Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003/06/10-Minutes-HEDC City of Fort Worth City Council Economic & Community Development Committee Highlights of the Meeting Held June 10, 2003 Committee Members Present: Wendy Davis, Frank Moss, Clyde Picht, John Stevenson City Staff Present: Teresa Carreon, Bette Chapman, Hugh Davis, Sarah Fullenwider, John Garfield, Ossana Hermosillo, Tom Higgins, Chris Maguire, Patrina Newton, Galen Price, Reid Rector, Bob Riley, Charles Spencer, Patsy Steele, Robert Sturns, Pat Svacina, Peter Vaky, Jerome Walker, Ardina Washington Call to Order: Chairwoman Wendy Davis called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Executive Session: The Economic & Community Development Committee conducted a closed meeting to discuss or deliberate economic development negotiations, as authorized by Section 551.087 of the Texas Government Code. Approval of Minutes from the Meetings held on May 13, 2003 and April 22, 2003: Committee Member Clyde Picht moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Frank Moss and carried. Discussion and Consideration of the Downtown Design Review Board Evaluating All Exterior Improvements to Downtown Buildings: John Garfield, Development Services Administrator, made the presentation (attached). He explained that the Zoning Ordinance limits the authority of the Downtown Design Review Board to reviewing "permits for novation, remodeling or other alteration of the first and second floor of an existing building" (Subsection 4.1200.E.3), but that a recent situation involving some glass work on the Landmark Building had caused the Board to take exception to this limitation. He added that the Board was now requesting Council clarification and expansion of permit review for all exterior improvements. Mr. Picht asked about the problem with the glass on the Landmark Building. Mr. Garfield explained that the Board's concern was not with the glass, but with the fact that they did not have review authority on the work that was done above the second floor. Mr. Picht said that the purpose of the second floor limitation was to insure that accessibility was maintained and to guarantee that any renovations were consistent with the area. He added that to extend the Board's authority gives them license to veto architectural amenities above the second floor, and he did not think this was reasonable or proper. Committee Member John Stevenson asked about staff's concern on the issue. Mr. Garfield said his only concern was that giving the Board additional authority would slow up the permitting process because no permit could be issued until the Board had reviewed the design. He added that this also might force some projects to submit very detailed architectural designs before they could submit any plans for basic review. Ms. Davis said that slowing down the permitting process was a matter of concern, if indeed this would be the case with the additional review process; however, she said that she felt uncomfortable analyzing the situation apart from any input from the Downtown Design Review Board. She asked if the Board could prepare a report or come to the next Committee meeting to further explain their reasons for requesting additional review authority. *r. Garfield said that currently permits cannot be submitted until the Board has reviewed the plans, but that an option might be to allow submission of plans for current review, except for the exterior, which would still have Page I of 4 to go through the Board. This way, he said, the permitting process for foundation and structural work would not be hindered. Mr. Stevenson said that he would also like to hear from the Board. Mr. Garfield said that he would arrange for (V omeone from the Board to speak to the Committee on the issue. Discussion and Consideration of Defining "Home Occupations" in the Zoning Ordinance and Determining Compliance to the Definition: John Garfield, Development Services Administrator, made the presentation (attached). He said that Code Compliance had asked the Development Department staff to review the issue of"home occupations" because they were finding it very difficult to interpret and enforce the ordinance regarding them. Mr. Garfield then reviewed the ordinance and asked for the Committee's assistance in evaluating the definitions of "home occupations," and for the Committee's direction regarding staff's approach to the issue. He then suggested establishing a committee to study the issue and report back to the Economic and Community Development Committee or other committees, as necessary. Mr. Moss asked if it is allowable to park service vehicles at a residence. Mr. Garfield said that it is allowable to park the vehicle itself at a residence, but if there is equipment on the vehicle, that is considered "stock in trade," and is not allowed. Mr. Picht said that he felt that the City should not interfere with home occupations unless a neighborhood nuisance or traffic problems were created. He added that he felt it was reasonable to expect tow trucks, delivery trucks and commercial vehicles to be parked out of residential areas. Ms. Davis agreed with Mr. Picht that the issue has to do with whether or not a nuisance is created, and she asked Mr. Garfield if he would find the ordinances that approach the issue from the nuisance perspective and bring these back to the Committee for their review. At that point, she added, these might be taken to the League Of Neighborhoods and others for input on what constitutes a nuisance in order to insure that the City is matching what the community thinks is important. Mr. Moss said he thought it was also important to look at the issue from the standpoint of how customer service is defined and how it occurs. For example, he said, if customer service were being provided to only one person at a time from a home occupation, that might be acceptable; however, if many customers were coming and going in a neighborhood, that might cause a problem. Mr. Stevenson said that because of the unevenness of enforcement by complaint, he felt that staff needed some clarification on how to enforce the ordinance. He then asked Mr. Garfield to bring the Committee some suggestions on the issue. Mr. Garfield said that he would review how other Metroplex cities have defined and regulated home occupations and report back to the Committee. Mr. Picht said that those aspects of the ordinance that have to do with inventory inside the house should be eliminated as long as it does not create a nuisance for the rest of the neighborhood. Discussion of Strategic Planning for Economic Development: Ms. Davis said that she had requested that this item be included in the agenda because recent discussions regarding the evaluation of tax abatements and different incentive agreements have highlighted the fact that these are being taken on a case-by-case basis without the guidance of a firm policy. She explained that this created difficulty for both the Council as policy makers in analyzing the incentives and for the staff in their negotiating efforts. Ms. Davis then asked if the Committee members were interested in doing strategic planning the City's economic development incentives, looking particularly at what is being done in the Central City and whether those things are working, as well as reviewing what is being done in other areas and how that all relates to the Council's five strategic goals. Page 2 of 4 Assistant City Manager Reid Rector explained that in the Council packet, there was a memo from Tom Higgins, Director of Economic and Community Development, regarding the progress of the proposed tax abatement policy, which comes up for review every two years. Mr. Rector added that staff would bring the proposed Tolicy before the Committee in July. Mr. Picht said he felt there needed to be more flexibility in the economic development policy because there are different goals in different areas of the City. He added that he felt that there were advantages to a unified economic development policy for the area, and he suggested that staff might want to explore with their counterparts in surrounding cities as to whether there was an abatement policy that was more supportive of the area as a whole. Mr. Rector said that there was already an informal type of cooperation involving major economic development projects. Mr. Picht said that a more uniform approach to how abatements are provided might eliminate any competition for incentives that might occur between cities in the Metroplex. Mr. Moss said that based on several cases where past abatements have been given, a series of strategies might need to be considered, such as business retention, a business relocating within the City, and attracting a new business into the City. He added that each of these requires a different philosophy because each has a different impact on the City. Mr. Stevenson said some established FW companies that had been paying taxes for many years felt that some abatements were unfair because they could not get abatements for expansion, while new companies could come in and receive abatements. He added that it would be helpful to get recommendations from staff on strategic planning. Mr. Picht agreed and said that the City as a whole must be considered in determining why businesses come to Fort Worth. Mr. Moss said that one of the key issues regarding the location of businesses in the northern areas, such as the Alliance Corridor and towards CentrePort, is the ability and willingness of a company to hire Fort Worth *ople. Because it is much easier to locate in that area and to hire people from the surrounding communities, r. Moss explained, the City of Fort Worth has to actually compete for those jobs and make it conducive for the companies in those areas to hire Fort Worth residents. Ms. Davis agreed and said she felt it would be beneficial to review the past abateme; :o see what the results have been in terms of job growth and added value to the tax base, not only in terms of that company, but also regarding any companies that have spun from the company that received the abatement. She added that the entire economic development policy needed to be reviewed to see how the different strategies, including TIFs and NEZs, are working and to determine whether they are being used effectively to accomplish the strategic goals. Ms. Davis then asked Mr. Higgins and Mr. Rector to present some ideas at the next meeting as to how the economic development policy might be effectively reviewed. Mr. Rector said that Mr. Higgins was already preparing an analysis of the incentives, and he proposed that staff make that report available to the Committee at either a regular meeting or a special meeting. Mr. Stevenson said that he felt that this issue was so important that it needed special attention. Ms. Davis agreed and said that she was considering having a workshop on the issue. Mr. Picht said that he felt that a return to a logical process for economic development was needed. For example, he said, if an area is targeted for economic development, then a 100% abatement could be given to businesses that locate in that area. He added that if steering economic development back into the inner city is the goal, then the maximum abatement should be given there and that is where the other incentives should be focused. Mr. Rector agreed, but said that sometimes a company, for whatever reason, is not willing to locate in the Central City. Mr. Picht said that in that case, the company would not receive the 100% abatement. He added that more centives were needed in south Fort Worth. Page 3 of 4 Ms. Davis requested that at the next meeting, staff bring forward an idea of how to most effectively review the economic development policy, and she said that the Committee would then decide how to deal with the issue and whom to include in the discussions. V ur. Moss said he thought Mr. Picht's idea of focusing incentives toward the inner city was a good one, and he ggested that 100% abatements might be offered under certain conditions. Ms. Davis said she would like to review and learn from what other cities have tried and what their experiences have been. Mr. Stevenson said he wanted information about the questions that are being asked of City staff when a company comes seeking incentives. Questions Concerning Reports in the Committee Packet: Ms. Davis explained that because the ECDC agendas had grown so long, and many of the items on the agenda were informational only and not for action, she had asked staff to put the informational items into a report as part of the packet each month rather than on the agenda. She said that if a Committee Member requested a more thorough report, then the item could be put on the next month's meeting agenda. The Committee agreed that this was a good system. Requests for Future Agenda Items: Mr. Picht said he would like to have a review of the TIF process, including the history of the Downtown TIF and maybe one other as to what the values were at the beginning compared to what they are now. Mr. Rector said that such a review would be a part of the overall report on economic incentives. Ms. Davis requested that the Hillwood TIF agreement be brought back before the Council for review and nsideration. Assistant City Attorney Peter Vaky said that the agreement was in the process of being finalized d that he would distribute copies of the agreement to the Council. He added that he would see if Hillwood and the Transportation/Public Works Department would be comfortable in holding off on execution of the agreement until a week from today. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. The next meeting is July 8, 2003. Page 4 of 4