Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMayor's ForumI. 11. 111. IV. v. VI. VII. Mayors Development Action Forum September 8, 2010 2:00 p.m. AGE~A Welcome and Introductions Review of Previous Meeting (if needed) Presentation and Disc~ss~on of Roadway Impact Fees Overview of Communication/Distribution Process when City Ordinances are amended ~/\V~I fL.~ Process for Soliciting Suggestions for UDO Amendments -ffr fl-£!-LJ •• Jc.. 41~ C.,,J. S'A.l<--~ ~ HBA Presentation to Council on Economic Benefits of Housing e:4L . Conclusion and Next Steps ~l/v fr~ /tlA • The Plan Director to make deliberate effort to demonstrate commitment to development • Regular meeti,ng with development advocacy groups (BLDF, HBA, e1c) • Regular speaking engagements about the value of development (Rotary, CH 19, etc) • Attendance at PAC's to set positive tone • Earlier involvement in recruitment with ED Improved and development friendly PAC's • Director attendance at every PAC's to set positive tone • Less formality and fewer in attendance • Yes, is the first answer unless just not at all possible to make happen Development Friendly Rules, Regulations, Standards, and Practices • Revise UDO to reduce standards • Revise UDO to increase flexibility afforded to developers and administrator • Revise review process to move to "strict adherence review" and "advisory comments" • Focus on a permissive environment versus regulatory (think about the taxes and jobs being created rather than the negatives being created) • Revise comprehensive plan and master plans to be more "trend based" than vision oriented UDO amendments Underlying assumptions: • Developers do not like the concept of com w ehensive land use planning, In g_e ~eral they believe that market decisions (primarily as interpreted by business owners) should guide nearly all land use decisions -other than_ maybe noxious land uses). The city's role should be pla nning on how to provide facilities and services to meet these market decisions. • Developers do not like the concept of zoning. In general they believe that market decisions (primarily as interpreted by business owners) should guide nearly all land use decisions. If zoning must be in place then they certainly do not want proposals for rezoning to be rejected when they ask for a change, especially if the request is consistent with the land use element of the comprehensive plan . • UDO -In general, they view the UDO as a guide. That is rules they strive to meet unless something (as interpreted by them) interferes with or makes difficult such adherence. They want the standards in the UDO to set basic health and safety (note -aesthetics and environmental protection are generally not considered legitimate health and safety by most) and then let market decisions (most often interpreted by them) decide how far the development will exceed these basics (for example a higher end retail outlet will look nicer than a dollar store or Pebble Creek will look nicer and have more amenities than Aspen Heights). • • It should be easier to amend the comprehensive plan and thoroughfare plan. • Staff should not oppose rezoning, ZBA variances, etc., rather they should just present the request and facts about the property. • In general, we should provide guidance in plans and ordinance (i.e., what we hope things will look and function like) then let the market (as interpreted by the developer) best decide how to achieve. For example we should indicate that sites should be landscaped by a blend of canopy and non-canopy trees but the amount and location should be left to the developer. Building should provide_ visual interest and be aesthetically pleasing, etc. but to what extent and how to achieve is left to developer. Really function more as guidelines than standards. Specific Amendments/Issues • Applications should always be accepted by the City regardless of their completeness. The details of the completion can get worked out through the review process and prior to the P&Z meeting. • UDO/staff require too many items to make application complete. • Fees should be less than they currently are. • Should be allowed to process all requests concurrently (zoning, with plat-preliminary plat with final plat, etc) • Should be more exceptions to platting requirements (for example an existing building should be allowed to be enlarged without requiring platting and compliance with current ordinances). • Fewer copies of plats should be required for submittals • More flexibility (i .e., less should be binding) in PDD's and changes that can be made • City should not regulate building design (elements, materials, colors, etc) at least not all non big boxes and at least not outside of design districts. Again, market decisions (as interpreted by business owners) should drive the design of buildings. • Should not have to always go to DRB for relief. Developers and administrator should have more authority to deviate. • Should be allowed to speculatively clear, and grade sites as well as fill in floodplain areas. • Should not be required to perform flood studies to determine detention requirements. • There should be more sign options and less regulation of size, placement, and color. In general, a size allocation should be granted per project and developer should have freedom to decide how to allocate. • Existing signs should be allowed to be replaced as is without needing to meet new regulations. • There should be no limits on sign colors, fonts, etc. • More items should qualify for 10% administrative adjustment. Also, the threshold for this adjustment should be set higher (maybe 25%) • Uses shouldn't be defined so narrowly as this often causes the need for rezoning. • Setbacks should be more flexible (especially where a street setback) • Exterior lighting standards should allow standard wall packs, especially where internal to the site. • More options (other than screened dumpsters) should be allowed for sanitation and/or reduce/remove screening requirements. • Landscaping should be more flexible and there should be less required. A specific number of points should be required and then the developer should get to decide how and where to-place based on project. Again, market based decisions should guide any additiona l landscaping. • Parking requirements should be relaxed or eliminated, letting market based decisions determine parking number. • Should not require streetscape improvements in Northgate. If desired, City should do as a capital project. Even then may be opposed. • Right of way sizes are too large, should be reduced . • No development (except perhaps the very largest -over 300 acres?) should be req uired to provide more than 1 collector. Anything over a minor collector should be paid for through city participation. • Should not be any efforts at hist oric preservation in Northgate or established resid ential neighborhoods that constrain market opportunities. • No building or site design requirements in Northgate. Again, building and site decisions should be guided by the market opportunities, not regulations. (i.e., should not have to build 2 stories, should be able to provide surface parking, etc) • Sidewalks should never be required to be wider than 4' (except as required by ADA) unless city is willing to participate in costs. • Should not have to screen mechanical equipment and utility facilities. If City wants them screened then they should pay to do so. • Outside storage should be permitted along with outdoor sales and display areas. • Should be allowed mobile land uses (such as food carts and food trucks) • Should not be required to "hide" parking lots in overlay and design districts. • Banner signs should be allowed more readily. • Existing non-conforming uses should be allowed to remodel and upgrade without need to bring property into compliance. • Bed and breakfast rules should be more permissive. • There should be no requirement to register or inspect rental properties. • Should allow more temporary uses and facilities (gravel parking lots, sales offices, etc) • Alleys should be permitted to be narrower. • Shouldn't always have to do curb and gutter streets. • Shouldn't always have to provide detention . • Should not have to provide cross-access easements. • Should not have to project streets to adjacent properties unless they are "land -locked". • Should have more flexibility in driveway placement and design (location, offsets, si ze, throat depth, circular drives, etc.) • Private streets should not have as many requirements as they do (HOA, turn-around, etc) • There should be no tree preservation requirements (market demand will take ca re of this) • TIA's should not be required. • More flexi bility should be offered for street design (narrower ROW, narrower pavement, tighter turn radii, etc) • Should only be required to provide utility easements where utilities are proposed not speculative. • No maximum block length requirements. • No requirement for sidewalks along major thoroughfares (such as SH6 frontage road, WO Fitch, etc) • No requirement that developers provide bicycle facil ities. • No restrictions in locating development near existing gas and oil facilities. • No screening requirements for oil and gas facilities where existing. • No parkland dedication requirements. • Private open space and park facilities should meet parkland requirements. • Properties should be granted their certificates of occ upancy provided all life safety requirements are met. All other items can get worked out. Current initiatives that may be viewed as negatively impacting development opportunities • Making parking garage in Northgate pay for itself. • Restrictions on home occupations (taxi cab operations) • Roadway impact fees • Riparian area protection • City-wide water and wastewater impact fees • New zoning classifications to implement comprehensive plan • New/increased connectivity requirements • New high-density single family residential development standards II Ii II I - ----~ - I ~ t~ nt1 ~ '1>-0 -tv 1 el I ¢ ~~ :l I 7 =r - Mayor's Development Action Forum September 8, 2010 2:00 p.m. AGENDA I. Welcome and Introductions II. Review of Previous Meeting (if needed} Ill. Presentation and Discussion of Roadway Impact Fees IV. Overview of Communication/Distribution Process when City Ordinances are amended V. Process for Soliciting Suggestions for UDO Amendments · VI. HBA Presentation to Council on Economic Benefits of Housing VII. Conclusion and Next Steps 4 11J. ~ ~ L,1_ t1u1 ~ ftf"' rft /if4 ~f /4_ f .f vi ~ q l>t~' ttr;, jll''~ .~ f"'d.,,JJ '-'·JC 1' .J/--';t fa A~ wrr(.,J-f;fh-e-y~l~ ;-) ~\,k..w ;f j._11-~;(. (fl1) )/v..., U~s) ~J /> cJJJ )Iv.._, ,,_.._ j j' 1 · N /-?<iv~ /I,"? !_ ,,/?u.f-1 ,Jt.,~ (Me-hf~~{ ''71~1 ~ 77/'f; n_) ~(_ _.11 b,_ l f rk)/( ~( k (/J Road funding discussion Management Decisions It seems to me that there is a significant City management decision that has been (or needs to be made). That decision is -are we going to be more rational/scientific in our approach to planning & funding transportation decisions or will we rely more on judgment and reactive decisions? -We have relied a bit on both in the past, perhaps more on judgment and reaction than a rational approach . Even our judgment and reaction is getting more scientific and the rational approach still relies on a great deal of judgment. But fundamentally which approach will we rely on the most, is critical. The one approach leads to messier decision making, is costly to do, and should lead to more efficient and effective decision making. The other is faster and cheaper but may be inefficient and miss the big picture. Note: I believe that this decision has already been made, that is we will pursue a more rational approach, but it may be necessary to affirm this decision and/or further clarify it. Policy Decisions It seems to me that there is significant policy decisions that have been (or need to be made).Those decisions are -do we need to expand or stretch our transportation$ further in the future? And if so, where will these finds come from? This may be due to the desire to increase development's role in funding future roads (i.e., funding equity of development vs. resident) and/or it may be to permit funding gaps to be closed . Staff believes we will need more money to build the network we need in the future. This is due both to an increasing network size and density and a decreasing pool of traditional funds (TxDOT, slower increase in property values/bond options, etc). Some on Council believe in the equity (development vs current resident) issue. Note: I believe previous Councils have already made these decisions, that is, yes we need more funds and/or need to stretch existing f un ds further and yes, some of these new funds will need to come from new development in some form. Likewise some of these funds will need to come from new fees, such as the transportation fees and from other sources such as assessments, TIF's, etc. The one option that seems to have been rejected is an increase in property taxes. Again, it may be necessary to affirm these decisions and/or further clarify them. Primary Objective As I see it, staff really has only one primary objective and that is -To ensure the development of a sufficient transportation network to support the projected future land uses offering modal options and not suffering significant losses in service levels. This objective is based on past Council directives, adopted City policies, and extensive citizen input. Challenges There exist numerous challenges in achieving this objective. These include: less TxDOT funding likely, continued/increasing resistance to tax increases, erosion of tax base (sales and property), resistance to increased fees, competing interests (fire, police, parks, etc), tighter market creating more pressure on oversize participation funds and increased resistance to development-built thoroughfares. Actions to Date The City has taken numerous steps in the past few years to try and identify and overcome challenges and achieve the stated objective . These steps include: City prepared t-fare plan, conducted an analysis of projected costs and potential revenue from traditional sources -identifying potential future gaps), prioritized road projects, sought grant funding, seeking user fee, conducted impact fee study, etc., and engaged in extensive outreach and communication efforts to discuss the thoroughfare plan, and funding challenges and options. Next Steps? Assuming the management and policy decisions are accurate as described above and remain valid, then the following steps may be appropriate: • Identify all available tools for funding road projects (conventional and innovative) • Evaluate each tool and develop protocol for its proper use (i.e., when would we use impact fees, assessments, Tl F's, etc to pay for part or all of road projects). • Agree that every road project should use a combination of appropriate tools as the means to stretch $ further. • Identify top priority projects for the 5 years following the current CIP. • Assign the funding tools to each project based on the developed protocol. • Draw a "funding line" at the point when each of the tools "cap-out". For example if we have $60 Million available from bonds at some point all of those funds are committed. Likewise, it is assumed that the tolerance for a max impact fee per unit per zone is reached at some point, etc. • These projects become the projects that we can do in the assigned time period . Process is replicated every two or so years to add to the list. • It may be appropriate to "re-model" the LOS with the assigned development and identified road projects to see both impacts and to help gauge progress toward the ultimate thoroughfare plan. Caution needs to be used to make sure that it is clear that if we do not stretch $then we will likely not achieve objectives. Additional Agenda Items for the Mayor's Development Forum June 22, 2010 The developers would like to have the following included on the agenda: Inclusion of input from the development community in the selection process of a new City Manager Analysis of the financial impact and consequences that decisions/regulations affecting development will have prior to regulations being approved Discussion regarding the change in how inspections are handled Discussion about the riparian buffer and FEMA Communication between the City staff and stakeholders Discussion regarding the Convention Center Discu ssion of the Wellborn Water Settlement and other legal challenges Mayor's Development Action Forum June 22, 2010 1:30-5:00 AGENDA I. Welcome and Introductions II. Review of Previous Meeting • Statement of Need (Future Infrastructure need and financing concerns) -Quick overview by staff of why we ore having this conversation -lots of$ needed for future needs and less $ available from traditional sources • Requested Information (Draft of Roadway Impact Fee Study with Project List) - Quick reminder that staff was requested to bring forward a more refined list of projects and a better idea of what the fee might be Ill. Presentation and Discussion of Roadway and City-Wide Utility Impact Fees • Overview of Thoroughfare Plan and Water/Wastewater Master Plans-This will be a quick review of the t-fare plan map and the estimated price tag. Also, a quick overview of the types of water and wastewater projects likely to be included in master plans • Overview of Transportation Project List -This will be a quick review of the maps for each of the roadway impact fee zones and the types of roads included. • Overview of Key Findings and Recommendations of Roadway Impact Fee Study - This will be presentation of a single-page overview of the general methodology of the study, its key findings, and recommendations • Staff Recommendations Regarding Roadway Impact Fees and City-Wide Utility Impact Fees -staff will be recommending that roadway impact fees and city-wide utility fees continue to be pursued but with a shorter list of roadway projects where the focus is on significant roadways that would normally relay heavily on traditional financing means (such as Rock Prairie interchange, Greens Prairie Rood, etc) and that the fee recover something less than 50% of the costs associated with those roads -this will mean the recommended fees will be less than those identified in the study. It also will be important to note that the $from these fees will only provide some additional$ but will not fully close the gap. Discussions of details regarding credits, oversize participation, etc. will occur as details get worked out. There hos been some thought about exempting single family development from the roadway impact fees with the argument being that such developments already build a portion of the transportation network and that fees assessed against commercial and mfr would capture those trip impacts and recognize that in general commercial and mfr projects do not build much of the roadway network. At this point, the recommendation is that this not be raised except as a last resort, if needed .. This would not be a consideration for the utility impact fees. Similar discussion with water and wastewater where we will be recommending that Council proceed with the study with the intent similar to the roadway impact fee study, which is study what fee would be needed to recover the costs of needed improvements, then we will likely reduce the list of projects to key projects such as significant mains, wells, treatment plant, etc. IV. Conclusion and Next Steps