2012 01 26 WS MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR WORK SESSION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN
January 26, 2012
The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas met in a Regular Work Session
on Thursday, January 26, 2012, at 5:00 P.M., in the Council Chamber of the Baytown
City Hall, 2401 Market Street, Baytown, Texas with the following in attendance:
Brandon Capetillo
Council Member
Robert Hoskins
Council Member
David McCartney
Council Member
Mercedes Renteria
Council Member
Terry Sain
Council Member
Stephen DonCarlos Mayor
Robert D. Leiper
Ron Bottoms
Kevin Troller
Ignacio Ramirez
Leticia Brysch
Keith Dougherty
City Manager
Deputy City Manager
Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Sergeant at Arms
Mayor DonCarlos convened the January 26, 2012, City Council Regular Work Session
with a quorum present at 5:00 P.M., all members were present with the exception of
Council Member Sheley who was absent.
1. DISCUSSIONS
a. Discuss Unified Land Development Code and Proposed Amendments
(ULDC) to Chapter 130 "Zoning" - Planning and Development Services.
City Manager Leiper presented the agenda item to discuss the Baytown Unified Land
Development Code (ULDC) and proposed amendments to Chapter 130 "Zoning" of the
Baytown Code of Ordinances.
Planning Director Kelly Carpenter presented a presentation and stated that in 2008
Council established the Citizens Task Force on Unified Land Development Code
(ULDC) holding over 70 public meetings between January 15, 2009 and August of 2011;
in addition to 25 Planning and Zoning Commission (P &Z) public meetings and
many hours of citizens input and participation.
Work Session Regular Meeting Minutes
January 26, 2012
Page 2 of 5
Ms. Carpenter stated that a Unified Land Development Code is a unified set of
procedures, standards, and regulations for land development applications that contains all
regulations related to the development of land in the city and
it's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Ms. Carpenter stated that the code is one of the
tools used to implement the Baytown Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Carpenter indicated that the information currently presented to Council does not
reflect the entire ULDC but only the zoning portion and that the Texas Local Government
Code requires that when zoning regulations are adopted it must be done in accordance
with a comprehensive plan in which Baytown's plan was adopted in May of 2007.
Ms. Carpenter stated that the major new features of the new code are as follows:
• nine (9) new zoning categories,
• use conditions for compatibility purposes,
• more clear and precise definitions so that interpretation is easier for all users,
• clearer property development standards,
• limited design standards to improve quality of life, value and tax base,
• better compatibility standards,
• better Planned Unit Development (PUD) giving more flexibility to developers,
and
• clearer processes
Ms. Carpenter stated that the nine (9) new zoning categories are as follows:
• Neighborhood Serving Commercial (NSC),
• Livable Center (LC),
• General Commercial (GC),
• Single Family Estate (< 1 per acre SFE),
• Low Single Family (14 per acre SF1),
• Medium Single Family (4 -9 per acre SF2),
• Medium Density Mixed Residential (9 to less than 15 per acre MF 1),
• Mid Rise Density Mixed Residential Dwellings (15 to less than 23 per acre M172),
and
• High Density Residential (23 - 30 per acre M173)
Ms. Carpenter provided descriptive definitions of the nine new categories for
informational purposes and indicated that the City already has a livable center plan for
downtown that was done in conjunction with Harris County but this is not intended to
apply to downtown because of the ACE. During discussion of the descriptions of the
categories, Ms. Carpenter indicated that currently there are no zoning categories
specifically for apartments or townhouses and they are considered in with mixed use.
Work Session Regular Meeting Minutes
January 26, 2012
Page 3 of 5
Council Member McCartney inquired in regards to the Low Single Family category,
if the density should be 1 -6 to make it more developer driven based on economics. Ms.
Carpenter stated that the P &Z voted to leave the density at 1 -4. Council Member
McCartney stated that economically, there may be a lot more land undeveloped with the
density being 1 -4. Council Member Capetillo suggested allowing the developer to decide
on the size. Council Member Hoskins requested suggestions from others in regards to the
land density. Mr. Carnes, a commission member, suggested using the 1 -6 density because
it allows the developer the flexibility to choose. Ms. Smith stated that she voted with Mr.
Hanson on this issue in which Mr. Hanson spoke with an appraiser who indicated that the
property value significantly reduced if the density of the property was greater than four
(4) per acre. Mr. Joe Floyd stated that he also voted with Mr. Hanson in regards to the
density being 1 -4 and recommended to Council to do more research in order to come to a
conclusion of the right answer for Baytown. Mayor DonCarlos inquired if there was a
reason for the even number in regards to the land density. Council Member Renteria
inquired as to how the value of a property decreases, by making the density 1 -6. During
further discussion regarding the land density, Ms. Carpenter stated that there wasn't a
reason for the even numbers and that she would provide to Council additional
information that may show a variety of results. Ms. Carpenter continued her presentation
and stated that public sidewalks were included to be required for all single family
categories and recommended reviewing this requirement to be included for multi -
families.
During further discussion of the presentation, Ms. Carpenter indicated that there is no
masonry standard for mixed use (MU) or heavy industrial (HI). Council Member
Renteria inquired if there were masonry standards before and what was the purpose of the
masonry standards. Ms. Carpenter stated that there were no masonry standards before and
that the masonry standard is to improve the value of the stock both residential and non-
residential in the City in order to improve the quality of life and the value of the
property. Council Member Hoskins stated that he had mixed feelings on this issue and
requested additional data.
Ms. Carpenter stated that if Council chooses to adopt the ULDC with or without
amendments, the estimated time for maps to be done is at least 180 days from the time
of Council's consideration. Ms. Carpenter indicated that the following topics are not
listed for the current discussion, but are usually in a ULDC, they are: subdivision
regulations, landscaping, parking, and sign ordinances. She also indicated that there is
landscaping in the building code, but that there are no landscaping standards for
residential.
Upon completion of the presentation, Ms. Carpenter allowed for more questions and
discussion. Council Member McCartney inquired about the setback standards for opaque
fencing. Ms. Carpenter stated that the wording, which means you can have a non opaque
fence in the front yard setback, was written poorly. City Manager Leiper recommended
rewording the verbiage. Council Member McCartney made reference to the site design
section that read "at least 25% of the front yard frontage shall have dwelling unit
buildings to the front yard setback line" and stated that the owner of a large lot should
Work Session Regular Meeting Minutes
January 26, 2012
Page 4 of 5
be allowed to put their house toward the back of the property without having to come to
the front setback line. Ms. Carpenter stated that the wording is there because some of the
modern zoning regulations require houses to be built up to the setback line so that there is
a uniformed look in the neighborhood. City Manager Leiper clarified that the wording
doesn't require every home, but it requires 25% of the homes in the subdivision to be on
the setback line. During further discussion, Council Member McCartney stated that the
setbacks are so stringent that they could cause problems with cars blocking sidewalks or
parking on the side of the road and that the setback distances could cause land to become
useless. Council Member Capetillo made a comment and stated that when the setback is
too short, cars blocking sidewalks becomes a problem and recommended that if
sidewalks are to be installed, in regards to new construction that driveways accommodate
a second vehicle to avoid the sidewalks being blocked. City Manager Leiper
recommended reviewing the setbacks as they are for possible modifications. For
verification purposes, Ms. Carpenter stated that her concept of Council Member
McCartney's setback concern is that the setbacks may have value but needs refinement to
make it more workable and she stated that she would provide a revised table that
addresses that need. City Manager Leiper stated that a workable solution should be made
to provide protection for land owners, as well as, provide an opportunity for future
development.
During further discussion, Council Member Capetillo recommended setting masonry
standards for commercial at a minimum percentage. Ms. Carpenter stated that the reason
that the option for masonry was as proposed, was due to Council's direction to the Task
Force to create the regulations but to allow flexibility so that the developer had
choices. City Manager Leiper recommended lowering the first number and still allow for
some flexibility. Council Member Hoskins inquired as to what happens if a
developer builds with a minimum amount of brick and a lot of landscaping but then falls
on hard times allowing the vegetation to die. City Manager Leiper stated that nothing
happens. Council Member Hoskins recommended setting a standard number to enforce
regulations on those who developed with masonry and landscaping. Council Member
Renteria stated that in his opinion, making the standards more stringent causes the
businesses to want to develop elsewhere. City Manager Leiper stated that it would only
be more stringent if the owner chose to do partial masonry and partial landscaping in lieu
of masonry. Mayor DonCarlos stated that he's in favor of providing the flexibility to the
developer being that they submit plans according to the standards. Additionally, City
Manager Leiper stated that an important concept to remember is that there are two tiers of
streets to where a business on a major thoroughfare would be held at a higher standard
than one on a smaller street.
City Manager Leiper stated that the plan is to conduct a public hearing to
continue the discussion process and provide Council with the information requested
with the possibility for action at the next meeting.
Work Session Regular Meeting Minutes
January 26, 2012
Page 5 of 5
2. ADJOURN
With there being no further business to discuss, Mayor DonCarlos adjourned the January
26, 2012, City Council Regular Work Session at 6:00 P.M.