2016 06 09 WS MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR WORK SESSION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN
JUNE 09, 2016
The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas met in a Regular Work Session on Thursday,
June 09, 2016, at 5:22 P.M., in the Hullum Conference Room of the Baytown City Hall, 2401
Market Street, Baytown, Texas with the following in attendance:
Brandon Capetillo
Robert Hoskins
David McCartney
Chris Presley
Mercedes Renteria
Terry Sain
Stephen DonCarlos
Rick Davis
Ignacio Ramirez
Leticia Brysch
Keith Dougherty
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Mayor
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Sergeant at Arms
Mayor DonCarlos convened the June 09, 2016, City Council Regular Work Session with a
quorum present at 5:22 P.M., all members were present with the exception of Council Member
Mercedes Renteria III who arrived at 5:33 P.M.
1. DISCUSSIONS
a. Discuss amending the City of Baytown Traffic Calming Policy.
City Engineer, Jose Pastrana presented detailed information to discuss the item. He stated that
in 1994 through Council action, the speed bumps portion of the traffic calming policy was
suspended and a moratorium was put in place. He noted that the current City of Baytown Traffic
Calming Policy was passed by the Council on June 10, 1999 under Resolution No. 1390, which
does allow for the use of speed bumps under certain conditions. He stated that this policy
provides staff with the minimum guidelines for the use of traffic calming techniques, such as
speed cushions to help mitigate traffic issues, such as speeding and traffic backups on city roads.
He stated that the purpose of the traffic calming is to (1) reduce frequency and severity of
accidents, (2) increase the safety of vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists, (3) reduce the need for
police enforcement, (4) enhance the street environment, and (5) reduce the cut- through of traffic
on local streets. He further stated that all traffic calming tools and effectiveness are reviewed on
a case -by -case basis depending on the neighborhood and area in question.
During further discussion, Mr. Pastrana stated that traffic calming techniques require the
endorsement of 70% of the affected residents, along with monitoring of effectiveness and a
City Council Regular Work Session Minutes
June 09, 2016
Page 2 of 5
mechanism of removal. He stated that one of the traffic calming techniques being considered is
speed cushions, which are devices that slow down traffic that are typically rectangular or square
in shape and made out of recycled rubber and also a better option than the traditional speed
bumps that's higher and made out of concrete or asphalt. He further noted that because of the
height and material used, speed bumps were more capable of causing damage to vehicles than
speed cushions. He stated that speed cushions have many other benefits; such as, the reduction of
vehicles speeds, minimal impact to emergency vehicles as they can straddle the bumps, easier to
install and remove, and are environmentally friendly. Mr. Pastrana noted that some cons to the
use of speed cushions are that they divert traffic to neighboring streets, they're not always
anesthetically pleasing, they could create a rough ride for passing vehicles, and they may
increase noise and street drainage. He stated that in some cases the installation of speed cushions
have reduced vehicle speeds by 15 -20 %, 90% of buses can straddle the bumps, traffics flows
have been reduced an estimated 24% and the speed between the cushions have averaged 10 miles
per hour. Additionally, he stated that the installation guidelines require that the speed cushions be
requested by the neighborhood in writing, be done in accordance with the guidelines of the City's
Traffic Calming Policy, and must be approved by the City Council.
Mr. Pastrana stated that the City would have to conduct a speed study for the affected area in
order to ensure that all of the criteria for speed cushions are met. He stated that the summary of .
criteria for speed cushions includes but is not limited to (1) they can only be installed in
residential areas, (2) they can only be installed in one lane in each direction, (3) the average daily
traffic should be 8,000 around 8,000 vehicles per day, (4) the speed limits should be equal to or
less than 30 miles an hour, and (5) the 85th percentile speed must exceed the posted speed limit
by at least 10 miles per hour, etc. He noted that in Step 7 of the policy's prioritization criteria, is
for the City Manager to establish and Council to approve a set of priorities of the needed
improvements related to traffic calming devices which are based on the design and construction
costs, the funding sources, the degree to which the minimum criteria are met, the level of
neighborhood support and the ease of implementation.
In summary, Mr. Pastrana noted that speed cushions are an additional technique for traffic
calming, they do not affect emergency vehicles, they are pre- fabricated for easy installation and
the successful implementation of these cushions require public education, good engineering,
continuous monitoring and police enforcement. He further recommended that staff work to
update the Traffic Calming Policy to streamline some processes and procedures, in order to
clarify and eliminate redundancies such as, unnecessary and numerous public hearings and /or
neighborhood meetings.
The Council discussed various instances across the city where speed bumps were used, but
resulted in the re- routing of the traffic onto surrounding and /or adjacent roads, whereas they
want to ensure that the problem is dealt with and not just moved around. Mr. Pastrana stated that
these issues would be reviewed through the traffic impact analysis to the surrounding areas and
that a solution would combine a number of traffic calming tools; such as stop signs, yield signs,
etc.
b. Discuss the parking and facade program in the ACE District.
City Council Regular Work Session Minutes
June 09, 2016
Page 3 of 5
Planning and Community Development Director, Tiffany Foster presented the agenda item and
stated that there were two main concerns which Council discussed in past meetings that relate to
the limitation of potential development in the ACE District due to parking limitations, as well as,
to extending the opportunities to participate in the facade program to all businesses in the ACE
District and not just those fronting Texas Avenue.
Mrs. Foster noted that the code requires a minimum number of parking spaces be provided on
the same property of a new development, but these parking requirements do not apply to certain
central business district areas, and specifically, within the ACE district, properties facing Texas
Avenue between Pruett and Commerce Streets are exempted from this requirement. She further
noted that there are several proposed projects within the ACE District that do not have adequate
property to provide on- premise parking, as these tend to be lot line to lot line. Mrs. Foster stated
that the code specifies that the minimum number of parking spaces must be evident for the
issuance of a building permit to erect, alter, or change the use of a building and that this
requirement limits the ability for some properties to be developed and redeveloped, especially if
there are existing structures.
During further discussion, Mrs. Foster stated that one of the small changes being made to the
code is to allow that all businesses within the ACE District have the ability to use on street
parking as part of their parking requirements, so that they do not have to provide parking on their
property and ultimately get their permits to move forward with their development. She stated that
this was a short term solution to this problem, and noted that in the near future a decision need to
be made as to whether there will be additional public parking to support the ACE.
Council briefly discussed potential public parking areas and their location.
Mrs. Foster stated that the other change being recommended relates to the Facade Grant Program
which allows for every business located in the A.C.E. District to be eligible to participate in
the Facade Program and clarifies that the eligible buildings must currently be in existence, as
well as, be in an allowed use within the A.C.E. District. She stated that staff purposely did not
make big changes to this program, as they are currently in the process of working with business
owners and in the A.C.E. District for their input on what they would like to see in this program
and what improvements can be made to better assist them in the future. Therefore, she stated that
staff will bring forward additional amendments for Council's consideration in a couple of months
based on the feedback received from our stakeholders.
C. Discuss next steps associated with the development of a Baytown Conference Center
and Hotel Project.
City Manager Davis presented the agenda item and stated that Council discussed the potential for
a development of a conference center and full service hotel on Bayland Island. He noted that the
hotel component is integral to the success of this project, because it would help generate
hotel /motel sales tax to help pay for the development itself. He stated that staff is estimating a
total amount of $8 million in debt service as the City's participation in the development of this
project. He further noted that the second component was a developer willing to partner with the
City Council Regular Work Session Minutes
June 09, 2016
Page 4 of 5
city to help create this hotel and conference center. City Manager Davis stated that the City made
several attempts at procuring an interested party for this project and took a number of steps to
garner interest, such as sending out an RFP and meeting with prospective developers and hotels.
He stated that Mr. Colin McDonald with Gatehouse Capital was introduced to the project and
progress has been made to bring this project to fruition.
Mr. B.J. Simon, Associate Executive Director of the Baytown West Chambers County Economic
Development Foundation (the "EDF ") stated that the indication of interest for this project has
been very robust; however, there was no response to the fourth iteration of the RFP for this
development. He further stated that through this consorted effort, the City did receive a response
of interest from Gatehouse Capital, which is a very reputable business that has relationships with
the major hotel chains, Starwood, Hilton, Hyatt, etc. and particularly Marriot. He stated that
Gatehouse has development expertise in public /private partnerships where there are hotel and
conference center components as they're currently working on similar projects in Midlothian,
Marble Falls, and among others. He noted that the company came to Baytown, met with key
members of City management and staff and toured the potential site. He stated that the company
submitted a proposal for the Council's consideration that includes a hotel and conference center
at Bayland Island and will give the Council an initial study of a 90 -day period and will result in a
conceptual analysis containing the following:
-conceptual hotel and conference center drawings;
-conceptual hotel and conference center development budgets;
-critical events path for planning, developing and opening of the hotel and conference
center;
-term sheet for the proposed brand and operator;
-outline of the proposed capital structure;
-proposed professional team;
-preliminary operating pro - forma;
-conceptual investment summary;
-revised third party hotel and conference center market study;
-revised third -party econometric study;
-determination of all economically feasible city incentives; and
-review of entitles and utility capabilities.
Mr. Simon stated that after this 90 day study, Gatehouse will provide Council with their findings
on how to move forward with this project, along with a commitment letter from an interested
hotel.
The Council discussed various financing packages and possibilities, along with the ability of the
site to expand should the hotel /conference center merit expansion.
The Council requested that the Gatehouse Capital agreement be placed on the next Council
agenda for consideration and action.
d. Discuss any or all of the agenda items on the City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
for June 9, 2016, which is attached below.
City Council Regular Work Session Minutes
June 09, 2016
Page 5 of 5
This item was not discussed.
2. ADJOURN
With there being no further business to discuss, Mayor DonCarlos adjourned the June 09, 2016,
City Council Regular Work Session at 6:26 P.M.
Leticia Brysch, City Clerk
City of Baytown
f, ..�%'
r
��
ds
°�'
°"
T
o