HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/06/11-Minutes-HEDC City of Fort Worth
City Council
Economic & Community Development Committee
tY
Highlights of the Meeting Held
June 11, 2002
Committee Members Present: Jeff Wentworth, Wendy Davis, Frank Moss , Clyde Picht
City Staff Present: Jan Baker, Teresa Carreon, Bette Chapman, Bea Cura, Hugh Davis, Deidra Emerson,
Gloria Eurotas, Sarah Fullenwider, John Garfield, Al Godwin, Pat Hale, Vida Hariri, Tom Higgins, Christine
Maguire, Elizee Michel, Patrina Newton, Sandy Oliver, Joe Paniagua, Reid Rector, Bob Riley, Gene Rollins,
Kirk Slaughter, Robert Sturns, Costa Triantaphilides, Peter Vaky, Jerome Walker, Ardina Washington
Call to Order:
Chairman Jeff Wentworth called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m.
Approval of Minutes of the Meeting held on May 14,2002 and on May 29, 2002:
Committee Member Wendy Davis moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Committee Member Clyde Picht
seconded the motion, and the minutes were approved.
Status Report on the Cultural District and Will Rogers Memorial Center Master Plan:
Public Events Director Kirk Slaughter presented the status report. He said that the construction on Gendy
Avenue between Harley and Burnett Tandy was completed on time, and The Cowgirl Hall of Fame and
Museum had its grand opening the previous weekend. Mr. Slaughter added that Phase II of the construction,
*hich would extend the street north to Lancaster, would begin on June 17, with completion scheduled for mid-
September 2002. A meeting is planned with all the affected museums to discuss how to carry out Phase II of the
construction project, which is still on budget and on schedule.
Mr. Wentworth commended the staff for their work on the project.
Discussion of the Establishment of a Regional Electrical Licensing Agency for North Texas Cities:
Development Director Bob Riley made the presentation (attached). He said that the information he was giving
the Committee was primarily a briefing, and that staff was seeking policy direction from the Committee. Mr.
Riley explained that the North Central Texas Council of Governments was considering a regional licensing
program for electricians, which would replace the current system of having electricians licensed by each
individual municipality. COG would accept applications and the revenue from the applications, and then make a
list of applicants available to each city in the region. This would eliminate the City of Fort Worth's need to
license and register electricians and journeymen. Mr. Riley added that City of Fort Worth licenses come due on
January 1, 2003. COG expects this program to be in operation by October 2002. He said that the Executive
Board of COG will consider the program in late June 2002, and staff requests no Committee action until the
Executive Board has made an official recommendation.
Mr. Riley then presented information relating to fees currently charged for licenses. He said that the
registrations represent a revenue source of approximately $270,000, which would not be available if the City
becomes part of the COG program, and staff is still in the initial stages of evaluating how the revenue would be
replaced. Mr. Riley also said that the electrical industry is supporting the program, and realizes that cities will
QM gave to raise permit fees to recoup the lost revenue. All City of Fort Worth permits could be impacted up to
7.9%. He said staff plans to prepare three or four different revenue replacement options for the Committee to
consider. Mr. Riley then entertained questions from the Committee.
Page I of 6
Mr. Picht asked if the permits were good statewide. Mr. Riley said the licensing would only be for the north
central Texas area. Mr. Picht then asked if the test was standard throughout the state. Al Godwin, City of Fort
0,, orth Building Official, explained that COG developed a standardized testing program about six years ago and
that about 240 cities in Texas use this test.
Mr. Godwin added that there is currently no state test, but the previously mentioned standardized test is given
through the Southern Building Code Organization. Everyone takes the test there; however, each city issues
individual licenses upon receiving confirmation that someone has passed the test. Under the proposed COG
program, individuals would still take the test in the same manner, but they would pay a single licensing fee to
COG rather than paying each individual city for a license.
Mr. Picht then asked why the revenue would not be shared with the cities that are participating. Mr. Godwin
said that COG would only charge one reasonable fee; however, the proposed licensing program was not
designed as a money-saving program, but as an industry benefit.
Mr. Picht said he supported the single-licensing program, but was concerned about passing on the electricians'
savings to the consumers in Fort Worth.
Discussion and Consideration of an Agreement with the Fort Worth Chamber Foundation, Inc. and the
Fort Worth Convention & Visitors Bureau for the Heritage Trails Building and Sidewalk Markers
Proiect•
Assistant City Manager Reid Rector introduced Marilyn Gilbert of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, who
in turn, introduced Judge Steve King, who made the presentation.
audge King outlined four elements of the Heritage Trails project, saying that the purpose of the program was to
tell the stories of Fort Worth where they actually happened. He then showed an artist's rendering of a sidewalk
marker, which is the first element of the program. Initially, about fifteen of these would be placed throughout
downtown. The second element of the program is a number of kiosks, which would be located at the edges of
downtown. Judge King said the kiosks would include changing displays, as well as maps to show the various
locations of the markers and other special events. He added that there is a possibility of making these kiosks
interactive for international visitors. The third part of the program is markers similar to the sidewalk markers,
which would be affixed to buildings initially in the downtown area and would explain the history of the
buildings.
Finally, Judge King explained the fourth element of the program, which is the Sleeping Panther, a bronze statue
that will be located at the north end of downtown. Unveiling will be in August or September. Judge King then
asked the Committee to approve the 10-year program agreement. He said that the Chamber Foundation is going
to raise the funds to create and install the elements of the project, and once these are in place, the Convention
and Visitors Bureau will have responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance.
Mr. Wentworth said he felt that the markers would be a major enhancement to the downtown area and
expressed appreciation to those who had brought the program to fruition.
Ms. Davis asked if the design of the kiosks was already set. Mr. King said the design is an existing one based on
an Art Deco motif, but that some of the elements of one of the markers would be the architectural diversity of
downtown Fort Worth.
o
Mr. Picht moved to submit the item to the full Council. Mr. Moss seconded the motion, which was approved
unanimously.
Page 2 of G
Discussion and Consideration of Additional Development Standards for Accessory Buildings in
Residential Zoning Districts:
ohn Garfield, Development Services Administrator, made the presentation (attached). He reviewed the issue
hat had previously been brought before the Committee on May 14, 2002, and showed a photograph of an
unsightly accessory building in the Wedgwood area, which had created some of the concern. Mr. Garfield said
that this type of building is not commonly found around the City, a fact which has caused staff and the
Committee to have some reservations about making amendments to the accessory buildings standard.
Mr. Garfield then reviewed the concerns raised by the Committee last month. These included the fact that
limitations in height might affect accessory buildings in older areas and that new regulations could create
unreasonable limits on some uses of private property. After listing the current regulations, which include a
maximum lot coverage of 50% and a height restriction that generally equals 35 feet in a residential area, Mr.
Garfield discussed proposed regulations. These include maximum lot coverage of 75%, maximum vehicle
clearance of 12 feet and compatible architecture and colors. Finally, Mr. Garfield presented possible Committee
and Council action.
Mr. Moss asked Mr. Garfield to explain the proposed lot coverage regulation. Mr. Garfield said that a total lot
coverage of 50% is currently allowed, but if a 15% lot coverage is allowed for an accessory building, then the
total lot coverage of the house and accessory buildings could rise to 75%.
Ms. Davis asked for clarification of the proposed minimum lot coverage. Mr. Garfield explained that people
would be entitled to have an accessory building of at least 300 square feet, even if it exceeded 75% lot
coverage. Ms. Davis said she was concerned about 75% of the lot being covered and asked how the Board of
Adjustment was dealing with requests for more than 50% lot coverage. Mr. Garfield said that the Board was
usually allowing 52-53% coverage. Ms. Davis then asked why a 75% maximum lot coverage was being
aroposed when this was not being requested. Mr. Garfield explained that on a typical suburban lot, there might
not be adequate area for an accessory building without the 75% maximum lot coverage. Ms. Davis then
requested more information on this and asked about the compatible architecture proposal. She said that she felt
this might be too stringent, since it would be difficult to judge such compatibility.
After much discussion, the Committee agreed that, while they wanted to prevent the problem of unsightly
accessory buildings, they did not want to place undue restrictions on property owners. They asked staff to
research the Mansfield ordinance and the 15% lot coverage as it relates to lot size and to report back at a later
meeting.
Discussion of the City of Fort Worth's Consolidated Plan Review Process for Housing Assistance:
Housing Director Jerome Walker made the presentation. He said in recent months there has been considerable
concern regarding the number of properties that have been awarded exemption status from local taxes. Mr.
Walker distributed a Tarrant Appraisal District (TAD) report on those properties that have received a tax
exemption (attached). He added that further investigation revealed that not all the properties listed on the report
are Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs).
Mr. Walker then said that in coming months the state will be considering state designation of Community
Housing Development Organizations. He said that many organizations are being given these designations at the
state level without the knowledge of the local governments. He said that Housing staff would propose to the
state that the authority for designating Community Housing Development Organizations be reserved for local
governments that participate in the program, and that projects being funded through those organizations also
^eve the designation of a CHDO at the local level. As it stands now, Mr. Walker said, an organization of any
city in the state can receive designation from the state and undertake development in other cities. He reiterated
that staff is not certain that all properties on the list are CHDOs. For example, he pointed out that Habitat for
Page 3 of G
Humanity is listed, but it is neither a state nor local CHDO. It is simply a 501 (3)(c) organization, undertaking
housing development in the City of Fort; therefore, the title of CHDO on the Tarrant Appraisal list is somewhat
misleading.
QMr. Moss asked if the single-family properties listed were being held by Habitat and other Fort Worth approved
CHDOs for development and sale to go back on the tax rolls. Mr. Walker said that was correct.
Mr. Wentworth asked if the properties were not perpetually exempt from taxes once they were given a CHDO
designation. Mr. Walker said they were exempt only until they were sold to an individual, then the property
would be returned to the tax rolls. He added that the properties are tax exempt only as long as they are in the
possession of a non-profit organization.
Ms. Davis expressed her concern that the City is vulnerable to properties being purchased by CHDOs and being
taken off tax rolls without the City's knowledge or consent. She said that while she wanted to encourage
affordable housing opportunities, and she did not want to limit organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, she
felt something needed to be done to draw distinctions between those not-for-profit developers and other types of
developers who would sell the properties for profit. Mr. Walker concurred, saying that there needs to be some
authority on the local level to approve tax exemptions for CHDOs. He further explained that several advocate
organizations at the state level are moving to encourage some revisions to the rules for CHDO designations. He
said that he also understood that the state is considering a moratorium on future designations until the matter
can be reasonably resolved.
Ms. Davis asked about the difference between CHDOs and low-income-housing tax credit applications. Mr.
Walker said low-income housing tax credits become a source of funding for development projects, and the
developer does not have to be a non-profit organization to benefit from a low-income housing tax credit. These
are administered by the state, and the authority is given by the federal government to allow developers to
Oenerate equity in a project and offset the tax bill. Mr. Walker said that CHDOs are organizations approved by
entities that administer federal home funds. Once the CHDO designation is received, the developer becomes
eligible for tax exemptions on the property.
Mr. Picht expressed his concern that the whole affordable housing market and process needed to be reviewed.
Ms. Davis asked if low-income housing tax credit projects went off the City tax rolls. Mr. Walker said if the
project is owned by a for-profit entity, then it is subject to taxes. Property can only be taken off the tax rolls if it
is owned by a non-profit organization or a CHDO.
Mr. Moss asked why husbands and wives were listed as owners on the TAD CHDO list. Mr. Walker said he did
not know, but that staff was continuing to investigate what appeared to be various inconsistencies in the list.
Mr. Walker then presented the criteria (presentation attached) used to evaluate projects for consistency with the
Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is submitted to the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development as a prerequisite to receiving federal funds, and it contains a statement of the City's housing needs
and goals. Mr. Walker then gave examples of programs requiring Consolidated Plan consistency on both the
federal and state levels and the various criteria required for consistency with the Consolidated Plan.
Mr. Walker added that the Housing Department advises developers or sponsors who come to them with projects
to visit with the council member in whose district the project would be located, as well as with the
Neighborhood Associations affected by the particular development. He said staff also advises developers that
e Consolidated Plan certification would be withheld pending confirmation that the developers have met with
the Neighborhood Association or with the appropriate council member.
Page 4 of 6
Mr. Moss asked how a meeting with a council member was defined in this instance. Mr. Walker said a
developer or sponsor should advise a council member of the project in such a way that the council member has
a full understanding of the project.
ivlr. Walker further explained that the Consolidated Plan's Certificate of Consistency does not imply approval of
a project. It simply shows that the project is in keeping with meeting the needs of the City. If in fact, there is not
support for a project, council members have several options. One is to convince the full Council to write a letter
of non-support, or the individual council member may write a letter of non-support to the funding agency.
Another option is that an individual council member and/or his or her constituents may participate in the public
hearing process.
Ms. Davis asked what recourse the developer or sponsor has if the council member is opposed to the project or
refuses to meet concerning it. She asked if the developer could still get a determination of consistency with the
plan. Mr. Walker said this was possible, since he is required as Housing Director to give the certification of
consistency with the Consolidated Plan as long as the project meets the criteria that's been established by the
Council.
Mr. Moss asked if the Housing Department forwards the request to the council member so that he or she knows
that the request has been made. Mr. Walker said staff tries to give as much information as possible to council
members as soon as the request is received; however, staff does not always have all the information when the
request is initiated. He added that a full packet of information is forwarded to the council member as soon as it
is available. This information would include a statement of compliance and a memorandum to the developer or
sponsor that certification would be withheld until such time as feedback or comments is received from the
council member. Mr. Walker said staff endeavor to provide ample opportunity and time for council members to
respond before the certificate of consistency is issued. However, he said, because developers sometimes wait
until the last minute to apply for consistency, staff is not always able to give as much time or information to
Souncil members as either they or the council members would like.
Mr. Picht asked if this criteria was legally binding. Mr. Walker said that it was not, but that the Housing
Department was following the procedures established by the Safety and Community Development Committee
in 1996.
Ms. Davis suggested reviewing those policy guidelines established in 1996. She also she would like to define
the need for affordable housing in Fort Worth. Mr. Walker concurred and said the Housing Department planned
to conduct a need assessment in the near future.
Mr. Picht said he would like to review the law to be sure that we are in compliance with it. He said that it was
his understanding that the law was written to provide development in economically depressed areas.
Assistant City Attorney Hugh Davis sought to clarify this issue. He said the law was written to promote
affordable housing, but it has no particular geographic impact. He added that the law probably tends to
encourage resettlement of more moderate-income families into higher-income areas. He said the review process
for consistency with the Consolidated Plan is set out in the federal regulations, and it requires notification of
only the mayor of the affected city. However, he said, the City has elaborated on the process in an attempt to
avoid surprising citizens and council members.
Status Report on the Master Developer Selection Process for the Evans and Rosedale Historical District
Pro'ect:
u Development Coordinator Robert Sturns gave a brief update and said a more complete report would be
presented in July. He said property acquisition on the Evans and Rosedale project is nearing completion. He
added that the RFQ was issued on April 30, and a pre-response conference was held on May 31. Responses will
Page 5 of 6
r
be due at the end of June. A city interdepartmental team has been selected to review the RFQ responses. From
that list, a short list of developers will be prepared to receive the RFP.
Wr. Moss asked if the master developer would be preparing only a concept to develop the property, not a
- plan. Mr. Sturns said this was correct, and that the RFQ process should lead to a development concept.
He added that the concrete plans will be developed in the RFP process, with the end result being some actual
development plans and uses for the overall property.
Discussion and Consideration of a Resolution to Receive Funding for the Magnolia Green Proiect from
the North Central Texas Council of Governments Joint Venture Grant:
This item was deferred to a later meeting.
Executive Session:
The Committee conducted a closed meeting to receive legal advice from its attorney concerning current
Committee agenda items, which advice is exempt from public disclosure under Article X, Section 9 of the
Texas State Bar Rules as authorized by Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code.
Requests for Future Agenda Items:
There were no requests for future agenda items.
Adiourn•
The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. The next meeting is July 9, 2002.
Approved:
Jeff Wentworth, Chairman
Page 6 of 6