|
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />
<br />City of La Porte
<br />Estahlished 18.92
<br />
<br />Memo
<br />
<br />.: .'~
<br />,'.
<br />
<br />:-:-:::':::
<br />
<br />Mayor and City Council
<br />
<br />Deb~ F~azelle, City Manager .,--,h./
<br />
<br />1\11' '1' 'v',;..e.:. II:;. ~.~., ," r ':t-'!!o~. .... ~....I.,.,.,~~,,' ~:~..~.h ,,;'" _ - ~ ~ ...__", ... -t. .
<br />.... _~~ ........ '''_''h'; '. " '., _ . '/ ~
<br />
<br />John Joems, Assistant City Manager
<br />Cynthia"AIexander, Assistant City Manager
<br />John Armstrong, Assistant City Attorney
<br />
<br />January 9, 2004
<br />
<br />Capen Property, Lot 5, Block 3, Section 2, Shady River Subdivision
<br />
<br />\:
<br />;~.t..
<br />
<br />To:
<br />
<br />ThRl:
<br />
<br />cC:
<br />
<br />"'~.~.l
<br />,I'.:n:
<br />
<br />..J"
<br />
<br />."-I!..
<br />
<br />Date:
<br />Re:
<br />
<br />..
<br />~~
<br />. \.
<br />After further discussion with staff and Assistant City Attorney, John Armstrong, the feeling is to have an";
<br />ordinance 'ready for adoption to expedite Mr. Capen's request and not require further City: Council
<br />action, if Council is in favor of providing some relief to Mr. Capen with respect to the City's restrictions
<br />on lot 5, Block 3, of Shady River, Section 2.
<br />
<br />Attached is an ordinance that would serve as the "recordable" amendment to the Special Warranty
<br />Deed mentioned in Item #1 of John Armstrong's memo to you. If passed as presented or with additions
<br />or deletions as to the requirements, there should be no further action required by City Council. The
<br />items specifically mentioned in the ordinance 1) removes the side yard only requiremen~ 2) limits the
<br />permission for improvements to only one driveway, 3) does not allow for any other improvements
<br />including water, sewer, drainage, or any above ground improvements (by current restriction, these or
<br />any other improvements still need to be approved by City Council), and 4} limits the driveway use to a
<br />single-family residence; it does not allow the driveway to be shared among multiple residents, activities,
<br />or properties.
<br />
<br />City administration and staff have noticed there has been no discussion or reference to the City being
<br />reimbursed for legal fees it has incurred, staff time devoted to a resolution, numerous meetings
<br />dedicated to this item, and other costs associated with this property at no fault of the City. All work
<br />involved has been at the request of the resident through a sale that did not involve the City, and that
<br />was handled by a title company and the resident without ,involvement of the City. All changes
<br />requested are not from errors from the City's original sale, which all restrictions were reasonable and
<br />properly conveyed.
<br />
<br />Should City Council wish to discuss this item, it may recess to executive session, which was properly
<br />posted. The ordinance could have a clause added to include a fee or reimbursement for costs, which is
<br />not uncommon. Such cost could be determined and reasonably applied if it is City Council's desire.
<br />
<br />Attachment
<br />
|