HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003/04/08-Minutes-HEDC City of Fort Worth
City Council
Economic and Community Development Committee
Highlights of the Meeting Held
April 8, 2003
Committee Members Present: Jeff Wentworth, Wendy Davis, Frank Moss, Clyde Picht
Council Members and City Staff Present: Ralph McCloud, Chris Anderson, Donald Cager, Bette Chapman,
Bea Cura, Hugh Davis, Sundra Davis, Sarah Fullenwider, Cynthia Garcia, John Garfield, Ossana Hermosillo,
Tom Higgins, Angie Highland, Tom Jordan, Chun-I Lu, Christine Maguire, Elizee Michel, Patrina Newton,
Reid Rector, Bob Riley, Robert Sturns, Pat Svacina, Peter Vaky, Jerome Walker, Ardina Washington, Kristi
Wiseman, Barbara Wilson
Call to Order: Chairman Jeff Wentworth called the meeting to order at 1:08 p.m.
Approval of Minutes From the Meeting held on March 11, 2003:
Committee Member Clyde Picht moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Committee
Member Wendy Davis and carried.
Discussion and Consideration of Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance:
John Garfield, Development Services Administrator, made the presentation (attached). He explained that one of
the responsibilities of the Board of Adjustment was to review the Zoning Ordinance and to evaluate, based on
requests for variances, areas in which changes may be appropriate. He added that in the last eight months, there
had been an unprecedented number of appeals before the Board of Adjustment, which had caused them to
appoint a committee to review items for which there had been repeated requests for variances. Projected
41enefits of the review and proposed amendments, Mr. Garfield said, included fewer routine appeals and
protection of the public interest by adding selected performance standards.
Mr. Garfield then listed topics that had been addressed and said that the principal idea was to allow staff to
approve small variances subject to certain conditions. Next, Mr. Garfield discussed the replacement of
accessory buildings with required setbacks. Mr. Wentworth asked if a variance would be required when
rebuilding an accessory building in an older neighborhood where some garages are built on or near property
lines. Mr. Garfield said that staff is suggesting that residents should be able to rebuild the building in the same
location, as long as it is a similarly designed building and is reconstructed within 180 days after removal of the
debris from demolition. Mr. Wentworth then asked how this fit into the legal non-conforming policy. Mr.
Garfield explained that normally under this policy, a building that was legal non-conforming could not be
rebuilt. However, he said staff was suggesting that this standard be relaxed for accessory buildings, as long as
the building is rebuilt in the same location on the lot. Mr. Picht asked why this should be allowed. Mr. Garfield
said that the Board of Adjustment usually finds that there is justification to allow garages to be rebuilt where
they were before, especially in older neighborhoods, as long as there is no violation of the building codes. Mr.
Picht asked if these buildings would remain legal non-conforming even when rebuilt. Mr. Garfield said this was
correct because the policy states that once the building is removed, it loses its legal non-conforming status.
Ms. Davis asked if the proposal applied only to accessory buildings. Mr. Garfield said that was correct. Ms.
Davis then asked if the Board of Adjustment was typically granting variances for these types of buildings. Mr.
Garfield explained that the variances were almost always granted unless there was an objection from someone
in the neighborhood. Ms. Davis suggested that a rule be made to allow a hearing by the Board of Adjustment
er notice to the neighbors and if a neighbor requested a hearing on the item. She added that she would like to
give staff the ability to function in this area without removing the neighbors' opportunity for a hearing. Mr.
Page I of 6
Garfield said staff would review the issue to see if this could be done. Mr. Wentworth concurred and said that
perhaps staff could approve the variance unless there was some objection, in which case the item would go to
the Board of Adjustment.
zg.,r. Picht asked if accessory buildings did not include more than just garages. Mr. Garfield agreed, but he
plained that freestanding garages that have deteriorated over the years and need to be replaced are typically
the types of accessory buildings that create problems.
Mr. Garfield then continued his presentation with the discussion of the siting of models, sales trailers and
construction trailers in residential subdivisions and with the proposal regarding "established" front yards. Mr.
Wentworth asked about the location of the houses on the diagram Mr. Garfield presented (see slide 15), and Mr.
Garfield explained that it is proposed that the location of a new house in an established neighborhood would
have to match the house adjacent to it that is closest to the street. Mr. Garfield added that the house could be set
back further,but it could not be set closer to the street than the existing house.
Committee Member Frank Moss asked if the first priority was to meet the required setback. Mr. Garfield
concurred, saying that once the required setback is met, any house that is further back than required could be
built up to the same lines as the existing houses. Mr. Moss observed that this policy would not apply in cases
where streets had been widened, placing houses within ten feet or so of the street. Mr. Garfield said that was
correct.
Mr. Garfield next discussed suggested changes regarding institutional signs in residential districts and screening
fences and buffer yards. Ms. Davis said that she would like to see what the current setback and screening
requirements are in comparison with the suggested changes, and she also requested examples of the kinds of
situations for which the proposed changes were needed. She added that she was concerned about getting into a
situation in which adjacent residential properties are not being protected when small buildings are put up for
commercial purposes. Mr. Garfield said that this may need to be tightened up, but the current recommendation
(Would be consistent with the current standards that allow for instances when additional landscaping is required
on building expansions.
Mr. Garfield then discussed proposals for "through" lots, carports and front yard fences. He said that staff
suggests forbidding carports in front of the primary structure,but allowing them in side and rear yards when the
carport is behind the primary structure. After explaining that there was unequal enforcement regarding carports,
because many that were built without permits were not receiving citations, Mr. Garfield requested direction
from Council concerning the carport issue. He added that perhaps some kind of grandfather clause is needed
concerning carports. Ms. Davis agreed that the matter should be reviewed, and asked if the Board of Adjustment
could be asked to take a moratorium position during the review. As an example, she cited several
neighborhoods in South Fort Worth that had numerous carports that have been up for many years. She said that
some residents who do not have variances were being made to take carports down, even where there were other
approved carports in the neighborhood. Mr. Garfield said that carports were a difficult issue and reiterated that
Council direction was needed. Mr. Wentworth said it would be helpful to get benchmarking information from
other cities regarding how they had handled the carport issue. Mr. Garfield said he would endeavor to gather
this information and bring it back to the Committee or make it a part of any presentation to the Council or
Zoning Commission.
Regarding front yard fences, Mr. Garfield said that staff suggests allowing five-foot front yard fences, as long as
the fence is of an open design. Mr. Moss asked about the reason for the change from four-foot fences to five-
foot fences. Mr. Garfield explained that that there are numerous requests for six-foot fences, which seemed too
high, and it was felt that five feet was a good compromise.
+4
'a
Page 2 of 6
Finally, Mr. Garfield discussed fences for auxiliary parking. He said that staff suggests eliminating the five-foot
fence requirement and allowing screening fence/buffer yard regulations to govern auxiliary parking fences in
residential districts. Ms. Davis asked if the screening fence/buffer yard regulations were more protective of the
residential areas. Mr. Garfield said that, in fact, the buffer yard regulations were more protective of adjacent
Oe sidences.
Mr. Garfield then asked for direction regarding the preparation of the text amendment. Mr. Wentworth
suggested presenting the information, along with illustrations, in Pre-Council first in order to receive comments
from other Council members. Ms. Davis requested that the existing rules for each item also be included in the
Pre-Council presentation.
Discussion and Consideration of a Contract Amendment with Texas Housing and Economic Resources,
Inc. .
This item was delayed to a future agenda.
Discussion and Consideration of Adopting a Neighborhood Empowerment Zone (NEZ) Tax Abatement
Policy and Amendments to the NEZ Policy:
Housing Director Jerome Walker made the presentation (attached). He said that staff is asking the Committee to
recommend adoption of the NEZ tax abatement policy and an amendment to the NEZ policy. After explaining
that under State law, the guidelines and criteria adopted for a tax abatement policy are effective for two years,
and that the City's current policy expires in April 2003, Mr. Walker reviewed the current abatement policy.
Next, he presented the suggested amendment to the NEZ policy, which provides that liquor stores, package
stores and sexually oriented businesses would not be eligible to receive NEZ incentives.
Mr. Moss reminded Mr. Walker that he had asked earlier if the tax abatement was available to those who were
purchasing property with tax liens and who had worked out arrangements to pay the taxes from previous
owners. Mr. Walker said staff is still working on answering this question; however, because the tax abatement
AM qVolicy is about to expire, staff would like to get the abatement policy approved for two years and to address that
issue later. Mr. Moss then asked for a clarification on the amount of investment required for commercial
property abatements. Mr. Walker said that a company must invest either $75,000 or 30% of the value of the
property(excluding land), whichever is greater.
Mr. Wentworth asked if the elimination of the three types of businesses was the only amendment being
proposed. Mr. Walker said that was correct. Ms. Davis asked if an issue had arisen that had prompted the
amendment. Mr. Walker said that representatives of the Stop Six NEZ had expressed concern about these types
of businesses; also, he added, some neighborhoods that were considering NEZ designation had questioned the
inclusion of these types of businesses for incentives. Mr. Moss said that in some of the neighborhoods, a wine
shop might be appropriate, and he asked if these would be eliminated under the amendment. Mr. Walker said
they would be. Ms. Davis asked if these types of businesses could be included at Council discretion and
considered on a case-by-case basis. Assistant City Attorney Cynthia Garcia explained that when the NEZ's
were created, an effort was made to eliminate roadblocks for developers, so that all a developer had to do was
check the boundaries and see if the project qualified under the criteria. If it did, she said, the developer would
receive all the incentives. She suggested that in order to eliminate any roadblocks, the three types of businesses
listed in the amendment could be considered on a case-by-case basis, while other types of businesses could
continue to automatically receive the incentives if they qualified. Ms. Davis concurred with this. Mr. Picht
asked if the three types of businesses could be created without an abatement. Mr. Walker said that they could.
Ms. Garcia reminded the Committee that the incentives also included fee waivers and other items, in addition to
the tax abatement.
. 'he Committee agreed to move forward with the recommendation, with the exception that the three types of
businesses listed in the amendment would come before Council on a case-by-case basis.
Page 3 of 6
Discussion and Consideration of Expanding the Boundaries of the North Enterprise Zone:
Business Development Coordinator Ardina Washington made the presentation (attached). After presenting a
brief overview of Enterprise Zones (EZ), she explained that in Radio Shack's economic development
Q`"!,greement, which Council approved in July 2002, the City had agreed to "use reasonable efforts" to obtain EZ
project designation. In addition, she said Bank One had requested EZ designation in its incentives application.
Ms. Washington then explained that the North EZ had been selected for expansion because it has the capacity
for expansion and the revised boundaries of the zone meet state requirements. After presenting maps of the
existing North EZ and the proposed expansion, Ms. Washington presented a schedule for amending the North
EZ.
Ms. Davis said she agreed with expanding the zone to accommodate Radio Shack and Bank One, but she would
like for the District 2, 8 and 9 Council Members to be able to review the proposed expansion boundaries. She
added that she would also like to see maps that more clearly showed what streets were involved. Mr. Picht
concurred. Ms. Washington said a more readable map would be included with the Informal Report that would
be sent out in the next Council Packet. She added that with the proposed expansion, the North Enterprise Zone
would actually meet the South Enterprise Zone. Mr. Wentworth asked if this would then take in the entire
Lancaster Corridor. Ms. Washington said that it would.
Discussion and Consideration of the List of Eligible Charities for the Charitable Contribution Goal
Provided for in Amendment No. 1 of the Tax Abatement Agreement with Plaza Medical Center of Fort
Worth:
Tom Higgins, Economic and Community Development Director, made the presentation. He reminded the
Committee that in December 2001, City Council had approved the tax abatement agreement with Plaza Medical
Center. During the discussions on the agreement, he added, a Council Member made a recommendation that
was later approved by the Council that each year during the term of the abatement, Plaza Medical would make a
donation to a non-profit or charitable organization that was either located in District 9 or had a direct impact on
gistrict 9. Mr. Higgins explained that the agreement also stated that the Economic Development Office would
provide a list of eligible organizations to receive this contribution and that today staff wanted to give the
Committee opportunity to review the list before it was forwarded to Plaza Medical.
Mr. Moss said that there was concern that since the tax abatement was Citywide, the potential donations should
be available Citywide, and not just to District 9.
Mr. Higgins said that the amendment specifically stated that the donation went to District 9, so there would
have to be a second amendment to the agreement to change this. Assistant City Attorney Peter Vaky concurred.
Mr. Picht asked how many abatements had been granted with this type of stipulation. Mr. Higgins explained
that the Bell agreement provides that 5% of their annual abatement be contributed directly to the Fort Worth
Opportunity Center. He added that this is not something that is normally done, but it had been approved by
Council. Mr. Picht said that he would like to see the requirement removed from the Plaza Medical abatement, as
he did not think it was appropriate to require a charitable contribution as part of an abatement.
Ms. Davis said she felt Mr. Moss had a valid point, and if this discussion had been had at the time, a citywide
contribution would have been included. However, she said, on the day on which Council voted on the issue, the
commitment was only to charities on the south side of Fort Worth.
Mr. Picht said he would consider a citywide contribution more favorably.
Page 4 46
Mr. Higgins said staff would send the list to Plaza Medical, who would then have the option of selecting the
organization that would receive the contribution. He added that Plaza Medical also had the choice of splitting
the contribution or sending it all to one organization.
g s. Davis pointed out that two of the programs on the list—South Side Mobil Summer Day Camp and
ummerbridge program—serve children from other areas of the City besides just the south side.
Mr. Wentworth reiterated that Council has already approved the contribution, and thus a decision had to be
made on the item as Council had approved it.
Mr. Vaky explained that the only way to rectify the situation was to negotiate a second amendment to the tax
abatement agreement with Plaza Medical. He added that the tax abatement policy does not address this issue,
and that while it is permissible, it is not part of the policy.
Mr. Wentworth asked Mr. Higgins to submit the list to Plaza Medical unless he heard from other Council
members within twenty-four hours.
Mr. Moss and Mr. Picht agreed that the amendment should be restructured to include the entire City. Mr. Moss
suggested that the list be shown to the Council before it was sent to Plaza Medical. Ms. Davis concurred and
said that she would like to add Habitat for Humanity and the Day Resource Center to the list.
Update on the Implementation of the Housing Strategies Study Conducted by Maureen Kennedy and
Associates:
This item was delayed to a future agenda.
Update on the Tax Abatement Policy Revision:
Business Development Coordinator Ardina Washington made the presentation (attached). After presenting a
chedule to revise the tax abatement policy and indicating the status of that schedule, she explained that staff
was seeking input from various groups for possible improvements in the policy. She then asked for direction
from the Committee regarding the public meeting and the future schedule for revising the tax abatement policy.
Mr. Moss asked when action needed to be taken on this issue. Ms. Washington explained that the current policy
does not actually expire until 2004, but since staff would like to incorporate public comments, they were
starting early on working on the revisions. Mr. Moss said that because of the election process, and the ensuing
transition, the new Council members might not be on board by May 13, and they might want opportunity to
participate in this discussion.
Mr. Wentworth asked about the date of the presentation on the specific revisions. Ms. Washington said that the
10 a.m. meeting on May 13 was for public input only, but at the ECDC meeting on the same day, staff would
provide the input they have received to that point. She added that during the June ECDC meeting, staff would
provide a revised policy. Mr. Wentworth said that a briefing was needed outlining the specific
recommendations for change before a draft policy was brought forward. Ms. Washington explained that the
original plan was to provide the draft policy in June and to discuss the changes at that time. Mr. Wentworth said
that Committee members might have recommendations that need to be included in the draft policy. Mr. Picht
said he would like to include a provision that would not require ancillary agreements or changes to the policy
other than what was written in it. Mr. Wentworth asked staff to provide a briefing on the draft that highlights
the specific recommended changes.
,GIs. Davis suggested including in the policy the kinds of benefits that might be provided by a company that
3uld not meet some of the specific tax abatement requirements, such as the employment requirements.
Page 5 of 6
Executive Session:
There was no Executive Session.
Requests for Future Agenda Items:
;& here were no requests for future agenda items.
Adjourn:
The meeting adjourned at 2:32 p.m. The next meeting is May 13, 2003.
G
Page 0 of G