HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 04.12.2022 CC-WMinutes of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, April 12, 2022
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, April 12, 2022, at 2:00 PM at City Council
Chambers located at 510 West 9th Street.
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 808 Martin Luther King Jr. Street, Georgetown, TX
78626 for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Mayor Schroeder called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. The following Council Members were
in attendance: Mayor Josh Schroeder; Amanda Parr, Council Member District 1; Shawn Hood,
Council Member District 2; Mike Triggs, Council Member District 3; Steve Fought, Council
Member District 4; Kevin Pitts, Council Member District 5 and Mayor Pro Tem; Jake French,
Council Member District 6; and Tommy Gonzalez, Council Member District 7. A quorum of
Council Members was present in Council Chambers and a roll call was performed.
Policy Development/Review Workshop - Call to order at 2:00 PM
A. Presentation and discussion regarding a historic tax exemption program -- Mayra Cantu,
Assistant to the City Manager
Cantu explained that following to the adoption of updates to the Historic District Design
Guidelines in July the City Council requested information on possible options for a historic
property tax exemption program. Staff presented at Council's Workshop on October 26, 2021
a preliminary overview of programs implemented in other Texas cities, a recap of recent
preservation activity in Georgetown, examples of preservation projects and requested
feedback.
This presentation by staff is a follow-up to the prior discussion considering Council's
direction and identifying possible options for a historic tax exemption program. It was
observed that owners in the historic overlay are subject to a more stringent process when
looking to improve their homes per our Historic District Design Guidelines. The program
should encourage owners of historic properties to use money saved on taxes for historic
preservation.
Cantu reported the application criteria and what could be used for applying for the tax
credits then proposed different options for the Council to consider. Option 1- Priority level
would be based on homes priority level from the 2016 Historic Resource Survey (HRS). High
Priority structures would a receive 75% exemption. Medium Priority structures would
receive a 50% exemption and Low Priority structures would receive a 25% exemption. Cantu
gave examples of what that would look like for the average house in those areas and them
estimated the impact this option would have on the General Fund.
Option 2 would be all project -based applications would have a standard exemption across
the board regardless of the project amount or the priority level. Cantu gave examples of what
a 75%, 50% and 25% exemption would have as an impact on the General Fund.
Option 3 is a tiered system and applicants project exemption level would be based solely on
project costs. A 25% exemption would be given for projects that cost between $25,000 to
%50,000. A 50% exemption would be given for projects that cost between $50,000 and
$100,000. And a 75% exemption would be given to projects costing more than $100,001.
These proposed projects would be eligible: foundation and siding work, framing and other
structural work, window and door repair and restoration, painting (exterior), repair and
restoration of exterior architectural details including porches, woodwork and trim, and roof
work.
To implement this program and based on an estimated seven hours for COA application
reviews, staff recommends hiring another FTE to manage the program given the workload
of the current historic planner position. A marketing and education program would also be
created.
Council was asked for their input and direction. Councilman Pitts says this looks good and
must be better than what is currently in place. Councilman Fought would like to look at 75%
exemption for high priority structures and review again in five years. Councilwoman Parr
likes Option 3 but would adjust the lowest level down to $15,000 to include the smaller
projects in the new neighborhood area plans.
Councilman French prefers option 3, but with any designated property not just in the
overlay, and he would adjust the lower level projects down to $15K as well. He also stated
it does not matter to him if the owner is occupying the residence or not and replacement
costs should be eligible as well. Councilwoman Parr agrees that replacement costs should
be eligible. Councilman Hood prefers Option 3 but suggests using the Old Town Overlay
District first and then expand, says no commercial should be included and he does not want
it just for owner residing properties.
Councilman Pitts agrees with Parr's assessments and answers. Councilman Fought believes
this is going too far and that this is changing the focus of prioritizing historic preservation.
He feels this could lead to tax dollars paying for home maintenance, he does not want this
applied to commercial properties, but feels that investors of residences should be eligible,
and he agrees to lower the threshold. Councilman Triggs agrees with the thresholds for
Option 3 but only wants this to apply to owner -occupied properties.
Councilman Gonzalez wants to promote historic preservation, not just maintenance and
wants to establish this just for historically significant properties (per HRS). He also wants
this to be spread across multiple years for the smaller projects, stating that some may never
have $15,000 in one year. This should be reviewed on a long-term basis.
Mayor Schroeder summarized the comments — Option 3 is preferred, for 10 years, using
historic properties listed on the HRS, properties do not have to be owner -occupied and lower
the bottom threshold to $10K for the 25% exemption. All these should be considered and to
be specific about the purpose of the program.
Two people asked to speak to the council on this item. Tom Paxton was called to the front
and he thanked the council for considering this investment and helping people with a relief
on the increased taxes. He prefers the graduated tax reduction (Option 3) as well. Lawrence
Romero was also called to speak and asked the Council to lower the threshold, and stated
people need this program. He also asked that this program be limited to existing homes on
the HRS.
Mayor Schroeder thanked them for their comments.
B. Presentation and discussion regarding boards and commissions -- Mayra Cantu, Assistant
to the City Manager
Mayra Cantu gave an overview of the current boards that Georgetown has in comparison to
other relative cities. By reviewing the boards and commissions, staff proposes to increase
the value of time spent by the community and staff, improve the efficiency of work and
adhere to best practices. The city currently has 30 boards and commissions, some are
required statutorily, and some are required by our ordinance. Of all the cities used for
comparison, Georgetown has the most boards. It was also recommended that we remove
the bylaws which are inconsistent with our ordinances and code.
The following recommendations were made by staff: GEDCO and GTEC would keep bylaws
as required by state law. It is also recommended by staff that boards and commissions can
change their own meeting time with a unanimous vote by the board itself. This date and
time would be listed on future applications so that people are aware before making a
commitment. The scheduling of appointments would move from March 1 to October 1, to
align with the election process of new council members.
Boards and Commissions would no longer review routine purchases but would focus on
policy and plan reviews. The Youth Advisory Board will be an informal board that is not an
officially appointed board. The Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Board will shift
to an internal administrative process. The ADA Advisory Board will roll into the Building
Standards Commission; Commission on Aging to Planning and Zoning Commission;
Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board into Planning and Zoning Commission. Rivery
TIRA will combine with Wolf Lakes TIRZ. And Williams Drive TIRZ will combine with the
Triangle TIRZ. GEDCO and GTEC will shift to having the same members, as will P&Z and
ZBA.
General Government and Finance will shift to a subcommittee of Council which will review
financial policies, practices, strategic planning, etc. The Unified Development Code
Advisory Commission will be reviewed after the UDC update is completed, possibly rolling
into P&Z. All the boards will adjust the amount of their meetings to be on an as -needed
basis, once a year, quarterly, monthly or bi-monthly. Currently the code calls out monthly
meetings for all.
Councilmembers gave comments and all agreed that these were needed and good changes
to implement. There was some discussion of the timing of these changes and it was declared
that we would make the changes as soon as was possible, considering the current members
and functions of meetings, including the rewriting of code and by-laws.
Mayor Schroeder called for a ten-minute break.
C. Overview, discussion, and direction from City Council regarding the possible creation of an
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Municipal Utility District (MUD) for the proposed
Ragsdale Ranch Development -- Nick Woolery, Assistant City Manager
Nick Woolery presented the item. The City has received a request to create a new ETJ
Municipal Utility District (MUD). Staff is seeking Council's preliminary direction on whether
there is support for the proposed land use plan for this area of the city's ETJ. He gave the
background of the project and showed the maps of the proposal and the current service areas.
HK Real Estate owns approximately 336 acres of land located in the northwest quadrant of
the city's ETJ, just south of Ronald Reagan Boulevard and north of F.M. 3405. The land is not
contiguous with city limits, as shown in the presentation. HK Real Estate intends to entitle
the property as a single-family development as shown in the presentation. HK Real Estate
proposes approximately 1,515 residential units, which would be a mix of 1,090 single family
units that range in lot size from 45' — 70' and includes 425 multi -family units. They are also
proposing approximately 10 acres of public parkland, a private amenity center, and 34 acres
of additional open space. In addition, HK Real Estate is working with ESD No. 4 on a
potential fire station site. The current land plan being proposed is not consistent with the
City's Future Land Use Plan, which currently has this area designated as rural residential,
which is less than 1 unit per acre, the city's lowest density residential future land use
category.
Should Council direct staff to move forward with this project as proposed, there would be
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if council supports staff moving
forward with MUD negotiations to facilitate this development. Mayor asked what would
happen if council denies this request. David Morgan wants their concerns to see if other
alternatives are available to the developer.
Councilman Pitts wants this area to be much less dense, removing the multi -family and
making the lots larger to match other developments in that area. Councilman Hood agrees
with Pitts stating this is too dense for this area and suggested the developer look into access
to Ronal Reagan Blvd. Councilwoman Parr stated this was too dense and she could not
support it. Councilman French wants less density for this, stating he didn't believe the
density was driven by the buyers as stated, they need to look at the Ronald Reagan corridor
and see other types of development in that area. Councilman Gonzalez suggest they look at
amenities to support this type of development, and that access is not enough for this dense
of a development. Woolery thanked them for their comments.
D. Presentation and discussion regarding development standards single family condominium
developments -- Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Sofia Nelson presented the report whose purpose was to present recommended coding
approach for improving equity between housing products that are subdivided on
individual lots and similar products that are built on a condominium lot. She gave a recap
of the council's previous input — Short-term concerns are that zoning of the property does
not always reflect the use, there are inequities in development standard requirements, there
is an impact fee difference between lot and blocks versus condos, and homeowner
perception of ownership of the lot is challenging when fencing, sheds and pools are
desired.
Long-term considerations are that the diversity of housing may not be achieved
consistently, code enforcement may have to process these properties differently,
maintenance of the private infrastructure is not monitored or enforceable, connectivity and
walkability are concerns and there are differences in open space and amenity requirements.
The consultant has suggested a specific code be written for this type of development to
address these issues.
Suggestions to developing this code are to clarify standards for metering of this product.
This would be analyzed by Legal, Water Systems Engineering and is separate effort from
UDC changes. Platting action would be to update the subdivision definition to include
division of property into specific building pad locations. Plats will be reviewed for ROW
dedication, connectivity based on this form of development rather than zoning, easements,
adequate setbacks between buildings.
The multi -family definition will be updated for zoning and site development standards and
would require rear -loaded entries and street designed to include on -street parking and
sidewalks. On-line education on permitting, code enforcement and an interface with
utilities specific to condominium development will be developed.
Council was generally agreeable to all the items listed and support the code updates.
Mayor Schroeder recessed into Executive Session at 4:38 p.m. and stated that Executive
Session would begin at 4:50 p.m.
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.
E. 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
- Litigation Update
Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
- Energy risk management sub -policies
Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property
- Fire Station 7 Access Easement -- Jim Kachelmeyer, Assistant City Attorney
- Block 27, property located near the corner of 6th Street and Austin Avenue
- Block 39, City -owned property located at the corner of 6th Street and Main Street and at 111
East 7th Street
Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Project Man of Steel
- Economic Development Projects Update
Adjournment
Approved b -e Georgetown City Council on _ , ZoZz-
Date
JoshlSchr,Seder, Mmy r Attest: dty Secretary