID, with a capital piece to it. He explained that when it was originally formed, a maximum rate of 20 cents per $100 valuation was established and a one-time $1,000 payment. Pitts complimented Gipson on a great presentation. Pitts asked if he was correct in understanding that a reimbursement PID would be dissolved after 25 years. Gipson confirmed. Pitts asked if a PID could do some infrastructure. City Manager, David Morgan, said it can, but since the City would be issuing the debt and the administration of it, staff recommends that there be a stronger balance on enhancements, above and beyond standards, instead of just infrastructure, and that this be specified in the PID Policy. Pitts said when a MUD does infrastructure, a MUD board manages it, while with a PID, it would be the City that would be required to manage it. Morgan said there would be an assessment plan that gets approved on an annual basis. Pitts said he likes the mirror of a MUD policy for debt and would want to push infrastructure debt through MUDs. Councilmember Gonzalez said this was a great presentation and he would want PIDs to have no other option, with infrastructure done through a MUD. Gonzalez said a MUD should be product number 1. Councilmember Hesser said it was a good presentation and a PID would be his preference. He said he does not like MUDs. Hesser said there are a lot of possibilities and the City is just at the beginning of what all can be done. He said this helps to keep the City stay ahead of the growth and have growth pay for itself. D. Presentation and discussion regarding a review and future adoption of a legislative agenda for the City of Georgetown during the 86th Legislative Session -- Jack Daly, Assistant to the City Manager and David Morgan, City Manager Assistant to the City Manager, Jack Daly, provided an update on the adoption of a legislative agenda for the City of Georgetown in the 86th Legislative Session. Daly said this intention is to have a guide for Council and staff to promote City interests. He said this would establish policy direction for general topics that could affect the City. Daly said staff would work to establish and maintain active, positive partnerships with elected officials. Daly noted the City's elected officials are Charles Schwertner, Senate District 5, Terry Wilson, House District 20 and Larry Gonzales, House District 2. Daly spoke on the 85th Legislative Session Review and the upcoming 86th Legislative Session. Daly said the Council will be encouraged to participate in the Williamson County Day during the Session. Legislative Agenda Topics were discussed. • Preserve local home -rule control • Oppose unfunded mandates • Oppose revenue caps • Support local parks funding • Protect utility interest Daly spoke on Local Control. He said it was a broad topic and staff will communicate as issues come up. Daly said staff will focus on preserving home -rule authority. • Support local control, where elected officials are tasked with raising funds and providing services to respond to the individual needs of the community they service • Oppose legislation that would erode authority of Texas cities o Annexation o Local option ordinances (tree preservation) Daly described unfunded mandates. ■ Unfunded or underfunded mandates from state and federal governments ultimately end up costing local tax payers • Mandates from the state should include funding to implement the mandate Taxation was addressed next. • Oppose legislation that reduces the appraisal growth cap established in current law and legislation that imposes revenue caps in the form of adjusting provisions for the current property tax rollback rate. Parks. • Support of legislation that provides a fair and equitable distribution of the sporting goods sales tax revenue for Local and State parks • Support pass-thru federal dollars for parks • Support constitutional dedication of sporting goods sales tax revenues for parks Utilities. • Support dissolution of CTSUD Board • Support local control regarding Municipally Owned Utility (MOU) decision making related to electric market participation • Oppose expansion of PUC jurisdiction or loss of MOU control related to rates or regulations • Support continued MOU general fund transfers and ROI • Oppose changes to current law regarding disclosure of competitively sensitive information • Oppose required discount mandates Daly said staff will continue to keep the Council informed and spoke on the Next Steps. He said it is great to have staff involved, but is more beneficial to have elected officials involved. • Discussion and direction • Review and possibly adopt proposed agenda on October 23rd ■ Provide updates throughout the session • Anticipate specific topics and initiatives that will require Council feedback Councilmember Gonzalez said engagement is important. He said, since this is a diverse Council and focus, it will be important to spend extra time to review what is desired by the Council. He said Council will need to be on the same page for advocacy. Daly said this is a good idea. He said the agenda is broad, but staff will need the impact of Council. Councilmember Nicholson said Council could provide advocacy and expertise in some areas as well. Councilmember Hesser asked why the state is involved in a lot of this and said it does not seem like proper procedure. He said he would like to address this with the legislature. Daly said legislators respond to things that may be appropriate for large cities that do not fit with small cities or fast growing cities. Gonzalez said they seem to go with one size fits all, and our advocacy might be to show the importance of showing different levels. E. Presentation and discussion on a request for a development agreement for a development to be known as Chapel Hill, located at 551 Westinghouse Road — Sofia Nelson, Planning Director Planning Director, Sofia Nelson, spoke on a development agreement for a development to be known as Chapel Hill. She explained that this is a request for a development agreement for discussion on land use, annexation and a provision for regional water improvements. Nelson provided a location map, zoning map, future land use map, and aerial view of the property. She noted significant change in topography on the property. Nelson said the trees will be incorporated into the development and described the property in detail. Nelson described surrounding zoning and uses and spoke on developments and PUDs in the area. She showed surrounding properties and described each in detail. She said the future land use identifies the area as an employment center, but other uses may be part of the description. Nelson spoke of the Aesthetics. • Commitment to increased masonry standard for multi -family and commercial development Request for a sign area and height increase to allow a consolidated sign proposal • Preservation/Incorporation of significant heritage tree stand into the development Nelson described the Transportation. • Request to submit a traffic impact analysis later in the development process • Access management -location and type of driveways will be solidified • Requested reduction in the connectivity standards due to site constraints Nelson described the Parkland. Applicant requesting to meet parkland dedication requirements by paying $200 per residential unit • Staff requesting compliance with the proposed parkland ordinance that is currently under review by the UDC advisory committee. This includes a park improvement fee and additional details regarding proposed open space and multi -family amenities. Annexation Process. • Approval of the development agreement • Upon the purchase of the property annexation will be requested and PUD zoning with the terms of the Development agreement will be requested for the property inside the City limits and property being annexed • Platting and Site Plan will not be submitted or reviewed until the property is fully within the City Nelson noted that the applicant, land planner and attorney were present in the audience and asked the Council for their direction. Councilmember Gonzalez said he has heard concerns about the volume of multi -family and commercial resale and wants to talk about major traffic issues. He explained that most people would have to travel to get basic amenities. Gonzalez said multifamily developers should be required to bring in the retail space. He said land is set aside, but the retail is never developed. Gonzalez said the Council needs to stop approving multifamily and get the retail approved first. Councilmember Nicholson said she agreed and wants Council to take time to look at the development in this corridor. Nicholson said transportation needs to be addressed on a corridor level, not just a TIA. Councilmember Pitts said several developments were listed in the presentation and asked how many units are involved in this development. Nelson said there would be 3,000 units with this development. Pitts asked if it is known how many units have been approved for the next 24 months. Nelson said she can get the numbers and provide them for Council. Pitts said he also wants the number of lots ready to be built with single family homes. He said he agrees with Councilmember Gonzalez that land is being used for residential purposes and prime real estate is not being left for commercial development. Pitts said he does not like the land use of this development. Councilmember Jonrowe said she is a fan of multifamily but not a fan of huge densities of it. She explained that this puts a strain on school districts and she wants to see smaller scale entities dispersed throughout single family areas. Jonrowe said she does not want to penalize this development but asked to have a bigger conversation. City Manager, David Morgan, said this is what is being worked on through the 2030 Comp Plan, which will be a really strong guide for this. He noted that this development is adjacent to Round Rock, which has a strong retail area. Councilmember Pitts said he liked Councilmember Jonrowe's comments and he needs more facts in order to make a decision. Mayor Pro Tem, John Hesser, recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.072, Section 551.074 and Section 551.087 at 5:22 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 Parcel 7 & 8, Northwest Blvd. -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Coordinator - South Lake Water Treatment Plant -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Coordinator 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 Sec. 551:087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Wolf Lakes Update - Project Deliver Update Mayor Pro Tem, John Hesser, adjourned the meeting to begin the Regular City Council Meeting at 6:00 PM Approved by the Georgetown City Council on 6"& C'.' - Dale Ross, Mayor Ib 1,43 Date J Attest: City retary