Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/10/08-Minutes-HEDC City of Fort Worth City Council Economic and Community Development Committee Highlights of the Meeting Held October 8, 2002 Committee Members Present: Jeff Wentworth, Wendy Davis, Frank Moss, Clyde Picht Council Members and City Staff Present: Becky Haskin, Dana Burghdoff, Teresa Carreon, Bette Chapman, Fernando Costa, Charles Cumby, Bea Cura, Hugh Davis, Sarah Fullenwider, John Garfield, Ossana Hermosillo, Chun-I Lu, Christine Maguire, Vincent Mantero, Penny McCook, Elizee Michel, Patrina Newton, Reid Rector, Bob Riley, Patsy Steele, Robert Sturns, Jesse Torres, Costa Triantaphilides, Peter Vaky, Jerome Walker, Ardina Washington, Barbara Wilson. Call to Order: Chairman Jeff Wentworth called the meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. Approval of Minutes from the Meeting Held on September 10, 2002: The minutes were accepted as submitted. Discussion and Consideration of Waiving Building and Development Fees for Infill Residential Development in the Highcrest Neighborhood: Development Director Bob Riley made the presentation (attached). He asked for the Committee's direction on waiving building permit fees in return for infrastructure improvements in the Highcrest Neighborhood. Mr. Riley explained that the builder/developer of infill housing in the Highcrest Neighborhood is requesting that the City waive building permit fees, valued at approximately $12,650, for approximately 22 new homes in the Wf ghcrest Neighborhood. In return, the developer will use the funds to construct sidewalks in the neighborhood. r. Riley explained that this represents a departure from the City's usual policy, since the City would tell the developer how to spend the money from the fees that would be waived. City Council Member Becky Haskin explained that the Highcrest Neighborhood contains about 60 vacant lots and about 62-64 lots that are built on. She said that a new builder wants to place modular housing on some of these lots, and that she would like to see these homes made more amenable to the neighborhood. She added that builders might be persuaded to add amenities in return for an incentive. Ms. Haskin then presented some of the amenities that might be added in the Highcrest Neighborhood. These include such items as brick trim in the skirting and a single car garage for each house. Ms. Haskin also said that this represents a new approach on infill housing that she felt was necessary since these areas are not in the Neighborhood Empowerment Zone (NEZ) or in the urban sprawl area, where most developers want to build. She added that the builder is also looking at purchasing lots in an adjacent area for development. Mr. Wentworth asked if the garages and other amenities Ms. Haskin had mentioned were part of the waiver request, since only the sidewalks were included in the recommendation. Ms. Haskin explained that the builder had changed since the item was placed on the Committee agenda, and that these items are still being negotiated. She said that if the Committee felt comfortable with the concept of waiving fees in exchange for amenities, negotiations could proceed concerning such amenities in the Highcrest Neighborhood, and the specifics could be brought back before the Committee next month or to the full Council, whichever the Committee preferred. Ms. Haskin added that this concept might have to be modified for other neighborhoods, depending on the need of the specific neighborhood. Page 1 45 Committee Member Frank Moss asked if the City has previously waived fees on residential development that was not in a NEZ or anything of that nature. Mr. Riley said he would have to check the records to be sure, but the City has seldom waived residential building fees, except in a designated district. 1 ommittee Member Clyde Picht said he felt that waiving fees in exchange for incentives was a good idea if it romotes building where none would take place. However, he said, it was his understanding that developers were coming to these areas anyway, and he felt that the developers should include whatever amenities they could sell. He added that it is part of the City's budget process to collect fees to help pay the cost of the City's inspection program. Mr. Moss said a special committee was currently working on industrialized housing, and one of the problems that had been encountered was how to encourage builders to include amenities that make the property fit better into the neighborhood. Mr. Wentworth said he did not want to change the policy; however, he was willing to consider proposals from individual developers. Mr. Picht asked about the cost of the sidewalks. Mr. Riley said the sidewalk costs were equal to the amount that would be waived, approximately$12,650. Ms. Haskin said that the plan is to ask for other amenities on these properties in addition to the sidewalks, thus receiving a greater value for both the fees waived and for the community. In the long run, she added, the properties will have more taxable value than the vacant lots that had been there for many years. Mr. Wentworth asked whether the Committee wanted the proposal brought back before them, or whether they favored having the proposal taken directly to the full Council. WAs. Haskin said that timing was important, since the builder would like to go ahead and begin. She said that if the Committee was comfortable with the concept of waiving fees in exchange for amenities, she would like for the complete proposal to go before the Council. She added that all Council members would be informed of the specifics of the proposal before that time, and that if everyone did not feel comfortable with it, the proposal would not be moved forward. Mr. Moss moved to forward the recommendation to the full Council. The motion was seconded and carried. Discussion and Consideration of Additional Development Standards for Accessory Buildings in Residential Zoning Districts: Development Services Administrator John Garfield made the presentation (attached). Mr. Garfield presented a comparison of the City of Mansfield's accessory buildings policy with the City of Fort Worth's current policy, and he pointed out the principal differences in the two policies. He then presented some recommendations, including limiting homes and garages to 50% of lot coverage, adopting limits on the size of accessory buildings (depending upon the zoning of the area in which they are located), and requiring Special Exception for all independent living areas, such as second floors on garages and pool houses. Mr. Garfield then asked whether the Committee would like for the recommendation to go on to Council or whether he should return to the Committee with an ordinance. Mr. Moss asked about the height requirement for the car/RV port, and if the applicant would be required to specify which one they were building. Mr. Garfield said applicants would not be required to do so. *OLI]d r. Picht asked if a car/RV port would be allowed in addition to a storage building. Mr. Garfield said that this only be allowed with a variance form the Board of Adjustment. Page 2 of 5 Mr. Picht then moved that an ordinance be drafted and brought before the Council. Ms. Davis seconded the motion, which carried. Mr. Wentworth said the ordinance could be discussed in Pre-Council. Discussion and Consideration of the Allocation of Community Housing Development Organization CHDO) Program and Support Funds to the Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (NHS) and CHDO 'upport Funds to the Sininian Development, Inc. Housing Department Director Jerome Walker made the presentation (attached). He requested authorization to use $312,000 for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) funds under the Federal HOME Program. The funds would be allocated to two organizations; Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS) would receive $262,000 and Sininian Development, Inc. would receive $50,000. Mr. Walker also requested that NHS be allowed to retain their program income and revolve the funds for future uses. He added that Sininian would also be able to undertake revolving their funds after developing their first project, since as a new non-profit organization, they are obligated to return their program income to the City and seek its use for future development activities. Mr. Walker asked the Committee to recommend the authorization for the use of the funds to the full Council. Mr. Moss asked in what areas Sininian Development was currently working. Mr. Walker said that the Near Southeast was the area of their initial focus. Mr. Wentworth asked that staff prepare a report for the Committee covering the last 12 months on how many HOME funds dollars are available, how many have been allocated and how many are left. Mr. Walker said he would bring the report to the next Committee meeting. Mr. Moss asked if Sininian Development, Inc. was representative of the community or if it was just a development corporation. Mr. Walker said it was a combination of the two, having both membership from the community and connections to a local church. "he Committee decided to recommend the authorization for the use of the funds to the full Council. Discussion and Consideration of Conditional Designation of Evans & Rosedale and Magnolia Village as Neighborhood Empowerment Zones (NEZ): Housing Director Jerome Walker made the presentation. He asked the Committee to recommend approving the Evans/Rosedale urban village and Magnolia Village as Neighborhood Empowerment Zones (NEZ) and Fort Worth Neighborhood Empowerment Reinvestment Zones (FWNERZ), on the condition of the City Council's approval of mixed-use zoning for the two urban villages. Mr. Walker added that the Zoning Commission would hear the recommendation on October 9, and staff hoped to go before the Council on November 12 to act upon the Zoning Commission's recommendation. He said, if possible, staff would like to have Council act on the NEZ designation at the same time they act on the mixed-use zoning. If that timetable does not work, Mr. Walker added, staff would like to come back to the Council on November 19 and ask for the NEZ and NERZ designations. Mr. Walker explained that both urban villages meet the NEZ requirements, and he asked the Committee to recommend the proposal to the full Council. Mr. Picht expressed his concern about the time pressure involved in the proposal, saying he felt the City needed more time to consider such matters. He then asked what the NEZ designation would do for the area. Mr. Walker said the NEZ would make available incentives that might attract developers and could make projects more financially feasible, since the NEZ incentives include such items as tax abatements, fee waivers, and financial participation by the City on infrastructure, when appropriate. Mr. Walker further explained that benefits for the City include redevelopment of an area, increased tax revenue and the attraction of other developments to the Central City. He added that there have been substantial financial commitments to these two projects, and there ;;re ongoing efforts to seek developers for the Evans/Rosedale project. Hopefully, lie said, the NEZ would enhance the City's opportunities to make investment occur. Robert Sterns, Business Development Coordinator, Page 3 o1'5 added that since the City has had difficulty enticing developers into the Evans/Rosedale urban village, it is hoped that the NEZ incentives will assist in attracting quality developers into the area. Mr. Picht asked if there was information about the cost of the incentives versus the benefits the City received rom them. Mr. Walker said each project would be evaluated as it came forward, and such details would be brought before the Council at that time. He added that when the NEZ concept was developed, a spreadsheet was prepared that represented costs and benefits of a typical project, and this could be brought back before the Committee. Mr. Picht said this would be helpful, and he would like to see information that showed the projected benefits were actually occurring. He added that he wanted to redevelop the inner city, but he also wanted to be sure the City was receiving the projected benefits. As an example, Mr. Walker said that of the two NEZs already in place, about $900,000 has been given in tax abatements, fee waivers, etc., while the projects are expected to yield about $38,000,000. Mr. Moss said he would like to see what an area is currently generating in property taxes, so that there will be a starting point from which to evaluate the impact of any development or new construction. Assistant City Attorney Peter Vaky emphasized that Magnolia Village is located entirely in the Southside TIF. He explained that under state law, a city tax abatement agreement for property located in a TIF must be approved by the TIF board and by the governing body of each taxing entity participating in the TIF. Therefore, he said, if Magnolia Village is designated as a NEZ, additional administrative steps will be necessary to be sure the NEZ policy complies with state law. Community Development Manager Christine Maguire said that according to the City's NEZ policy, there is no automatic tax abatement for projects located in a TIF; therefore, such abatements would be granted only at the discretion of the City Council. Mr. Moss asked about the federal designation of the Near Southeast area. Ms. Maguire said it was a federally spesignated area, but was not designated locally. Planning Director Fernando Costa concurred. Mr. Moss moved that the Evans/Rosedale urban village and Magnolia Village be conditionally designated as NEZs and NERZs. The motion was seconded and carried. Mr. Wentworth asked staff to bring back to a later meeting a financial report on the NEZs. Mr. Moss asked what impact the NEZ would have on non-profit organizations, such as homeless shelters, in the Near Southeast area. Mr. Walker said that since such organizations are already tax exempt, he did not know of any benefit they would derive from the NEZ from an abatement standpoint. He added that it was possible that there might be a fee waiver on renovations or improvements for such organizations. Discussion and Consideration of the Practice of Rewarding the Use of Fort Worth Minority and Woman- owned Business Enterprises (M/WBE) by Companies Receiving Incentives from the City of Fort Worth: This item was deferred to a later meeting. Status Report on Amending the City of Fort Worth's Zoning Ordinance to Address Issues Related to Shelters: Planning Director Fernando Costa made the presentation. He reviewed his previous report to the Committee on the Zoning Ordinance, which does not currently address shelters. He reiterated what the Committee had requested concerning the zoning of shelters: (1) that the City Council have the final decision on the location of shelters; (2) that there be public involvement in the process; and (3) that the Council be able to review site plans and attach other conditions as appropriate. Mr. Costa explained that all of these goals could be met by seating an individual Planned Development (PD) district for each shelter. He added that another option is to allow shelters by Special Use Permit, which allows the City Council to make the final decision on the shelter. Mr. Costa said that this type of zoning is subject to a public hearing and the Council can specify other Page 4 of 5 conditions as appropriate to mitigate any negative impact of the shelter on surrounding land uses. He further explained that progress is being made toward building concensus among the different interest groups involved, and the current plan is to move forward on three fronts: (1) a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, allowing for Special Use Permits and permitting shelters by Special Use Permit in appropriate zoning districts; (2) a Q etition by Near East Side property owners for mixed-use zoning; and (3) a review of the long range master Ian for the Union Gospel Mission, and if appropriate to support a Special Use Permit application by the Union Gospel Mission. Mr. Costa added that the Union Gospel Mission was concerned that if mixed-use or PD zoning goes forward, they might lose some of the rights they currently have under Community Facilities (CF) zoning. He also said that it is the consensus of the advisory group that the Mission not lose these rights, and the group is recommending that a permanent coordinating committee be formed that will address issues relating to shelters. Mr. Costa said he planned to come back before the Committee next month with the text amendment, a report on the status of the petition to rezone the Near East Side to mixed-use, and a progress report on the master plan for the Union Gospel Mission. Status Report on the Creation of Tax Increment Financing Reinvestment Zone Number Six, City of Fort Worth, Texas (Riverfront TIF): Ardina Washington, Business Development Coordinator, made the presentation and presented a timeline for the establishment of TIF #6. She reminded the Committee that a component of the Radio Shack Economic Development Agreement, which was approved by the City Council on July 9, 2002, called for the creation of a Tax Increment Financing District to finance public infrastructure. Ms. Washington said that on September 16, notification of the City's intent to establish a TIF was sent from the Mayor to each of the taxing entities that levies taxes in the proposed area. Included in the notification, she added, was a preliminary financing and project plan. Ms. Washington explained that each of the taxing units has designated a representative to attend a meeting on October 10 to discuss the proposed zone. Next, she said, an informal report will be sent out in Council packets for the October 15 Council meeting, and on October 22, a presentation will be made to the Tarrant County Commissioners' Court and to the Fort Worth ISD Board of Trustees. On October 29, property hat is in the proposed TIF #6 will be removed from TIF #3. Finally, Ms. Washington added, on November 5, a public hearing will be conducted, and an ordinance to establish the zone will be on the Council agenda. Mr. Wentworth asked what properties were being moved from TIF #3 to TIF #6. Mr. Vaky explained that the properties currently in the Downtown TIF (TIF #3) that would be removed and subsequently placed in the Riverfront TIF (TIF #6) were the eastern portion of the Tandy parking lot and the Ripley Arnold property. Mr. Wentworth then asked if TIF #6 included both the Radio Shack and the Pier 1 sites. Mr. Vaky said it included only the Radio Shack site and properties owned by Tarrant County, which includes the current Tandy Tech Center that the County is under contract to purchase. He added that the Pier 1 site will not be in a TIF. Mr. Moss asked if the properties located between Belknap and Weatherford would also be moved into the TIF. Ms. Washington said they would be and identified the specific buildings as the Courthouse and the County jail. Mr. Moss asked why these were being moved into the TIF. Mr. Vaky explained that since the City is not participating in the TIF, and County entities will be making the entire TIF contribution, the County is requesting that County properties--in addition to the Tech Center—be included in the TIF so that potential TIF revenue may be used for improvements on these properties. Executive Session: There was no executive session. Requests for Future Agenda Items: There were no requests for future agenda items. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 2:14 p.m. Page 5 of 5