HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-1987-1501
.
.
ORDINANCE NO. l50l
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP FOR THE CITY OF
LA PORTE, SAID NEW ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP TO REGULATE: THE LOCATION
AND USES OF BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, LAND, LOTS, AND USES AS DEFINED;
THE HEIGHT AND SIZE OF BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND USES BOTH PRIMARY
AND ACCESSORY; THE DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF POPULATION AND U~ES, BOTH
PRIMARY AND ACCESSORY; THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF YARDS, SETBACKS,
CONSERVATION AREAS, AND OPEN SPACES; THE LOCATION AND DENSITY OF
PARKING, LOADING, EXTERIOR STORAGE, FENCING, AND LANDSCAPING; PROVIDING
FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS; PROVIDING A SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USE
PROCEDURE; REESTABLISHING A PLANNING AND ZO~ING COMMISSION AND A BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
OF THIS ORDINANCE; FOR SAID PURPOSES DIVIDING THE MUNICIPALITY INTO
DISTRICTS OF SUCH NUMBER AND AREA AS MAY BE DEEMED BEST SUITED TO
CARRY OUT THESE REGULATIONS; PROVIDING THAT ANY PERSON, FIRM, OR
CORPORATION VIOLATING ANY OF THE TERMS OR PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE
SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON CONVICTION SHALL
BE LIABLE TO FINE NOT TO EXCEED ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($l,OOO.OO);
WITH EACH DAY OF VIOLATION CONSTITUTING A SEPARATE OFFENSE; PROVIDING
A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR THE
REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT WITH THE
PROVISIONS HEREOF AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Porte, Texas, deems
it necessary in order to lessen congestion on streets, to secure
safety from fire, panic, and other dangers; to promote health and
general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the
overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to
facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage,
schools, parks, and other public requirements; to conserve the value
of property and encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout
the City of La Porte, County of Harris, State of Texas, all in
accordance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan of the City
of La Porte, as adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of La Porte; and
WHEREAS, Article lOlla et seq of the Revised Civil Statutes of
the State of Texas empowers the City to enact a Land Use Plan and
zoning Ordinance, and to provide for its administration, enforcement,
and amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Porte deems it
necessary for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals,
and general welfare of the community to enact such an ordinance; and
'.
.
Ordinance No. l50l, Page 2
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Porte, pursuant to
the provisions of Article lOllf of the Revised Civil Statutes of the
State of Texas, has appointed a Planning and Zoning Commission to
recommend the boundaries of the various original districts and the
appropriate regulations to be enforced therein; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of La
porte has divided the City of La Porte into land use districts and
has prepared regulations in accordance with the provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of La Porte, as adopted by said Planning
and Zoning Commission of the City of La Porte, specifically designed
to lessen congestion in the streets, to secure safety from fire,
panic, and other dangers; to promote health and the general welfare;
to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of
land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitate the
adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks,
and other public requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has in all respects
given reasonable consideration to the character of the land use
districts and their peculiar suitability for particular land uses,
and with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging
the most appropriate use of land throughout the City of La Porte; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has made a Preliminary
Report on the text of the Zoning Ordinance, and after due notice has
been given, a certified copy of which is attached to this ordinance as
Exhibit "A", attached hereto and fully incorporated by reference here-
in, has held a lawfully constituted public hearing on said preliminary
Report on the text of the Zoning Ordinance, said hearing being held
the 15th day of August, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall of the
City of La Porte, 604 West Fairmont Parkway, La Porte, Harris County,
Texas; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to said public hearing, the Planning and
Zoning Commission of the City of La Porte, has, by letter dated
~
.
.
Ordinance No. 1501, Page 3
October 1l, 1985, a copy of which is attached to this ordinance as
Exhibit "B", attached hereto and fully incorporated by reference here-
in, submitted its Final Report on the text of the Zoning Ordinance, of
the Zoning Ordinance to the City Council of the City of La Porte; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Porte has held a
lawfully constituted public hearing on the text of the ordinance, due
notice of which is attached to this ordinance as Exhibit "C", attached
hereto and fully incorporated by reference herein, on the 25th day of
November, 1985, at 6:00 p.m. at the City Hall of the City of La Porte,
604 West Fairmont Parkway, La Porte, Harris County, Texas; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has made a Preliminary
Report on the text and map of the Zoning Ordinance, and after due
notice has been given, the certified copy of which is attached to
this ordinance as Exhibit IIDII, attached hereto and fully incorporated
by reference herein, has held a lawfully constituted public hearing
on said Preliminary Report on the text and map of the Zoning Ordinance,
said hearing being held the 20th day of November, 1986, at 7:00 p.m.
at the City Hall of the City of La Porte, 604 West Fairmont Parkway,
La Porte, Harris County, Texas; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to said public hearing, the Planning and
Zoning Commission of the City of La Porte, has, by letter dated the
4th day of December, 1986, a copy of which is attached to this ordi-
nance as Exhibit IIEII, and is fully incorporated by reference herein,
submitted its Final Report of the text and map of the Zoning Ordinance
to the City Council of the City of La Porte; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Porte has held a
lawfully constituted public hearing on the text and map of the Zoning
Ordinance, due notice of which is attached to this ordinance as
Exhibit "FII, and is fully incorporated by reference herein on the 8th
day of January, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall of the City of La
Porte, 604 West Fairmont Parkway, La Porte, Harris County, Texas; and
.
.
Ordinance No. 1501, Page 4
WHEREAS, all requirements of Article 1011f of the Revised
Civil Statutes of the State of Texas, with regard to the preparation
of reports, public hearings, and notice have been met by the Planning
and Zoning Commission of the City of La Porte and the City Council of
the City of La Porte;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF LA PORTE.
Section 1. The Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of the City of
La Porte, which is attached to this ordinance as Exhibit "G", and is
fully incorporated by reference herein, is hereby adopted as the
Official Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of La Porte.
section 2. If any section, sentence, phrase, clause, or any
part of any section, sentence, phrase, or clause of this ordinance
shall, for any reason, be held invalid, such invalidity shall not
affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it is hereby
declared to be the intention of the City Council to have passed each
section, sentence, phrase, or clause, or part thereof, irrespective of
the fact that any other section, sentence, phrase or clause, or any
part thereof, may be declared invalid.
Section 3. All rights or remedies of the City of La Porte, County
of Harris, State of Texas, are expressly saved as to any and all
violations of the Zoning Ordinance together with the Map incorporated
therein, or amendments thereto, of said City of La Porte, that have
accrued at the time of the effective date of this Ordinance are
hereby expressly reserved; and as to such accrued violations, any
Court of competent jurisdiction shall have all the powers that existed
prior to the effective date of this ordinance; and that all existing
violations of previous zoning ordinances which would otherwise become
non-conforming uses under this ordinance shall be considered violations
of this ordinance in the same manner that they were violations of
prior zoning ordinances of said City of La Porte.
.
.
Ordinance No. 1501, Page 5
Section 4. Any person, firm, or corporation in violation of any
of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in the sum of
not more than ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($l,OOO.OO). Each day such
violation continues shall constitute a separate offense.
In case any building or structure is erected, constructed,
reconstructed, altered, repaired, converted or maintained, or any
building, structure, or land is used in violation of the general law
or of the terms of this ordinance, the City of La Porte, in addition
to imposing the penalty above provided, may institute any appropriate
action or proceedings in a Court of competent jurisdiction to provide
such unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration,
repair, conversion, maintenance or use, to restrain, correct, or
abate such violation, or to prevent the occupancy of such building,
structure, or land, to prevent the illegal act, conduct, or use, in
or about such land; and the definition of any violation of the terms
of this ordinance as a misdemeanor shall not preclude the City of La
Porte from invoking the civil remedies given it by law in such cases,
including collection of reasonable attorney's fees and court costs,
for the same shall be cumulative of and in addition to the penalties
prescribed for such violation.
Section 5. This ordinance comprises the text and map of the
Official Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte. At the time of the
effective date of this ordinance as specified below, all ordinances
or parts of ordinances in conflict with any of the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed insofar as the same are in conflict with
the provisions hereof, particularly including the repeal of Ordinance
No. 780 of the City of La Porte, together with all amendments thereto.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from
and after February 9, 1987. As an additional condition precedent to
enacting this ordinance into full force and effect, the caption of
this ordinance shall be published by the City Secretary of the City
.
.
Ordinance No. l501, Page 6
of La Porte in the official newspaper of the City of La Porte, Texas,
as required by the City Charter.
Section 7. The City Council officially finds, determines, re-
cites, and declares that if sufficient written notice of the date,
hour, place, and subject of this meeting of the City Council is posted
in a place convenient to the public, the City Hall of the City of La
Porte, for the time required by law preceding this meeting, is required
by the open meetings law, Article 6252-17, Texas Revised Civil Statutes
Annotated; as certified to by the City Secretary of the City of La
Porte in Exhibit "H", attached hereto and fully incorporated into
this reference, and that this meeting has been open to the public as
required by law at all times during which the ordinance and the
subject matter thereof has been discussed, considered, and fully
acted upon. The City Council further ratifies, approves, and confirms
such written notice of the content and posting thereof, all as
certified on Exhibit "H" attached to this ordinance.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the ;6~day of January, 1987.
CITY OF LA PORTE
lh:~/::;e<11~~
ATTEST:
-~~
Cher1e Black, C1ty Secretary
'"'
.
CITY OF L\ PORTE
PHONE (713) 471.5020 . P,O Box 1115 . LA PORTE. TEX"S 77571
10/11/85
Mayor Malone and Councilpersons
City of La Porte
P.O. Box 1115
La Porte, Texas 11511
RE: Proposed Zoning Ordinance
Dear Mayor Malone and Councilpersons:
The Planning and Zoning Commission is pleased to transmit with this
letter the final draft of the text of the proposed City Zoning
Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission formally approved this
draft on September 5, 1985. This draft is the result of a thorough
examination of the Ordinance, which was principally drafted by Vernon
Henry and Assc. assisted by Turner Collie and Braden. The intent of
this examination was to produce a document that will satisfy the
specific needs of our community.
The review process started with an examination of the goals of the
Zoning Ordinance which include the following:
A. modernize the zoning document for La Porte by replacing the
1960 Zoning Ordinance with one tailored to the needs of our
community;
B. eliminate whenever possible discretionary decision making on
the part of staff (currently an almost a daily duty due to
problems with the existing Zoning Ordinance);
C.
relieve the
ambiguities
Ordinance.
administrative problems
and contradictions of the
created by the
existing Zoning
During the initial authorship of the document, staff spent many hours
working with the Consultants in order to prevent the reoccurrence of
problems present in the current document. Special attention was given
to the enforceability and practicality of the Ordinance. The document
was also reviewed to insure compatibility with the new Development
Ordinance, Building Codes, Flood Hazard Prevention Ordinance, and
other codes and Ordinances.
EXHIBIT
B
.
.
Page Two
10/10/85
RE: Proposed Zoning Ordinance
Citizen input was received
citizen survey of wants
process, zoning meetings,
Steering Committee.
in
and
and
several
needs
input
ways, including an, initial
followed by the public hearing
from the Comprehensive Plan
The adoption process followed an exhaustive review of each citizen and
developer comment and an analysis by staff based the impact each
comment had on the Comprehensive Plan (see attached analysis of public
hearing input). The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed each
comment and voted individually on them. After this initial vote, the
Ordinance was again discussed, reviewed, and voted on in its entirety.
"The Comprehensive Plan is basically a statement of the objectives and
goals to be used as a guide by the municipality in making decisions as
to future development. Zoning is the tool by which these objectives
can be met and achieved progressively as the municipality needs or
conditions require." The previous statements were excerpted from the
prologue to the proposed Ordinance in volume two of the Plan and
relate the Ordinance as a crucial step in the implementation of the
Plan.
The proposed Ordinance will place La Porte in "sync" with the times by
replacing a 1960 document that does not address the La Porte of
today. It will eliminate, as much as any ordinance can, the
discretionary decision making by staff. This Ordinance will allow the
City to give developers and citizens alike an "upfront" look at the
rules of the game. The City of La Porte has a responsibility to these
people to provide information about development in La Porte before
they begin the development process. The ability to provide this
information will save both time and money.
Please review the text of the proposed zoning Ordinance. You may
contact staff with your questions regarding interpretations and I will
be available to answer questions regarding policy matters. I look
forward to seeing you at the workshop.
Best Regards,
~~W~
Chairman, La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission
DAP/dap
encl.
cc: Planning and Zoning Commission
Jack Owen, City Manager
John Joerns, Dir. of Community Dev.
Bob Speake, City Engineer
John Armstrong, Assistant City Attorney
David Paulissen, Chief Building Official
/-
f ..
'to
,"
.
REVIEW & co\1V1ENrARY rn '!HE IA PCRrE ZCNIKG ORDIzw.JCE
CO\1VlENIS BY FAIIM:Nr PARK JOINr vmIURE -
EDDIE V. GRAY, DEVEIDPER AND
JANEl' L. GRAY
GENERAL CO\1\1ENI'S rn DEFINITICNS -- The following items need to be
defined or their definitiOn needs to be made more specific:
1. Parkway Corridors
2. Greenway Corridor -
3. Coomercial IVIotor Vehicle and Light Truck - definitions should both
include a phrase that a commercial motor vehicle is one which is larger
than I ton.
4. Fence -- this definition should include wrought iron fences or
acceptable steel mesh fences.
5. Height - the definition should include a pennissible height of 45'
fran grade.
6. Ranch trailer
7 . Curb
8. Loading Berth
CO\1\'1EN'IS rn ARI'ICLE I:
Section 1 - 300 -- The comprehensive plan shows"'large aroounts of public
use and greenbelt/park areas which the city may not have funds to
purchase. Therefore, the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. as it
pertains to an individual property owner, can only ccnply wi th the
cooprehensive plan to the extent that the ci ty has 'the funds avai lable '
to purchase such greenbelt or park/public use areas. Further, there are
same areas of the comprehensive plan which do not reflect the best use
of that property. For example, the comprehensive plan shows residential
areas located in portions of the city where residential development is
n~t desirable due to the light industrial character of the neighborhood.
Therefore the comprehensive plan should serve only as a guide for the
zoning ordinance enforcement.
CXl\1\1ENr.3 rn ARrI CLE 2:
Section 2 - 703 -- This section is difficult to understand and apply.
Also it is not applicable to large tracts under single rnvnership \vhich
have several zoning districts within the property boundary.
Section 2 - 800 -- This section should clcarly indicate \vhich uses are
the most restrictive and \vhich uses are the least restrictive.
aJ\1VIENI'S rn ARI'I CLE 4:
Section 4 - 101 -- This section should be reworded to state that until
such time as the Ci ty of La Porte has t,he funding to purchase street
right-of-ways as shrnvn on the thoroughfare plan, then such proposed
IA
~
.---~------
.
'{;
'\1iI
,"
.
of any bu i llit-lm.;. on
Section 4 ":~"t(}3 -- This! .section. &-es lIlIOt: stllll.te whether the nmr1Wi'am
setback of 20' appl'~s to the :rea.r yaurd or tbe fran.t yal'd. since the:e
---- --"is no access allowedb<Xn-...the rear yard to t.he fl1a!joJ'. str.eet, :th.!r!:ees no
need for any addit ional setbEle~~e re.8.l" yardl., . ,
_~~_ct.ion~4_r- =~ -- This section ~i-sed-to.---a-n'~Jor
.----- cmmercial deVelOpneR~wi th bui ldings located wi thin 20' ff:coln an
existing or proposed sheet..... right-of-way. If this Section ii;s not
reworded fu.ture developnent ana--rede_v~ of old Main S~t \oU 11
not be feasIble. . __-..____ _ __
a:MVIENTS CN ARI'I CLE 5:
Section 5 - 404 Sub-paragraph 2A 2 -- This section should ,~nd
wi th the fire department regulations pertaining to fire proibmttiblln in
residential areas. Therefore, this section should be rewordei ~sgate
that any residential building may be located within 500' fIUD al,f:dre
hydrant as the fire hose would lay.
Section 5 - 404 Sub-paragraph 2A 5 -- The maxinun length of a CI'Ildl~s-ac
street should correspond with the length allowed by the Feder.&! mbasing
Administration and be pennitted as long as the street has the siaDdard
fire hydrant spacing as required by the fire department.
Section 5 - 501 -- This section states that - other resident_ and
supporting uses may be pennitted within manufactured housing di~ts;
however, it does not define the supporting uses which are pezmit1tlsili.
Section 5 - 600 -- This section needs to define single dwelling special
lot.
Section 5 - 700 Table B Residential -- This table needs to incre&s.e; the
maximum height restriction column to 45' for all residential uses. 1his
will allow homes built on stilts due to the floodplain and \wold also
allow 3-story lJI.JIti-family buildings. FUrther, sane hanes Ul! the
floodplain are forced to build up their grade. However, if t~ C0ver
the additional grade by a brick facing, the measurement would.be !d1gher
than the 35' limi t. Also, the mininun site area per uni t shoIlJIll<il be
increased to 4.8 dwelling units per acre for single family detllldled.
This is the current lot yield per acre in major La Porte subdi~~ions
and provides adequate spacing and yard areas for quali ty residemttial
developnent. Also the minirrun site area per unit should be incre&S.1ed on
multi-family to 27 dwelling units per acre. which corresponds with, the
current La Porte practice on multi-family densities. The maxinun, lot
cover percentage should be increased for single family detached to 50%.
This would allow larger hanes to be bui lt on lots for famil ies desir.ing
a sl ightly smaller yard area. The maxinun lot coverage for single
family zero lot line should be increased to 70% because this style of
homes is specially designed to appeal to hane buyers who desire very
little yard maintenance. The maxirmm lot coverage on muIti-fwnily
should be increased to 65%.
[
lA
. I
'.
.0
.
Section 5 - 701 Footnote 2 -- This setback should be deleted becaus"e the
front setbacks are adequate and the 10' side yard setback next to public
ROW's is sufficient. '
Section 5 - 201 Footnote 3 -- Both the greenbelt area itself and the-20'
landscaped setback along the public green\vay corridors are equivalent to
city park land and therefore should be purchased by the city fran the
land Ql'mer and maintained by the ci ty. There is no definition 'of
parkways in the Zoning Ordinance. However, is the city desires to
inprove its parkways (thoroughfares), then the city should purchase such
land area fran land owners and landscape and maintain such areas at city
expense. Therefore, we recoomend that Footnote 3 be deleted fran the
Zoning Ordinance.
Section 5 - 800 Subparagraph -- This section is so broad that it would
be nearly inpossible to enforce it fairly in regard to all property
owners, especially as the section pertains not only to existing
surrounding uses but future surrounding uses (whi ch are inpossible to
determine now). Further this section does not state who would be
responsible for deciding the "carpat ibi li ty". Therefore we recmmend
that this section be deleted fran the Zoning Ordinance because other
provisions of the Ordinance adequately provide for the goal that this
section is trying to achieve.
a:I\MN.rs CN ARTICLE 6
Section 6 - 500 -- Under the maxinun height. neighborhood coomercial
heights should be increased to 45'.
Section 6 - 501 Footnote I -- Footnote I should be revised to require
the City of La Porte to purchase both greenbelt areas and any landscape
setback areas lying adjacent to public greenway corridors fram the land
owner for the city to maintain as public park areas. Par~vay corridors
is not defined in this ordinance, however, if the city wishes to
landscape city thoroughfares the city should purchase such land area
fran land owners and landscape and maintain the area at the ci ty expense
;as ,public park. areas. . Therefore we recoomend that Footnote 1 under
Section 6 - 501 be deleted fran the OTdinance or revised to reflect that
the city wi II purchase and maintain such 20' landscape setbacks and
greenbelt corridor areas.
Section 6 - 501 Footnote 3 -- Parking should be allowed in coomercial
yard setbacks. Further, this additional thoroughfare setback is
unnecessary and should be deleted.
,Section 6 - 600 ,Subparagraph B4 -- Lighting which is covered by a glass
globe should be allowed in such commercial areas.
Sect ion 6 - 600 Subparagraph B5 -- I f the area has the requi red
screening, then the 5' setbacks are an unreasonable restriction on the
\ft
, ,
.'
~.
."
.
landowners' coomercial use and this 5' additional setback within the
storage area should be deleted fran the OTdinance.
a:M\1ENIS 00 Aro"ICLE 8:
Section 8 - 200 -- This section needs clarification on Which rules
apply to a PUD District and Which rules apply to a POD developed within
a residential, coomercial, or ~ndustrial district. .
-
Section 8 - 4.02 #8 -- This section needs to state the dwell ing uni t
per acre requirements for a PUD District. PUD Districts nonnally have
higher densities.
Section 8 - 402 #10 -- This requirement should be deleted in line with
our cooments under Section 1 - 300 on the first page of this coomentary.
Section 8 - 400 -- The twelve month limitation on conditional use
pennits is too short and should be lengthened to three to five years.
Section 8 - 404 B -- A minor change in a major or minor developnent
site plan should not require resubmission of a new general plan.
a::IVMENTS 00 Aro"I CLE I 0 :
Section 10 - 101 #4 This section should state that the developnent
schedule shall indicate the approximate start ing date and the
approximate coopletion date. These dates should only be used as a
general guideline.
Section 10 - 101 #6 C -- "Sufficient" amount of usable open space
should be defined.
Section 10 - 102 #1 C and E -- These sections should state that deed
restrictions on single family residential subdivisions shall cooply with
the standards set by the Federal Housing Administration and that a copy
shall be furni shed to the Ci ty of La Porte prior to fi I I ing the deed
restrictions of record. However, the review by the ci ty attorney of
deed restrictions should be deleted because the standards required by
the Federal Housing Adninistration would assure qual ity deed
restrictions.
Section 10 - 103 The heading of this section should indicate that it
pertains to planned unit developnents. Further it should state Whether
or not these regulations pertain to PUD's in PUD Districts or PUD's in
other districts.
Section 10 - 103 #4 E I -- This section should state that grass may be
considered as a surfacing material.
Section 10 - 104 -- The heading of this section should indicate that it
pertains to PUD's.
lA
. .
\&
~.,
'~
'.
Section 10 - .201 #4 -- The 1 year limitation on conditional use pennits
should be extended to a three - five years.
Section 10 - 302 #7 -- Air-conditioning cooling structures and
condensers should be allowed in side yards.
Section 10 - 603 ~- The resurfacing of an existing facility should not
require any further approval. .
'Section 10 - 6~5 -- Parking should be allowed in all setback areas.
.Section 10 - 605 #10 -- This section should be deleted. The~.e is no
need for the 5' strip surrounding parkil~ areas. It will not
effectively enhance the looks of parking areas and wi 11 be a constant
maintenance problan. Further the curb surrounding the entire parking
area is unnecessary.
cnVMENrs CN ARTICLE 11:
Section 11 - 101 -- Land owners issued building pennits prior to the
effective date of this ordinance should be allowed to continue their
construction as per the building pennit which they were issued.
Section 11 - 102 -- This section should be deleted per the comments
under Section 11 - 101.
Section 11 - 606 #2 C 2 -- Uhnecessary hardship should be defined to
include economic hardship as well as physical hardship.
Section 11 - 612 -- The reapplication period should be shortened to six
months fram the date of the original denial.
2".~::]:)::;'_::=.!..: ..... ~':".::-'.,..
::;.:1, ;.: .:. -: . I
. - .:. :l':"
tA-
," A. , c.
.... I
.
.
,
August 29, 1985
Hon. Andrew Wilson, Chairman
La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission
City Hall
La Porte,. Texas
Dear Andy:
I will surely appreciate it if you will have page one of the
.Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission of August 15,. 1985
corrected to include my name as one of the seven speakers that
evening. I did sign up and speak.
Correction is also in order, I believe, on page eight,,' line. twenty-
seven. I did not indicate I did not wish to speak to the Comm-
ission. I said I wished to speak in my proper order of signing
up rather than as requested to speak by N~.. Smith.
I will also appreciate it very much if you will have included
in the Minutes the objections I stated to R-):
1. It allows large apartment complexes in areas with
single family homes. At present the two types of
residential are geographically separated in La
Porte,for the most part.
2. The list of permitted uses and the density in the
proposed R-) sounds like it would be a shabby, un-
happy place to live, perhaps a slum.
). Group Care Facilities (defined Sec.. ) 100, Vol.2,
Page 12. Compo Plan) can or may be (among other in-
appropriate things for a residential ne~ghborhood)
half-way houses for drug addicts. This in a family
neighborhood with permitted homes, schools, parks,
playgrounds and. presumably, children.
4. If an R-l or R-2 is rezoned to R-), or has' an R-)
implanted wi.thin it.s area. it will reduce greatly
the quality of liv~9g for the people in the adjacent
homes remaining Rl.-as well as in the newly created
R-). (Shown Vol.l. Ex~ibit 2. Comprehensive Plan)
I am'sorry I was not able to make myself clear. I did not mean
anybody would be likely to start an R-) frem scratch. I meant
to point out it was such a bad combination it would be bad to
put one in an existing R-I or R-2 district. I hope there will'
never be any R-). as proposed, in La Forte at all.
~A.
,'"
.; I
page ?
.
1:cr:. A~d..:"(:v\: '" i Is on
e
I will appreciate it very much if you will correct the Minutes and
if you will include the reasons stated here and on August 15 for
my objecting to R-)o
1520 Roscoe Sto
La Porte, Texas
77571
f.:.:. _~.: .". ',' . a. n::., ~;.S i;- ':".
~A
.s:ar~~~
Adair Sullivan
. .,.. .
..... .".
.
.
...
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Andy Wilson, Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission, CLP
FROM:
David A. Paulissen, Zoning Administrator, CLP
John Joerns, Director of Community Development, CLP
John D. Armstrong, Assistant City Attorney, CLP
RE:
Proposed Zoning Ordinance, Analysis of Public Hearing Comments
DATE:
August 29, 1985
Please recall that the Planning & Zoning Commission, CLP held a
publ ic hearing on the proposed new Zon ing Ord inance for the City of
LaPorte on the 15th day of August, 1985. At this public hearing,
extensive citizen input on the proposed Ordinance was obtained.
After the close of the publ ic hearing, the Planning & Zoning Commission
directed staff to identify and review the public comment received
on the proposed Ordinance, and present it to the Commission in a
. format, that relates each particular citizen comment to the section
of the Ordinance effected by the citizen comment, together with a
staff analysis of the citizen comment in relationship to the proposed
Zoning Ordinance, and in relationship to the Comprehensive Plan as
adc;>pted by the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of LaPorte.
This letter contains the review
analysis of the citizen input
Ordinance and the comprehensive
Planning & Zoning Commission.
of the citizen input and the staff
in relationship to .the proposed
Plan that was requested by the
The writers have spent extensive time reviewing the citizen ,input,
and placing the citizen input into an organizational format that
clearly relates to the proposed Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
Each citizen comment will be identified, followed by a short staff
impact analysis of the comment in relationship to the Ordinance
sections effected by the citizen comment, followed again by a staff
analysis of the proposed Ordinance section and the citizen comment
in relationship to the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff makes no clear recommendations regarding acceptance or rejection
3ft
'Chairman \vilson and.....9mbers of the Commission A._.,
. Ci ty of LaPorte _
Page 2
of any particular citizen comment that recommends a change in the
proposed Ordinance, but rather would commend to the attention of the
Commission the requirement that the proposed Ordinance, together
with any changes that the Planning & Zoning Commisssion might care
to make in the proposed Ordinance be clearly and identifiably related
to the Comprehensive Plan. Citizen comments are not necessarily
placed in the order received by the Commission, but are reorganized
for purposes of clarity. Relatively minor issues are tackled first,
with major policy decisions being reserved to the end of this presen-
tation.
\ihat follows, then, is the staff analysis
received at Planning & Zoning Commission IS
August l5, 1985:
of the citizen input
.public hearing held on
1) Definition of Commercial Motor Vehicle and Light Truck:
Comment was received which indicated that both definitions
should include a phrase that a commercial motor vehicle or a
light truck is one which is larger than one ton. Changing
the definition would allow the typical residentially owned and
based welding trucks to be parked in residential areas without
screening or other impact abatement. These trucks are usually
one ton rated trucks that don't cause permanent pavement damage.
On the other hand the one ton truck is usually cumbersome and
aesthetically unpleasing. They may be difficult to keep on
site due to the size. Sometimes corner lot truck owners desire
additional curb cuts off of major arterials. It should also
be noted that some hazards might exist to children from these
trucks. Also, the City Thoroughfare Plan indicates as an
objective that truck traffic should be limited to designated
truck routes. Defining commercial motor vehicles and light
trucks to include
one ton vehicles means that parking of these one ton vehicles
would be permitted in residential areas.
ANALYSIS: The comprehensive Plan includes no specific prohibi-
tion against these trucks in residential areas and it would
seem that the truck traffic contemplated by the thoroughfare
plan to be restricted to truck routes does not specifically
include one ton vehicles. Therefore, changing the definitions
to include one ton vehicles would not frustrate the intent of
the comprehensive Plan.
2) Fence:
Ci tizen comment indicated that this definition should include
wrought iron fences or acceptable steel mesh fences. The
definition of fence relates specifically to decorative or
security fences placed on residential, commercial, light
-Chairman wilson and ~..~ bers of the Con~ission
City of LaPorte
--
Page 3
industrial, and industrial properties. For these purposes,
staff sees no problem with including wrought iron fences within
the definition. However, inclusion of "acceptable steel mesh
fences" within the definition would seem to permit ambiguity
and an inconsistent standard for enforcement which would allow
discretion for acceptable fences to be placed on City staff.
ANALYSIS: Amend the definition to include wrought iron fences,
but leave out "acceptable steel mesh fences II. It should be
noted that staff sees no impact based upon the goals set forth
in the comprehensive Plan.
3) Height:
Citizen comment indicated that the definition should include a
permissible height of forty-five (45) feet from grade. Since
heights are already regulated within the body of the Ordinance,
in Section 5-700 Table B (Residential), Section 6-500 Table B
(Commercial},and Section 7-600 Table B (Industrial) inclusion of
regulatory material in the definition section of the Ordinance
would be inappropriate.
ANALYSIS: Leave tllis section of the Ordinance unchanged.
4) Ranch Trailer:
Citizen comment indicated that a definition of ranch trailer
was not included in the proposed Ordinance. Inclusion of a
definition of ranch trailer would allow ranch trailers to be
parked as an accessory use in residential zones. Allowing
ranch trailers to be parked in residential zones is important,
particularly in the Lomax area, and should be permitted under
the current ordinance. Allowing ranch trailers to be parked in
the Lomax area would be in furtherance of the Comprehensive
Plan objective of allowing continuance of large lot rural
residential uses in the Lomax area. Therefore, the definition
should be included, and should be consistent with the definition
currently utilized in the City's truck route ordinance.
ANALYSIS: Include the definition consistent with the City's
truck route ordinance.
5) Loading Berth:
Citizen comment indicates that there is a need in the Ordinance
for a definition of loading berth. Again, inclusion of this
definition neither furthers nor detracts from the goal of the
Comprehensive Plan, and it is deemed by staff that inclusion of
a definition aids in the clarity and consistency of the Ordinance
from an enforcement standpoint.
'Chairman Wilson and '\mbers of Commission
, Ci ty of LaPorte
.
Page 4
ANALYSIS: Include a definition of loading berth, consistent
with the definition currently found in Ordinance 780.
6} Section 2-703:
Citizen comment indicates that this section which refers to
the determination of zoning district boundaries, is difficult
to understand and apply. Further citizen comment indicates it
is not applicable to large tracts under single ownership which
have several zoning districts within the property boundary
line. It appears that this section as written would have
clear and effective application on small (less than lOO feet'
in width) tracts of land. However, large tracts might present
a problem in that large areas of land might be effectively
rezoned based upon the application of this ordinance section,
and contrary to the intent of the Planners, the City Planning
Commission, and City Council. As opposed to changing the use
of certain property due to inclusion of that property within
different district boundary lines, City staff would recommend
that the current decision rule as applied in Ordinance 780-
Section 9105 continue to be applied. The Current Ordinance
section indicates that in the case of a district boundary line
dividing a property into two parts, the district boundary
lines shall be construed to be the property line nearest the
district boundary line as shown. By maintaining this decision
rule, the in-tent of the Comprehensive Plan is not frustrated
and a boundary line determination system is maintained that
the staff, the Commission, and local developers are comfortable
wi th .
ANALYSIS:
to language
780.
Change Section
contained in
2-703
Section
of the proposed
9-105 of current
Ordinance
Ordinance
7) Section 2-800:
Ci tizen comment indicates that this section, which establishes
the land use districts under the proposed Ordinance in the City
of LaPorte, indicate, based upon "restrictions", which uses are
more restrictive and which are less restrictive.
It should be noted that the proposed Ordinance, unlike our
current zoning Ordinance, does not provide for the inclusion of
residential uses in commercial or industrial districts, or
commercial uses in industrial districts, unless said residential,
commercial, or light industrial uses are specifically allowed
within a particular district as a permitted, conditional, or
accessory use as listed in the SIC Tables for each particular
zoning classification. The proposed Ordinance, through the use
of the SIC Codes, clearly outlines which uses are permitted,
'Chairman Wilson and e.-mbers of the Commission _
. Ci ty of LaPorte .
Page 5
conditional, or accessory within each particular district. The
terms "more restrictivell or "less restrictive II do not apply in
the proposed zoning Ordinance, and are not a useful means by
which to study the proposed zoning Ordinance. By way of further
explana tion, it should be noted that a reference to "more
restrictive", or "less restrictive", was contained in, Section
2-703. In the previous section, staff indicated, consistent
with the philosophy of the proposed zoning ordinance, that this
reference to "more restrictive", or "less restrictive", be
removed. Therefore, if the previous analysis is followed,
reference to "more restrictive", or less restrictive", is
moot, and should not be attempted.
ANALYSIS: Make no change in Section 2-800 of the proposed
zoning Ordinance.
8) Seeton 4-103:
Citizen comment indicates that this section, which applies to
setbacks in the case of through lots, does not state whether
the minimum setback of twenty (20) feet applies to the rear
yard or the front yard. Again, this is a matter of administration
and has little impact upon objectives as set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan, except for the general observation that
all required yard setbacks improve the safety and appearance
of the City. It should be noted that the requirement covered
in Section 4-l03 is substantially similar to our current
requirement for setbacks on double fronted lots as contained in
Section 10-400 of Ordinance 780.
ANALYSIS: Clarify according to the comment, and designate
that the minimum rear setback shall be twenty (20) feet in the
case of a through lot in a residential district.
9) Section 4-l04: Ci tizen comlnent indicates that this section
should be revised to effectively remove setbacks in the case of
commercial developments. Again, it should be noted that setbacks
in residential, commercial, and other developments do generally
further the goals of aesthetics and particulary safety as set
forth within the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that
the Planning & Zoning Commission has already required commercial
setbacks of twenty (20) feet in the recently passed Development
Ordinance.
ANALYSIS: In furtherance of the objectives set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that there be no change
to this section.
lO) Seeton 5-404 (2)(a)(2):
citizen comment indicates that this section, which pertains
the proximity of R3 structures from a public or private street
Chairman Wilson and r~bers of the Commission
City of LaPorte
e
Page 6
should be increased to correspond with the fire code requirement
that any residential buildings may be located within five
hundred (500) feet from a fire hydrant as the fire hose would
lay. It should be noted that the requirement mentioned in the
citizen comment pertains to single family dwellings and Section
5 -404 (2) ( a) ( 2 ) concerns i tsel f with the di stance tha't mul ti-
family developments are located from a public or a private
street. The current City of LaPorte fire code treats apartment
and other multi-family dwelling units as commercial, since they
are located in commercial zones under the current zoning
Ordinance. This current fire code requirement states that
commercial structures are to be located within 300 feet of a
fire hydrant as the hose would lay. Section 5-404 (2)(a)(2) of
the proposed zoning Ordinance does not address itself to fire
hydrant placement but rather addresses the distance that a
mUlti-family structure should be located from a public or
private street.
ANALYSIS: Both the distance of multi-family dwelling units
from a public or private street and the distance of said
structures from fire hydrants (as the hose would lay) are
valid locational criteria. For purposes of all emergency
vehicular access to said structures, 300 feet would seem to be
a reasonable distance, based upon current fire code practise
and based upon the requirement of 200 feet contained in the
proposed Ordinance locational criteria requirements.
ll) Section 5-404 (2)(a)(5):
Citizen comment indicates that the maximum length of a cul-de-
sac street should correspond with the length allowed by the
Federal Housing Administration and may be permitted as long as
the street has the standard fire hydrant spacing as required by
the fire department. Note that this section applies only to
private streets and multi-family developments. The maximum
length of 300 feet is measured to the nearest right-of-way line
of the intersecting public or private street. This ~tandard is
based on the reasoning that as dead-end length increases,
general circulation becomes more indirect, the number of vehicles
and traffic activity increase, emergency vehicular access
becomes more difficult and liable to misdirection, increased
problems occur for refuse collection, and dead-end utilities
would become a problem unless mitigated by proper planning.
ANALYSIS: Therefore, it is recommended that this section of
the Ordinance be left unchanged.
l2) Section 5-501:
Citizen comment indicates that other residential and supporting
uses may be permitted within the manufactured housing district
but that the supporting uses which are permitted are not defined.
'Chairman wilson and.mbers of the Commission ~
City of LaPorte _ ...
Page 7
Accessory, permissable, and conditional uses allowed in the MH
and all residential districts may be found in Section 5-600,
Table A (Residential) of the Ordinance. This is an exclusive and
exhaustive list.
ANALYSIS: Since supporting uses which are permitted in the MH
district are defined, no change would be recommended based
upon the comment.
13) Section 5-600:
Ci tizen comment indicates that a definition of single family-
dwelling special lot is needed. Section 5-600 Table A (Resi-
dential) specifies which uses are liable in the various resi-
dential districts, and it should be noted that single family
dwelling special lot is a use permitted in R-2, R-3, and MH
zones. However, it is not defined in the definitional section
of the Ordinance. A single family dwelling special lot is
intended to mean any single family dwelling located on a lot
of less than 6,000 square feet. Attention to Section 5-700
Table B (Residential) will show that the miminum proposed lot
area for a single family dwelling special lot is 4,500 square
feet. In our current Ordinance, provision is made for down
sized homes, but it is necessary that they- be located on the
same minimum lot size that regular single family detached
dwelling units are located on. This Ordinance makes special
reference to down size lots in both the case of a single family
dwelling special lot and single family dwelling zero lot line.
ANALYSIS: Include a definition of single family dwelling
special lot to mean a single family dwelling unit on a lot area
of less than 6,000 square feet but greater than 4,500 square feet.
l4) Section 5-700, Table B (Residential):
This table deals with lot areas, setbacks, heights, and lot
coverages as well as density in a residential district (including
manufactured housing). Citizen comment on this 'section is
pervasive. Each issue addressed by the citizen comment will be
analyzed separately. First, citizen comment indicates that the
maximum height permissable on a residential dwelling unit
should be increased to forty-five (45) feet from the currently
proposed thirty-five (35) feet for all residential uses. The
Comprehensive Plan does not detail particulars such as height
requirements, but does provide a residential objective of
relative uniformity of particular heights within districts
(such as Rl as opposed to R2, etc.). Current requirements for
height in single family detached dwelling units are two stories
above standard grades which would enable a house to be placed
on piers in the case of a home built in the flood plain, which
. Chairman \'lilson and Ambers of the Commission A
" City of LaPorte ,.., _
Page 8
is a problem prevalent in the LaPorte area. The citizen comment
indicates that increasing maximum height restrictions on single
family detached dwellings to forty-five (45) feet from thirty-
five (35) would allow homes to be built on stilts, and also
would allow homes to have the grade buildup of a brick facade
on the grading. Thirty-five (35) feet of height should allow
for standard two story homes built on stilts, particularly
when taking into account the fact that height, as defined, in
this Ordinance, takes the average of the roof height above
grade, as opposed to measuring from the peak of the roof to
grade to obtain your height figure. Therefore dwelling units
could actually be in excess of thirty-five (35) feet from the-
peak of the roof to grade, but would not be measured as such
under standard code procedures in this Ordinance. In addition,
it should be noted that our proposed flood zone Ordinance in
all cases, either maintains current flood zone standards, or
actually decreases flood zone requirements. Increase of a
residential permissable height in a single family detached
dwelling unit district would possibly provide for a lack of
uniformity among adjoining homes in a particular neighborhood.
On the other hand, there would be no impact regarding the
ability of emergency equipment to service a forty-five (45) foot
home, and in any case forty-five (45) feet as a permissable
height for duplexes, townhouses, or multiple family dwelling
units would not seem be inappropriate.
ANALYSIS: Leave the height restriction at thirty-five (35)
feet for single family detached, and discuss the need to in-
crease the height limitation to forty-five (45) feet for dup-
lexes, townhouses, quadraplexes, and multiple family dwelling
units according to citizen comment.
The next citizen comment on Table B relates to density for single
family detached dwelling units. Citizen comment indicates that
density should be increased from 4.5 dwelling units per acre
to 4.8 dwelling units per acre. Also, in multiple family
dwelling units citizen comment indicates that the density
should be increased from the currently proposed 25".6 dwelling
units per acre to 27 dwelling units per acre, which is the
current requirement under Ordinance 780. The subject of resi-
dential density received exhaustive coverage and debate by the
Steering Committee. Review of the Citizen Committee Report,
together with pertinent sections of the Comprehensive Plan,
reveal mixed ideas regarding density figures. The issue is of
major importance when correlated to LaPorte's long term popula-
tion projections, the ability of the City to provide services
for a fixed number of population, and overall crO\\Tding and
urban density wi thin a 1 imi ted geographic area. However, the
changes are minor and would materially impact the City's ability
Chairman wilson and ~bers of the Commission
La Porte, Texas
.
Page 9
to provide services in the long run. Increased density also
means increased tax revenues, increased parkland dedication,
and a greater investment return to the developer. Taking
either set of density figures (out of those proposed in the
Ordinance, or those proposed in the citizen comment), the
application of the Development Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance,
and other Ordinances to any developments will assure adequate
open space, and parkland for residents by developments within
the City of La Porte. It should also be noted that the parti-
cular density per acre figures for the various residential
uses correlate directly to the yard sizing and coverage require- ,
ments expressed in Section 5-700. However, the changes sugges-
ted are minor and it would seem that even the new proposed
density figures would corrulate with the yard sizing and cover-
age requirements contained within the current Ordinance.
ANALYSIS: Even though the Steering Committee had mixed feelings
regarding the particular density and lot coverage requirements
in Section 5-700, Table B (Residential), it should be pointed
out that the lot area, setback, density, and lot coverage
requirements as expressed in Section 5-700, Table B (Residential)
are premised upon the Comprehensive Plan, and were arrived at
after exhaustive discussion by the Steering Committee. The
Planning & Zoning Commission is free to look at these require-
ments and discuss them from the Steering committee's, Citizen's,
and the Developer's perspective, however the numbers as presented
in Table B (Residential) should be given deference based upon
the exhaustive review that had been performed by the Steering
Committee. However, 4.8 dwelling units per acre density for
single family detached, and 27 dwelling units per acre density
for multi-family dwellings are also clearly within acceptable
density perimeters for density within the respective districts
as set forth in the land use plan, and a change to the suggested
figures should not negatitively impact the
Comprehensive Plan or frustrate its intent.
15) Section 5-800 C:
Citizen comment indicates that this section which provides that
architectural appearance and functional plan of buildings that
are permitted by conditional use permit procedures should be
consistent with existing buildings and the residential area in
which they are located is overly broad and lIimpossible to
enforce in regard to all property ownersll. Ordinarily, a
section regarding the architectural appearance and functional
compatibility of a particular proposed use to the surrounding
area would be too subjective and difficult to enforce fairly.
However, Section 5-800 deals with special conditional use
performance standards in residential neighborhoods. This means
that any use so effected would be in the conditional use permit
,Chairman Wilson and~bers of the Commission ...
. City of LaPorte ,., ~
Page 10
procedure, and particularly would deal with residential PUD's,
or manufactured housing parks within residential neighborhoods,
or MH districts, respectively. Since the conditional use permit
procedure specifically deals with a case by case approval of a
project, within the guidelines as established in the Ordinance,
it would seem that a subjective compatability standard is appro-
priate, particularly since only uses that would have a major
impact, on the surrounding neighborhoods are subjected to the
Conditional Use Permit procedure.
ANALYSIS: Leave this section as is.
16) Section 6-500:
Citizen comment indicates that the a maximum height in Neighbor-
hood Commercial districts should be increased to 45 feet from
the presently proposed 35 feet. The proposed change of 35 feet
to 45 feet would not adversely effect any use established in
the Comprehensive plan, and it would not deter the ability of
the City to provide fire protection to neighborhood commercial
uses. Increasing the height from 35 feet to 45 feet would
bring Neighborhood Commercial district height requirements into
line with General Commercial district height requirements and
mUlti-family Residential district height requirements.
ANALYSIS: Change the height requirment in neighborhood commer-
cial from 35 feet to 45 feet.
17) Section 6-600:
Ci tizen comment indicates that glass covered lights should be
allowed without being subject to having a sourcehooded or
directed away from a right-of-way or residence. The intent of
this section is to prevent lighting from causing a traffic
hazard to right-of-ways and prevent excessive glare into a
residence. This proposed change would allow the use of a typi-
cal mercury vapor yard light. On the other hand, this type of
un-hooded lighting can cause excessive glare to a' residence.
Vapor lighting is usually not directionally intense enough to
cause traffic hazards except in the case of heights of less
than l2 feet.
ANALYSIS: Hercury vapor lights can be hooded or screened to
prevent the light source from being visable from a right-of-way
or residence. This requirement should remain as written as
there is some liability involved to the City with the
removal of this requirment.
18) Section 6/600 (B)5:
Citizen comment indicates that the additional five foot set back
required behind the screening fence for every foot of height of
.Chairman Wilson and~. bers of the Commission ~
, Ci ty of LaPorte . .
Page 11
stored material above that fence should be deleted. This
requirement was intended to screen stored materials from rights-
of-way and public view. Such screening would prevent the visa-
bility of large unsightly stored items. On the other hand, it
makes it increasingly difficult for commercial contractors to
store large equipment such as cranes, back-hoes, etc. and have
them screened effectively. It is a goal of the Comprehensive
Plan to improve the overall image and appearance of the community.
The screening and setback requirements in this section further
that objective.
ANALYSIS: Planning and Zoning should carefully consider the
goals of the comprehensive plan for screening versus the pratical
aspects of the application of this section and make a decision
therefrom.
19) Section 8-200:
Ci tizen comment indicates that clarification is necessary on
which rules apply to a P.U.D. District and which rules apply to
a P. u. D. developed within a residential, commercial or industrial
district. Due to the complexity of planned unit developments
in general, the regulations concerning planned unit development
with in the ordinance are quite detailed and specific. Carefull
study is indicated in order to ascertain the differences between
which rules apply to a P. U. D. District and which rules apply
a P. U. D. within a residential, crnnmercial or industrial distri-
ction. In Section 8-200, It is indicated that in land zone P.
U. D. on the zoning map, all uses that are permitted in the
residential, commercial, and industrial districts are permitted
in that P. U. D. zone. This is different from material covered
in Article lO, which relates to a Planned unit development
within a residential, commercial or industrial district in
which the allowable use would be limited to the allowable uses
within the particular residential, commercial, or industrial
district.
20) Section 8-402 (8):
Citizen comment indicates that this section needs to state the
dwelling unit per acre requirments for a P. U. D. District.
The Section in this case is clear that dwelling unit density
requirements within a P. U. D. Zone for each particular use are
to be in general complaince with the applicable district provi-
sions. Therefore, density for the residential portion of the
P. U. D. or commercial portion of a P. U. D. etc. shall be
identical to the residential density in a regular residential
district, or a commercial density in a commercial district.
Provided, however that in Section lO-103 of the Zoning Ordinance,
a density bonus is allowed and enables developers in either a
Chairman Wilson and _mbers of the Commisssion __
City of LaPorte
Page 12
P. U. D. Zone or developing a planned-unit development within a
particular zone to increase their densities according to the
terms of the ordinance.
2l) Section 8-402 (10):
ci tizen ccrnment indicates that the requirement that the planned
unit development be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
be deleted. As noted above, there is a legal requirement that
all zoning be pursuant to and based upon a Comprehensive Plan.
This is particularly true in the case of a planned unit development
in that the particular uses proposed in the planned development
unit are proposed by the developer and are not set forth in
concrete like permitted uses within a particular zone. If this
section would be deleted, the legal basis for inclusion of
Planned Unit Developments within the zoning ordinance would
fail and planned unit developments would not be available for
developers in the community.
ANALYSIS: Keep this requirement in the ordinance.
22) Section 8-403:
Citizen imput indicates that the 12 month limitation on conditional
use permits is too short and should be lengthened to 3 to 5
years. The intent in the Comprehensive Plan is that this require-
ment allow the city to maintain at least minimal, control of
growth without an open ended blanket approval. This 12 month
period is for conditional use permits only. The conditional use
is a use within a zone that may have substantial impact on the
zone where it is located. It is usually the most intense use
allowed within a zone. These permits require planning and zoning
and council approval. This limitation allows time for development
but is limited to l2 months with an additional 12 months when an
extension is granted. The time period is limited in case the
conditions of the surrounding area change in a manner,that would
effect the P. U. D. and i ts respective condi tinal use permit.
Three to five years allows too much time for the rest of the
area to change. Structures built in that period could have a
substantial impact on 'the P. U. D. and the City as a whole. It
should be further noted that there has been a major problem in
the past for the planning and zoning commission and City Council
to approve re-zoning on a particular piece of property wi thin
the city based upon a particular proposed use, only to find that
the propsed use does not take place for whatever reason, but the
end result being an excessive amount of vacant land lying within
the City without effective zoning control, and without develop-
ment. By placing an automatic termination on a conditional use
permit, these high-impact uses will not be allowed to continue
indefinitely, but rather will force the developer to keep in
. Chairman \<Tilson and ....bers of the Conunission .... _
. City of LaPorte ..,..
Page 13
constant touch with the City Staff, the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council to monitor the progress of the deve-
lopment and the developer's desire to see the development through
to completion. Any developer who is serious about developing
property will find it to be in his or her economic interest to
proceed with the completion of that development as quickly as
possible, particularly in cases where property is lying vacant
and developers are paying an interim construction financing
loan. Finally, the proposed Zoning Ordinance outlines specific
standards that must be met in order for a developer to obtain a
conditional use permit on a particular piece of property. If
the standards are met by the developer, the developer is in
compliance with the ordinance,and the developer should be entitled
to obtain a conditional use permit, and should also be entitled
to obtain extensions and reapproval of the conditional use permit
by the planning and zoning commission and city Counc il. Addi-
tional effort is required by this ordinance on the part of the
developer to stay in constant contact with staff in one year
increments, but this would not seem to be an unreasonable require-
ment in place of the alternative of letting land lie vacant with
the conditional use permit for an indefinite period of time, and
without Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council control
of the continued changing use surrounding the propety.
ANALYSIS: Leave this section as is.
23) Section 8-404 (B):
Citizen comment indicates that a minor change in a major or
minor development site plan should not require resubmission of a
new general plan. This is in the Ordinance section that provides
and indicates that if a developer1s plans change, the developer
should notify City staff of the change by the filing of a new
General Plan. Please recall that in the Development Ordinance
that was recently passed, the General Plan deals with developments
that are constructed in stages. Thus a change in the order in
which the stages are constructed, or a change in the type of
construction that would be utilized within a particular stage,
requires under the terms of the Development Ordinance, a new
General plan filing. Section 8 404 (B) correlates the approval
procedure for a P. U. D. within a Planned Unit Development
District with the Development Ordinance submission requirements.
In order for a developer to build a P. U. D., both the Development
Ordinance requirements and the Zoning Ordinance requirements
must be met. In the case of IIminor change II in a Hajor or Minor
Development Site Plan, resubmission requirements for a new General
plan or a Major or Minor Development Site Plan is covered by the
terms of the Development Ordinance, with the zoning ordinance
reference being to the particulars contained wi thin the Development
Ordinance.
. Chairman Wilson and~mbers of the Commission 4t
City of LaPorte .
Page 14
ANALYSIS: Do not change this section, but perhaps make a clear
reference to the Development Ordinance sections that apply.
24) Section 10-101 (4):
Ci tizen comment indicates that this section, which again deals
with construction schedules for multistage planned unit develop-
ments should be approximate only and used as a general guideline,
as opposed to being a concrete start and end date. The intent
of the section is to provide only approximate starting dates and.
completion dates, and to the extent that the section mandates
definite starting and completion dates of construction, the
wording should be changed to give general guideline dates.
ANALYSIS: In the last sentence of Section 10-10l (4), the word
"approximate" should be inserted before starting date and comple-
tion date of the complete development plan.
25) Section lO-lOl 6(C):
Citizen comment indicates that the term "sufficient amount of
usuable open spacell in this section is somewhat vague. This is
the section that outlines the basic requirements that a P. U. D.
must meet in order to gain i ts conditional use permit. As with
other sections in the P. u. D. area the term II sufficient II is
used to allow the developer to have increased flexibility which
is one of the basic advantages in developing a P. U. D. Note
that in other areas of this section the quote is made that the
P. U. D. should be in substantial complaince with the regulation
of the uses that will be developed within the parameters of the
P. U. D. The intent of ,the Plan was that sufficient in this
usage should correlate with the open space requirements for the
particular uses that will be developed within the planned unit
development. This section is nonspecific in order to allow
f1exabili ty to the developer in the design of a planned unit
development. Any amendment to this section that wquld define
II sufficient amount of open space" would remove flexibility from
the planned unit development procedures.
ANALYSIS: Leave this - section as is or add a qualification to
this section that relates the term IIsufficient open space" to
general compliance with the open space requirements outlined
elsewhere in the ordinance.
26) Section 10-l02 (e):
Citizen comment indiates that there is no need for the review of
deed restrictions by the City Attorney to insure that they comply
with F. H. A. Deed Restrictions. The review of these deed
restrictions by the City Attorney is needed to insure compliance
with both the F. H. A. Requirements and deed restriction require-
ments as they may appear elsewhere in this document. As deed
. Chairman Wilson and Jaimbers of the Commission
Ci ty of LaPorte .
.
Page 15
restrictions are legal documents required by th City of La Porte,
the City Attorney must review for complaince with state and
other pertinent laws and standards, and also to ensure that the
Ci ty of La Porte is not liable for inappropriate material that
may be contained within these deed restrictions.
ANALYSIS: Leave this section as written.
27) Section lO-103:
Citizen comment indicates that the heading of this subsection
should indicate whether or not it pertains to planned development,
units within P. U. D. districts or planned unit developments
contained within a particular district. The heading of the
entire section 10-lOO series within the ordinance pertains to
planned unit development procedures which would indicate that it
references to either planned unit developments within the P. U.
D. Districts or planned unit development contained
within a particular district.
ANALYSIS: For purposes of clarity, add the title material
requested.
28) Section 10-l04:
Citizen comment indicates that the heading of this section should
indicate that it pertains to P. U. D.'s.
ANALYSIS: See comment on 27 supra.
29) Section 10-201 (4):
Citizen comment again indicates that the one year limitation on
conditional use permit should be extended to a three to five
year period.
~~ALYSIS: See discussion of item No. 22 above.
30) Section 10-302 (7):
Citizen comment indicates that this section, which prohibits
accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling
structures or condensors from being located in required sideyards
should be amended to allow air condi tioning/ cooling structures
and condensers within said required side yards. This section
was intended to prevent noise producing equipment from being
located adjacent to the neighbor's bedroom window. This provision
could help relieve noise pollution and the some what unsightly
units from the side yards. Modern technology has, however,
resulted in a much quieter unit that is usually not offensive to
the neighbors. It should also be noted that some floorplans of
,Cnairman Wilsom and imbers of the Commission
. City of LaPorte
e
Page l6
certain homes dictate the location of this within the side yard.
The Des ign of modern residential developments tends to provide
for this contingency, by staggering or al ternating the location
of air conditioning equipment so that said equipment is not
located next to or close to adjoinging residential structures.
However, it should also be noted that placement of said units in
a side yard tends to discourage access from a front yard to a
rear yard, particularly in cases of dense development. Finally,
it should be noted that this section applies only to accessory
uses or equipment being located in required side yards. There-
fore, if an individual has a side yard in excess of the basic
requirements, the said cooling structures or equipment can be,
located in the side yard, to the extent that the required setback
is maintained from the cooling structure equipment to the property
line.
ANALYSIS: Amend this section to allo\'1 air conditioning cooling
structures and condensers in required side yards.
31) Section 10-603:
Citizen comments indicates that this section, which generally
requires a submission of Certified Site Plan drawings in case of
building and zoning permits, but also further particularly "en-
courages" developers to submit a Certified Site Plan in case of
resurfacing of an existing parking lot, be amended to not encou-
rage the submission of a Certified Site Plan in case of the
re-surfacing of an existing parking lot. The intent of this
section is to encourage re-surfacing of an existing parking lot
in compliance with the new parking standards as established in
this ordinance, which also would mean adherance to new and appro-
priate standards regarding maneuverability and parking lot design,
together with drainage improvements that might be necessary to
alleviate flooding. It should be noted, however, that any exi-
sting parking lot is a legally established pre-existing use
under the terms of this ordinance, and complaince with this
section cannot be mandated, without radically changing the treat-
ment of pre-existing uses in the ordinance as a whole~ In fact,
strict application of this section might encourage a developer
to actually not resurface an exiting parking lot when re-surfacing
is actually called f~r for basic safety and maneuverability
reasons.
ANALYSIS: Remove the language in this ordinance section encoura-
ging the applicant to submit a Certified Site Plan that adheres
new design standards for parking lots that are to be resurfaced.
32. Section lO-605:
Citizen comment indicates that this section, which prescribes
design standards or requirements assessory to parking under this
. . Chairman Wilson and embers of the Commission e
City of LaPorte -
Page 17
ordinance be amended to allow parking II in all set-back areas II.
This section of the ordinance does not prohibit parking in any
particular set back area, and in deed the ordinance as a whole
only prohibits parking in set-back areas in the case of parking
lots of five or more spaces that directly abut a residential
district (in which case the ordinance requires that the parking
lot be screened from the abutting residential district), or in
the case of property being located on a designated parkway, no
use shall be provided, including parking within twenty (20) feet
of the parkway right-of-way. These are the only two instances
in the whole ordinance in which parking and set-backs conflict.
The design standards and criteria established in this ordinance
are much more liberal than our current parking design standards
and requirements. Further, from a standpoint of legal liablity,
the City of La Porte must require driveway and parking lot design
to specifically mitigate the chances of vehiculuar accidents so
that the City of La Porte would not be in a liability posture in
the case of accidents that could be attributed to poor driveway
design.
ANALYSIS: Do not amend section lO-605 of the Ordinance.
33) Section ll-lOl:
Ci tizen irnput on this section indicates that developers issued
building permits prior to the effective date of this ordinance
should be allowed to continue their construction as per the
building permit which they were iss ued. This section states
that construction must begin within a six month period. If it
is not the building permit is void. This comment is taken directly
fram the building code and in no way prevents current construction
from continuing if permitted before the effective date of the
ordinance.
ANALYSIS: Leave this section as written.
34) Section 11-102:
Ci tizen comment requests that this section of the ordinance,
which deals with the expiration of building permits issued under
this ordinance and the Southern Standard Building Code adopted
by the City of La Porte be deleted. The ordinance provides that
the failure to commence any work described in a building permit
issued under this ordinance within 180 days from the date of
issuance of the permit, causes building permit to expire and be
cancelled. This requires the applicant to apply for and be
issued a new building permit prior to subsequent commencement of
work. It should be noted that this language is copied verbatim
from the standard building permits currently issued by the City
of La Porte under the terms of our current ordinance no. 780,
the Southern Standard Building Code that has been adopted by the
Chairman Wilson and~mbers of the Commission 4t
Ci ty of LaPorte . "
Page 18
City Council of the City of La Porte, and the proposed ordinance.
Removal of this section from the Ordinance would not remove the
requirement, since this ordinance section correlates Zoning
ordinance requirements to existing building code requirements,
so that builders will have every opportunity to know that the
requirement exists, and so our zoning regulations are clear and
consistent with our building code regulations.
ANALYSIS: Leave this section of the ordinance as is.
35) Section ll-606(2)(c)(2):
Citizen comments indicate that the definition of lIunneccessary
hardships II, as defined, be changed to include economic hardship
as well as physical hardship. State law and court cases clearly
and repetitively specify that lIunneccesary hardshipll shall mean
physicial hardship relating to the property itself as distinguished
from hardship relating to convenience, financial considerations
or caprice and that the hardship must not result from the applicant
or property owner's own actions. The City of La Porte would
adopt an ordinance that is not consistent with State Law and
court decisions if this definition was changed to include mere
economic hardship.
ANALYSIS: This section of the ordinance should remain as is.
36) Section 11-612:
Citizen comment recommends that an applicant who is denied a
variance, special exception or appeal would not be able to reapply
for a new variance, special exception, or appeal from a determina-
tion of the zoning administrator from the board of adjustment
for a period of six months after the original denial. This
would change the proposed zoning requirement that would deny
reapplication for a period of one year from the date of the
original denial. Current Ordinance 780 provides that there
should be no reapplication for a period of one yea~ from the
date of original denial. This provision has not caused difficulty
and has not been a problem in the past. Shorting the period
from one year to six months might make this ordinance section a
problem due to increased work load on the board of adjustment
and city staff.
ANALYSIS: Leave this section of the ordinance as is.
37) R-3 Zone:
Citizen input indicates that the high density residential zone
in the proposed Ordinance is not necessary, particularly since
there might be cases in which these districts would be adjoining
traditional low density single family detached residential zones,
Chairman ~lilson and ~mbers of the Commission .-
Ci ty of LaPorte ..,
Page 19
which might adversely impact the R-l zone property values in such
cases. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to place high
density residential developments into a high density residential
zone, as opposed to the current Ordinance' s placement of high
density residential uses in the broad based commercial classifi-
cation. Further, tbe Comprehensive Plan indicates that provision
of bigh density residential dwelling units is crucial for the
future ecomomic development of the City. The Steering Committee
ratified the sentiments of the Planners and the Comprehensive
Plan by suggesting that a high density residential district be
provided in the Zoning Ordinance. There would seem to be little
if any evidence to indicate that location of an R-3 adjacent t6
an R-l zone would have any ad verse impact upon the R-1 zone
property value, particularly if the screening and setback require-
ments of the proposed Ordinance are met.
ANALYSIS: Retain the R-3 residential district provisions in
their current form.
38) P.U.D. Districts:
Citizen comment indicated a concern about the placement of planned
unit developments within an existing or proposed R-l neighborhood.
The proposed Ordinance contains strict locational and impact
abatement criteria that should mitigate significantly the impact
of any P. U. D . within any R-l neighborhood. For example, the
proposed Ordinance requires a minimum size of three acres in
order to place any P. U. D. wi thin an R-l zone. This will effectively
alleviate tbe placement of a P.U.D. into such a zone, except in
cases in which significant vacant land exists (in an existing
neighborhood), or in cases of new subdivision or site plan
development in undeveloped areas. In addition, P.U.D.' s within
R-l zones must comply with all R-l district regulations on the
perimeter of the P.U.D., including density, setback, and lot
coverage requirements, so that R-l homes abutting the P.U.D. will
face R-l development identical to R-l development required in any
case. Further, the Comprehensive Plan contemplates P.U.D.
development as an effective planning and development tool for all
districts, providing developers with flexibility in the development
design.
ANALYSIS: Keep the plan unit development regulations in their
current form.
39) Greenway Corridors:
Citizen comments has indicated that the term "Greenway Corridor"
needs to be defined; that the Comprehensive Plan does not
appropriately designate Greenway Corridors and these corridors
, . Chairman Wilson and .mbers of the Commission .
City of LaPorte
Page 20
are not located so as to provide the highest and best use of
certain property; that when Greenway Corridors are located by the
Comprehensive Plan on the zoning map, that the City of La Porte
should purchase them: and there should be no additional setback
requirements imposed on uses located adjacent to Greenway Corri-
dors. It is clear that a definition for Greenway Corridor needs
to be included in the Ordinance. Further, the Ordinance contains
detailed and complex requirements regarding said Corridors.
These requirements need to be discussed very carefully by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and a determination needs to be
made regarding the relationship of these Ordinance sections to
the goals established in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehen-
sive Plan establishes city-wide networks for open space, recrea-
tional facilities, parkland, and conservation needs. If these
goals are to be adopted as desirable by the City Council, provi-
sions should be made for parkland location, open spaces, recrea-
tional facilities, and conservation areas and other areas of
scenic preservation on the map and within the text of the Zoning
Ordinance. The Steering Committee, based upon the recomendation
from the planning consultants, adopted these objectives as sound.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, when it passed the Open
Apace and Pedestrain System Plan, the Recreational Facilities
Plan, and the Beautification and Conservation Plan also adopted
inclusion of these amenities and needs as a litigimate goal for
the City of La Porte. The Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map as
proposed attempts to provide for the above-mentioned goals and
needs, and also attempts to establish locations for these ameni-
ties. As proposed, Greenway Corridors are locations of parks,
conservation areas and related open spaces upon certain desig-
nated zoning map locations. The vast majority of these map
designations are included in currently existing public right-of-
way. The Ordinance also requires that properties developed
adjacent to any designated Greenway Corridor at a minimur.1 setbac]<
of twenty (20) feet from said Corridor. The setback is from
either the Greenway Corridor itself or the rightof-way line.
The setback pertains to all developments, from single family
residential to industrial. Maintenance of the setback areas is
by private citizens and by the public sector on the public right-
of-ways. This maintenance scenario sets up a situation of ack-
ward maintenance responsibility.
ANALYSIS: Greenway Corridors need to be defined in the Ordinance.
All Greenway Corridors should be privately owned and subject to
the setback requirement, except for Greenway Corridors located
adjacent to single family residential developments, in which case
the setback would only apply if the development is located adjacent
to a designated conservation district, located as such on the
zoning map. In the case of multi-family developments, the setback
would apply next to the Greenway Corridor, however, the mul ti-
family developer would receive credit under the Parkland Dedication
Chairman Wilson and embers of the Committee
City of LaPorte
.
Page 21
Requirement of the City of La Porte Development Ordinance and
would also receive a density bonus in the Zoning Ordinance. The
Greenway Corridor may become a public Greenway Corridor when and
if it is designated as such on the zoning map. Public Greenway
Corridors are to be acquired by the City of La Porte and main-
tained by the City of La Porte. For the purpose of this section
all commercial and industrial uses \V'ill be treated in the same
manner as single-family residential uses. The City of La Porte
should purchase and maintain or allow the development to proceed
without meeting the setback requirements accept in zoning map
designated conservation districts.
40) Parkway Corridor
Ci tizen comment indicates that the twenty (20) foot setback on
property adjacent to designated parkway corridors is inappropriate.
There will be affect of these requirements until and unless
parkways are designated on the zoning map. The intent of the
comprehensive plan and designated park1Jo,ay and setbacks adjacen't
to parkways is to achieve city beautification and to establish an
image of enviromental quality and concern with the City of La
Porte. Entry threshholds are an introgal part of the parkway
system as discussed in the city throughofare and beautification
plans passed by the City of La Porte Planning and Zoning Commission.
This setback is to be landscaped and maintained by the respective
property owners.
ANALYSIS: If the Planning and Zoning Commission wishes to achieve
the objectives of the Comprehensive plan the Ordinance sections
regarding parkways and parkway corridors should be retained. If
however, these requirements prove to be too costly then they
should be removed.
4l) Parking and Curb Requirements:
Citizen imput indicates that the term curb needs to be defined
to allow convenitial curb stops as well as poured curbing if
desired.
ANALYSIS: Staff sees no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and
this addition to the definition of section to allow curb stops
as opposed to solid curbs. This addition will make parking lot
drainage substainta11y easier to obtain and less costly.
42) Additional Setback Adjacent to Major Throughofares:
Citizen imput indicates that the requirement of an additional
five foot to ten foot setback of a structure from a major through-
of are should be deleted. Review of this requirement indicates
tha t proper throughofare planning as contained in the througho-
fare Flan removes the need for future right-of-way acquisition
and widening.
Chairman Wilson and.~ mbers of the Commission ..
. City of LaPorte .,
Page 22
ANALYSIS: Without additional demonstrated need, this requirement
should be removed pursuant to the citizen impute
43) Section 4-10l:
Citizen comment indicates that throughofares designated on the
throughofare plan (but in which no right-of-way currently exists)
should not be an impediment to the location of buildings, unless
the right-of-way is purchased by the City of La Porte.
ANALYSIS: This requirement all ready exists within the Development
Ordinance. With limited space, the addition of buildings within
designated throughofare locations could ultimately make future
throughofare right-of-way acquisition prohibitively costly.
Also, the City of La Porte is not the only public entity responsible
for throughofare acquisition, and coordination among these public
governments is critical. Frustration of ultimate throughofare
acquisition could prove virtually fatal to the economic development
of the City of La Porte. This section should be left as is.
44) Section lO-605 (lO):
Citizen comment indicates that the five foot setback required
surrounding parking areas is not needed. Further the requirement
of a solid curb surrounding the parking area is questioned.
Anaylsis indicates no particularly safety or asthitic concern
addressed by these requirements.
ANALYSIS: Only require curb stops instead of solid curbs and
only where the parking lot adjoins public right-of-ways. Also,
only require the five foot setback on parking areas adjacent to
public right-of-ways. Note that no landscaping requirements are
mention in this five foot setback area.
Respectfully submitted,
John D. Armstrong
David Paulissen
John Joerns
e
e
MINUTES OF THE
LA PORTE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 29, 1985 MEETING
1. At 7:04 p.m. Chairman Andy Wilson called the meeting to
order.
Members of the Commission Present: Chairman Andy Wilson,
Charlie Doug Boyle, Karl Johnston, Janet Graves, R. J.
Blackwell, Ed Murphree
Members of the Commission' Absent: Lola Phillips
Citv Staff Present: Chief Building Official David
Paulissen, Director Community Development John Joerns,
Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Assistant City
Manager Richard Hare, Executive Secretary Gwen Vann
Others Present: Bayshore Sun's Barbara Neal, Citizens Mrs.
Adair Sullivan, Mrs. Helen McFerren, Mr. Eddie Gray, Ms.
Janet Gray, Mr. Rufus Smith, Mr. Doyle Westergren and
several other interested citizens.
2. Chairman Andy Wilson asked that Mr. Ed Murphree come forth
and take the Oath of Office from Assistant City Attorney
John Armstrong as a new member of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
After being sworn in to Planning and Zoning Commission,
Chairman Wilson asked that Mr. Murphree share a few things
about himself to the Commission.
3. Chairman Wilson indicated that Mrs. Adair Sullivan had
submitted a letter to the Commission. The minutes of the
August 15, 1985 meeting, along with Mrs. SullivanJs letter
was presented to the Commission for approval. Time was
given for Mr. Blackwell to look over the minutes as he had
not read them.
Janet Graves made a motion to aoorove the minutes and also
the letter presented bv Mrs. Adair Sullivan and Bobby
Blackwell seconded the motion. The motion carried with
6 aves; 0 naves.
4. Chairman Wilson commended the staff on the good job they
did in putting their ideas that were received from the
public into report form. He indicated that the staff had
put the public input into special categories. Chairman
Wilson entertained that after reading the staff
presentation section by section that we get a vote on each
y~-
.
e
Minutes of the Planning and Zoning
August 29, 1985
Page 2
section, and if that item is too complicated than another,
we can abort that idea and move to item by item.
. .
~ . ....
.... . .... -. .-.. .. -.. -~..,. . - .. .
At this point, Mr. Boyle did not want to vote on any of
staff recommendation until discussed in more detail.
Chairman Wi~son explained that if the Commission goes
through the staff recommendation item by item, and there
needs to be any changes, then they can discuss it. Andy
disagreed that Commission should not move forward because
it has been worked on for some time and he indicated that
all he was doing is setting ground work.
Bobby Blackwell said he could not see any problem with
Chairman Wilson's suggestion.
David Paulissen, Chief Building Official passed out a
memorandum on the ProDosed Zoning Ordinance, Analvsis of Public
Hearing Comments (see copy attached to minutes)
John Armstrong, Assistant City Attorney commended the citizens
of La Porte for their excellent input. He then introduced
Chief Building Official David Paulissen who said the staff had
attempted to compare the comments with the Comprehensive Plan
and Staff's position would be to recommend favorably upon the
citizen input if the Comprehensive Plan isn't stymied.
Page 2 of Memo -
Item 1) Definition of Commercial Motor Vehicle and Light Truck:
Parking. of. one ton: trucks in a residential.- Staff feels that
in a case where a resident makes his living, he should be
allowed to park his truck at his resident and staff saw no
problem with this.
2) Fen~e:
Staff felt wrought iron fence could benefit the city and
wouldn't interfere with the Comprehensive Plan, however they
had a problem with acceptable steel mesh fences. Staff
recommended that acceptable steel mesh fences be left out of
the description but they felt good about wrought iron fence
because it is such a specific term and felt it could well
benefit the city and in no way would defeat the purpose of the
.
e
Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985
Page 3
Comprehensive Plan.
3) Height
Citizen comment on height saying the permissible height of
45 feet should be included within the description. Staff
recommendation was not to place this specific height
limitation within the definition.
4) Ranch Trailer
Staff sees no possible conflict with the Comprehensive Plan
to include a definition of Ranch Trailer so what staff did
was to take that definition from the truck route ordinance
and include it here.
5) Loading Berth
Citizens input was correct that this definition was not
included but as with other comments, staff sees no conflict
within the Comprehensive Plan and recommends that this be
included.
6) Page 21 of Memo -
Item 41 - Parking & Curb Requirements:
Citizen input felt that the words "curb stop" should be the
definition here. Staff has no problem with the typical
curb stop and therefore we are not creating a problem with
sheet draining of a parking lot or things of the nature.
The other term "parkway corridor" w~s mentioned here but
the staff wanted to wait until they take the section on
beautification, landscaping, etc. This concluded the
definition section.
Chairman Wilson entertained a motion that we accept the public
recommendations dealing with the definitions.
Bobby Blackwell made a motion to accept the .public and staff
recommendations, Karl Johnston seconded it, but there was other
discussion concerning the height. David Paulissen Chief
Buildin"g Official read the definition of height in the
ordinance to clear up some questions. He indicated that this
did not pertain to three-story bUildings. Specific height
requirements will be discussed at a later date. The next
.
.
Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985
Page 4
question was concerning definition on Ranch Trailer. John
Armstrong indicated that the truck route ordinance has the word
for word definition in commentary.
After this discussion, Chairman Wilson said since the motion
was seconded, all in favor, signify by saying "Aye", all
opposed, Motion carried adopting definitions.
Chairman Wilson suggested Commission begin with Section 2.
6) Section 2-70~
Staff's decision on this was to Change Section 2-703 of the
proposed ordinance to read as contained in Section 9-105 of
current Ordinance 780 since developers were pleased with the
way to current ordinance read.
7) Section 2-800
Staff recommended that no change be made in this section of the
proposed zoning ordinance.
Chairman Wilson entertained a motion be made on Section 2.
Motion made bv Janet Graves, Seconded bv Bobbv Blackwell.
There was no opDosition, the motion carried.
Chairman Wilson asked that we move to Section 4.
8) Section 4-10~
This section deals with a through-lot situation.
citizens in its wording. The 20-foot is to apply
setback in the case of a through lot situation in
district.
Unclear to
to a rear
a residential
9) Sec~ion 4-104
. f .
Citizen comment was to remove setbacks in the case of
commercial developments. When compared to Comprehensive Plan,
staff recommended that there be no change to this section.
Chairman Wilson indicated that setbacks were a vitally
important part of any type of comprehensive plan or plan.
.
.
Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
Au.gust 29, .1985 : .
Page 5
Commissioner Blackwell was concerned that a 20-ft. setback
s~emed like a~ awful lot of property. Is this necessary for
the plan.
" .' . ,-.
Chief Building Official David Paulissen gave a brief discussion
op the need for setbacks. He explained some of the problems
that we have seen in the past with reference to rear setbacks,
and in comparing this to the Master Plan, it was in the
furtherance of the Master Plan, so staff feels there is no
other option but to leave this section as is.
Chairman Wilson recommended that we adopt Section 4
recommendations as Dresented. Motion bv Janet Graves, Seconded
by Karl Johnston. Motion carried with no opDosition.
10) Section 5-404 (2) (a) (2):
This section deals with Citizen input pertaining to proximity
of a multi-family dwelling structure from a public or private
street. This proximity is measured as the fire hose would lay.
Citizens feel that this should be increased to correspond with
the fire code requirement for distance to a fire hydrant. Mr.
Paulissen gave a brief explanation of this section of the
ordinance. Staff recommended that citizen input be utilized in
this case and make the distance 300 instead of 200 ft.
11) Section ~-404 (2) (a) (5):
Length of a cul-de-sac or dead-end street. Staff recommended
that this section be left unchanged.
'1 ~ ) .=. S e c t ion I) -I) 0 1 : . . ;'~. :
This section indicates that other residential and supporting
uses may be permitted within the manufactured housing district,
but that the supporting uses which are permitted are not
defined. Mr. Paulissen asked that the commission turn to table
5-600 and notice the structure of the ordinance. According to
the. chart, the uses are defined and staff recommended that this
section remain unchanged.
13) Section 5-600: Citizens input was what is a
single-family dwelling special lot. Mr. Paulissen showed an
example on the blackboard explaining in a single-family lot and
a special lot. Staff recommends that we add a definition of
e
.
Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985
Page 6
single family special lot.
Chairman Wilson entertained a motion to adoDt staff
recommendation as result of public inDut for Section 5-404 (2)
(a) (2), 5-404 (2) (a) (5), Section 5-501, Section '5-600.
Motion made by Mr. Blackwell, Seconded by Mrs. Graves, Motion
carried with no ODDosition.
A ten minute recess was called here by Chairman Wilson and
meeting convened at 8:30 p.m.
14) Section 5-700, Table B (Residential):
Staff felt that a 45 ft. height for a single family
neighborhood is an extremely high structure~ Staff felt this
to be a bit excessive. Chief Building Official David Paulissen
explained why staff felt it best to leave 35 ft. as an
appropriate height in a single family residential.
Mr. Boyle asked what the procedure was to change the height in
an R-1 zone.
David Paulissen told him the appeal procedure in the ordinance
is how that would have to be done.
If they had to go higher than the 35 feet, they would have to
give reason before the Board of Adjustment.
Chairman Wilson asked if there was a concensus or any objection
to adopting recommendation that would leave the height
restriction at 35 feet for a single-family detached and include
45 feet for duplexes, townhouses, quadraplexes and multi-family
dwelling units accord~ng to citizen comments. There were no
objections, so the commission moved to the second portion of'
Section 5-100.
The next citizen comment on Table B relates to density for
single family detached dwelling units. Chief Building Official
David Paulissen explained that density figures are measured in
units per acre. Staff did not see any problem with changing
the density from 4.5 to 4.8 because it is still within the
respective districts as set forth in the land use plan, and a
change to the suggested figures should not impact the
Comprehensive Plan.
.
..
Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985 ,
Page 7
The third thing on 5-700-Table B on lot coverages. Citizen
input for ~axim~m l~t coverage for single family zero lot line
should be increased from 60 to 70~, the maximum lot coverage
fr9m multi~family sho~~~ be increased to ~5~. The maximum
coverage" lor siiigle: 'fainilyndetached . should be increased from 40 _
'fo-'-50~'~' ....... ._....._..........n. -.--,... "-.-. .. ...-.. .n . .
- -- -.. ... .... .. .. . - - -. -- ..
John Jo~rns Dire6tor"6f Community Dev~lopment gave several
scenarios to "explain in more detail about lot coverages.
After some discussion from the Commission, Chairman Wilson
entertained a motion that on Section 5-700 Table B on citizen
comment that we go ahead on the single family maintaining 40~
and with the multi-family go to 65~. Is there a motion?
Commissioner Blackwell indicated that we needed more discussion
on this. Mrs. Graves said she would Dersonallv like to see
the multi-family left at 60%. Mr. Blackwell seconded the
motion. The motion carried with no ODDosition.
15) Section 5-800 C:
This section deals with a conditional use permit. Assistant
City Attorney John Armstrong explained this in detail. It was
recommended that this 'section be left as is.
Chairman Andy Wilson entertained a motion that. this section be
left in tact. Motion made by Mr. Blackwell and Seconded bv Mr.
Karl Johnston. Motion carried with no opposition.
16) Section 6-500:
~~i~~ Sect~~n(!~~~~~;. ~i th()h~~gh~s.. ~n ~ c~mm~r~i~i.. are~s:.. . ~taff
sees. no impact in. increasing the height in neighborhood
commercial to 45 feet and sees no conflict with the plan and
would suggest we make that change.
~1) Section 6-600:
This section deals with glass covered lights. Staff recommends
leaving this section as is.
18) Section 6/600 (B) ~:
This section deals with a screening fence and the way
.
.
Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985
Page 8
ordinance reads, it says that for everyone foot of height
that's over the top of the screening fence, the distance has
got to be increased 5 feet. Citizen input feels that this
should be deleted. Staff recommended that Planning and Zoning
carefully consider the goals of the comprehensive plan for
screening versus the practical aspects of the application of
this section and make a decision therefrom.
Chairman Wilson entertained a motion to adopt recommendations
presented in 6-500, 6-600, 6/600 (B)5 (citizen comment that
indicated that the additional five foot set back required
behind the screening fence for every foot of height of stored
.material above that fence should be deleted). Motion bY Janet
Graves and Seconded by Mr. Johnston. Motion carried with no
ODDosition.
19) Section 8-200:
This section requests clarification on which rules apply to a
P.U.D. district and which rules apply to a P.U.D. development
within a particular district. Both are allowed under the
zoning ordinance.
City Attorney John Armstrong said that we didn't make a staff
recommendation on this section as the comment just basically
has clarification there.
20) Section 8-402 (8):
Similar comment as above that needs to state the dwelling unit
per acre requirements for P.U.D. District. Assistant, City
Attorney John Armstrong said there was no recommendation on
behalf of staff, this was' just for verification.
21) Section 8-402 (10):
This section, citizen comment indicates that the requirement
that the planned unit development be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan be deleted.
Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong indicated that this part
of the ordinance must be kept.
.
.
. '
Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985
Page 9
2~) Sec~ion 8-40~:
. .
.C~ti.zen ~np'ut' ~ndicates that the 12 month limitation on
99P~it~ona~. u~~ permits is too short and should be lengthened
to 3 to, 5 years.
Staff recommendation is to leave this section as is.
23) Section 8-404 (B):
Citizen comment indicates that a minor change in a major or
minor development site plan should not require resubmission of
a new general plan.
Recommended that this section be left as is but perhaps, make a
clear reference to the Development Ordinance sections that
apply.
Chairman Wilson made a motion that we reach a concensus on the
adoption of the recommendations made for Sections 8-200, 8-402
(8), 8-402 (10), 8-403 and 8-404 (B). Motion by Mr. Blackwell
and Seconded by Janet Graves. Motion carried with no
ODDosition.
24) Section'10-101 (4):
This citizen input deals with construction schedules for
multistage planned unit developments. Staff feels the word
"approximate" should be included before the starting date and
completion date.
?~t,~Section,10-101.6 (C?:.H...... .c: ',.: .:': '..
Citizen input indicates that the term "sufficient amount of
usuable open space" is somewhat vague. In the P.U.D.
situation, flexibility has to happen and must be in general
compliance per Mr. Paulissen. Any amendment to this section
would remove flexibility.
26) Section 10-102 (e):
Citizen comment indicates that there is no need for the review
of deed restrictions by the City Attorney to insure that they
comply with F.H.A. Deed Restrictions. Staff recommends that
.
.
Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985
Page 10
the City Attorney review these deed restrictions as they are
legal documents and to leave this section as it is.
21) Section 10-10~:
Citizen comment indicates that the heading of this subsection
should indicate whether or not it pertains to planned '
development units within P.U.D. districts or planned unit
developments contained within a particular district. Assistant
City Attorney John Armstrong said staff decided to go along
with the citizen comment.
28) Section 10-104:
This section also deals with clarification of headings and just
as in Section 10-103 #27, staff decided to go along with the
citizen comment.
29) Section 10-201 (4):
Citizen input indicates that the one year limitation on
conditional use permit should be extended to a three to five
year period. (see Item No. 22 comments on page 9)
30) Section '10-~02 (7):
Citizen comment indicates that this section, which prohibits
accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling
structures or condensors from being located in required
sideyards should be amended to allow air conditioning/cooling
structures and condensers within said required side yards.
Staff recommends that this section allow air conditioning
cooling structures and condensers in required side yards.
31) Section 10-603:
Citizen input indicates that this section, which generally
requires a submission of Certified Site Plan drawings in case
of bUilding and zoning permits, but also further particularly
"encourages" developers to submit a Certified Site Plan in case
of resurfacing of an existing parking lot, be amended to not
encourage the submission of a Certified Site Plan in case of
the re-surfacing of an existing parking lot.
.
.
Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission
August 29, 1985
.Page 11
Chief Building Official David Paulissen and the staff
recommends .that we remove the language in this ordinance
sectio~ encouragi~g the applicant to submit a Certified Site
Plan that adheres new design standards for parking lots that
are to. ~e re~ur!aced.
32) . Section 10-605:
Citizen comment indicates that this section, which says that
parking should be allowed in setback areas be amended.
Chief Building Official David Paulissen and staff felt this
section should not be amended.
Chairman Wilson entertained a motion that we adopt staff .
recommendation on items 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 and defer
item 32 until the Sept. 5th meeting. Bobbv Blackwell made the
motion to do this, Mr. Johnston seconded. The motion carried
with no ODDosition.
Chairman Andy Wilson commended the detailed work that staff had
prepared on the ordinance.
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at
10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gwen Vann
Assistant City Secretary
.'
.
J
MINUTES OF THE
LA PORTE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 5, 1985
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wilson at
1:06 P.M.
2. Members of the Commission present: Chairman Andy Wilson,
Commissioners Ed Murphree, Lola Phillips, Janet Graves,
Karl Johnston
Cit~taff Present: Assistant City Attorney John
Armstrong, Chief Building Official David Paulissen,
Director of Community Development John Joerns, and
Executive Secretary, Gwen Vann.
Others Present: Bayshore Sun's Barbara Neal, and citizen
Mrs.Adair Sullivan
David Paulissen told the Commission that he had received two
rezoning requests. He proposed that we schedule two public
hearings for Mr. Wilson for the 3rd of October.
There were no objections and Chairm~n Wilson suggested these
two requests be placed on the Oct. 3rd agenda.
Chairman Wilson went back to regular order of agenda.
item was to approve minutes of the regular meeting of
Due to various hindrances, the minutes were not ready
meeting.
First
Aug. 29.
for this
2. Item ~2, Section 10-60~:
Citizen comment indicates that this section, which
prescribes design standards or requirements accessory to
parking under this ordinance be amended to allow parking
"in all set-back areas". Staff recommended that the text
of this should be left alone and look at it when we get to
the map.
Chairman Wilson asked if anyone had questions, if not, he
entertained a motion to take staff's recommendations. Motion
by Mr. Johnston, Seconded by Mrs. Graves, Motion carried with
no objectio~.
~A-
.:..
--
.
.
J
Minutes of Planning and Zoning
Sept. 5, 1985
Page 2
3. Items ~3 an~4, Sections 11-101 and 11-102:
These two sections deal with building permits and their
expiration. In process of reviewing this with the
consultants, it was felt that these sections should mesh
with ordinances already on the books. Staff
recommendation that both sections be left as written.
4. Item ~5 Section 11-606(2) (c) (2)
Citizen comment indicates that "unnecessary hardships" be
changed to include economic hardship. Zoning Board of
Adjustments deals with four basic areas which only a few
are pertinent here. One being the granting of variances
which is the situation in which a specific requirement in
this ordinance should not be met due to unusual lot shape
topography and the application of the ordinance makes it
very difficult if not impossible for a land owner to
develop his land due to application of the ordinance. It
is the appeal mechanism. To get a variance from the board
of adjustment, you must show "hardship". It is not an
easy thing to get this hardship, so therefore we recommend
this part remain the same.
5. Item ~6 Section 11-612
Basically a question pertaining to policy. Citizen
comment recommends that an applicant who is denied a
variance, special exception or appleal would not pe able
to reapply for a new variance, special exception, or
appeal from a determination of the zoning administrator
from the board of adjustment for a period of six months
after the original denial. Staff recommends that we leave
this section as is which is 1 year. .
Chairman Wilson asked for a motion to take staff's
recommendation on Section 11 Items 33-36. Commissioner Lola
PhilliDS made the motion, Seconded by Mrs. Graves, Motion
carried with no oDposition.
6. Item ~7 R-i Zone:
Citizen input indicates that the high density residential
zone in the proposed Ordinance is not necessary.
Staff recommends that the R-3 residential district
'...
..-- -
I
i
e
.
Minutes of Planning and Zoning
Sept. 5, 1985
Page 3
provisions be left in current form.
Some discussion took place with Mr. Paulissen, Mr. Murphree,
and Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong.
Chairman Wilson asked if there was any reason why we shouldn't
accept Item 37. There were no objections.
7. Item ~8 P.U.D. Districts:
Citizen comment indicated a concern about the placement of
planned unit developments within an existing or proposed
R-1 neighborhood. Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong
said Staff recommends it.
Chairman Wilson asked if any objections to item 38, there were
none, so they accepted it.
8. Item ~q Greenway Corridors:
Citizen comments has indicated that the term "Greenway
Corridor" needs to be defined; that the Comprehensive Plan
does not appropriately designate Greenway Corridors and
these corridors are not located so as to provide the
highest and best use of certain property; that when
Greenway Corridors are located by the Comprehensive Plan
on the zoning map, that the City of La Porte should
purchase them; and there should be no additional setback
requirements imposed on uses located adjacent to Greenway
Corridors. '
Director of Community Development John Joerns discussed
this section in great lengths. Staff recommendation is if
the property is to be developed and a greenway corridor is
adjacent or through said property, then the City should
purchase the greenway corridor. As with the development
ordinance the City must show intent to purchase within 30
days and must complete said purchase within one year. If
within the one year period the City does not purchase the
property, the developer may utilize the land and the
greenway corridor in that section will cease to exist.
There was more discussion on this between Director of
Community Development John Joerns, Assistant City Attorney
.::..
....-
.
)
.
Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission
Sept. 5, 1985
Page 4
John Armstrong and Chief Building Official David Paulissen.
Mr. Paulissen said that staff had looked long and hard at this
and basically our understanding is if the City wants it, put
it in the public sector and let them maintain it.
9. Item 40 - Parkwav Corridor
Citizen comment indicates that the twenty (20) foot
setback on property adjacent to designated parkway
corridors is inappropriate.
This deals with parkway (example Fairmont Parkway).
Staff has looked at this in great lengths. We suggest
that the 20 foot setback adjacent to parkway corridors
remain in the ordinance. Please note that these
requirements only apply if said parkway corridors are
designated as such on the zoning map. Staff recommends
that perhaps Council should look at the proposed
designations and determine if all are needed and perhaps
consider the application of this requirement to new
parkway corridors.
10. Item 41 - Parking and Curb Requirements:
Citizen input indicates that the term curb needs to be
defined to allow conventional curb stops as well as poured
curbing if desired.
..
Staff sees no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and
would recommend that we include the allowance for, curb
stops to be used here and we would write a definition that
would reflect that.
11. Item 42 - Additional Setback Adjacent to Major
Thoroughfares:
Citizen input indicates that the requirement of an
additional five foot to ten foot setback of a structure
from a major thoroughfare should be deleted.
Chief Building Official David Paulissen recommended that
we adopt the citizens input here and recommend that those
additional setbacks adjacent to thoroughfares be deleted.
~
r' -
.
, J
.
Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission
Sept. 5, 1985
Page 5
12. Item 4~ - Section 4-101:
Citizen comment indicates that thoroughfares designated on
the thoroughfare plan (but in which not right-of-way
currently exists) should not be an impediment to the
location of bUildings, unless the right-of-way is
purchased by the City of La Porte.
This requirement already exists within the Development
Ordianance. Staff recommends that this section remain as
is.
'-
Chairman Wilson suggests that we bring up for a vote to
accept staff recommendation. Motion bv Mrs. Graves,
Seconded bv Mrs. PhilliDS. Motion carried with no
opposition.
13. Item 44 - Section 10-60'5 (10):
Citizen comment indicates that the five foot setback
required surrounding parking areas is not needed. Further
the requirement of a solid curb surrounding the parking
area is questioned. Analysis indicates no particularly
safety or aesthetic concern addressed by these
requirements.
Staff recommends two foot setback.
Chairman Wilson entertained a motion to adopt staff
recommendation of 2 feet.
Motion bY Mr. Johnston, Seconded by Mr. Murphree. Motion
carried with no ODDosition.
14. We have considered public's input on the ordinance, No.4
is the approval of text of proposed zoning ordinance.
Shall we entertain a motion that we adopt and hold the
staff recommendation and what revisions were made in the
memorandum and it is a review and direct staff to compose
a letter along with the revised ordinance to be signed by
the chairman and members of the commission.
Motion by Mr. Murphree, Seconded bv Mrs. Graves, Motion
carried with no oQQosition.
.-- '.
.
I.a' Pori. eil~' Hall. 60~ W.SI
Fairmonl ,Parkwa~'. ~.Ilinnh'
al R p.m, .'.
OUz.ns wishlnll 10 ~om.
m.ni ma~' do so in \\'rllinll
prlnr 10 Ih. publi~ hrarinll.
,such corr.spond.n~. addr.ss-
... .d' fn I18rt of Ih. CI\:<
.' !itcrti~..~,.. ~.O; 'BiI~ 11I5, I....
Porlr. Tp'xas i75:1. filiz"ns
\\'ishin!(IO sptak allh. puhli~
htaril,lll Illa~' do' so b~' sillnhlll
'ili fh~. Illlnul.s prior 10 Ih.
~Iari of Ih. Ill..ilnll;' . ,
Copi.s of Ihp propos.d Zon.
---~---- .------....----.
PI'Bue ~01'leF: '
-- ~--:~~O;;;;-Ijr:.-"::--.
p\:UL.'C l'F..\RI~G
~otlc. h h.r.by Il;,'.n Ihal
Ih. l.a ForI. eil~' Council \\'i11
. IJ9!d ~ 'p~~lIc ,,,,pl!rln!l.. 0'1.
,~O\'lhnbpr :!.~: 19115.. fflr. piihllc~
inpul r.~ardlnll thr' propos..d
Zoninll Ordillan~r for Ihr eil~'
of. I... Porlr.
This h..arin!li \\'11I b...,h..l~ 'i~
Ih.. Council Chambrrs of Ihr
w-
i,'UBLle NOTl~
~ NOTICE OF
~, ' PUBLIC IfEARING
fn aceanlance wllb Ibe pro.
vl.lon. 01 Ordinance 780 Ib
ZonIng Ordinance 'ot Ibe' CII;
01 La Porte, a public hearing
will be held al 7:00 P.M. on
AUIU.1 IS, 1ll8S by lhe La
Porte Planning and ZonIng
Comml..lon &0 cOlll/der Ibe
ProflOled lonlng Ordinance.
'1111. hearing wUl be con..
ducted la lhe Council
Chambers of Ibe La Porte Clly
Hall, 804 Well Falrmonl
Parkway. Letten c;;"cenung
ibis malte!' .hould be addres..
ed 10 Ibe Clly Sec~tary. P ,0.
Box IUS. La Porte. Texa.
Z:l. ThOle wllIIllng &0 ad.
· ibis malter pro or con
during Ibe meeting will be re-
qulred &0 .Ign In belore Ibe
meellag I. convened.
CopIes 01 Ibe Pl'OpClled _
lag ordinance are available
lor revIewal La PDI'te CIl
Hall, y
Cherie Black
CIty Secretary
.
Inl( Ordinanc.. larr anilablr
fo~ ~fr\\'inllllllhr F:lIllinr..rillll
Oraparlm..nl al eit~. Hall,
. Citizrns art rll~nura!lrd 10
lak. Ih. opporlullil~' 10 slud~'
Ihr Ordinancr pl'ior 10 Ihr
Public H..arill!l.f
('IT\' OF 1..\ PORTF.
Chr,'ir Rla~k
CU,. :;,.~rrlar"
....:......-.--.:.............-.-..
..... ,- '"
~
.
.
TheB
eSun
"Voice of The Bogshore Since 1947"
911 S. BROADWAY ,
P.O. BOX 1414
LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571
(713) 471-1234
LA PORTE BROADCASTER
Published Every Wednesday and Sunday
CHARLES HUDGINS
GENERAL MANAGER
(j
lUBU': NOTl!' ~
Ie NOTICE OF
~. PUBLIC HEARING
...,
In accordance wltb the pr&-
visions of Ordinance 780, the
Zoning Ordinance W lbe City
of r.. Porte, a public hearing
wUl be held at 7:00 P.M. on
AUlUsl IS, 1985 by tbe r..
Porle Planning and Zoning
CommlsslOD 10 consider the
propoeed IOnlng ordinance.
County of Harris
State of Texas
Before me, the. undersigned authority, on this date
came and appeared Sandra E. Bumgarner, duly authorized
agent of The Bayshore Sun, a bi-weekly newspaper publishe<
. in La Porte, Harris County, Texas, and who after being
duly sworn, says the attached notice was published in The
Bayshore Sun of August 07, 1985
':,
Sandra E. Bumgarner
Office Manager
'I1I1s bearing w1l1 be con-'
ducled In lhe Council
Chamben of lbe r.. Porte CIly
HaU, 8M West ~alrmont
Parkway. LeUen concerning
lbls mailer sbould be address-
ed to the City Secretary. P .0,
Box 1115, La Porte, Texas
77571, 'I1IOie w1"'lng to ad-
dress this matler pro or con
~ during the meeting wUI bere-
qulred to sip In before the
meeting Is convened.
Copies of lbe propoeed 1Oll-
Ing ordlnlUlce are ava.lab'e
,... review at La Porte euy
HaU.
~~,
.
Cherie Black
City Secretary
Sworn ond subscribed before me this ,")7# doy Of~A.D.
19~.
;/' .,~!!!~!: I:': !;!'~"!!!.~,
_~ ,':) 'Io~............ 1.( ..,
-'1> ."..' ' ..,. ". ( ';OJ.
~ .::- '-J_..!"~~' . 1.8. ....,,)0 .~_
J '-.r.' '~'\~ ~'- ..~ -'l.
; ~ (~ ~; i ~ ~
, 'tf;t. ....~~) ;f
'. 0' . ~ .~.
,:., t os.~ ~
" -."". WL:i. ..:..0 ..i4 OJ. l:?-
/. ., ~ ..4 ...~..... _, ,~
. / '.~.~,:,...: 2 G. ;.;.....\!~
.~ t.. Ii I,t. II" \~
~~),.J~
Notary Public
Harris County, Texas
EXHIBIT
A
."... '.--
.
.i-'
TheB
"Voice of The Bagshore Since 1947"
911 S. BROADWAY ,
P.O. BOX 1414
LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571
(713) 471-1234
I:
eSun
Published Every Wednesday and Sunday
LA PORTE BROAD.cASTER
P~~I'.~~.:~'1(:~._ ___." .
. '~OT":(O: lIF
Pl'B~:h '/IF..\RlSO
Sollcl' I;.. hl'rl'b~' IIh I'll Ihal
thl' I.a rorll' CII~' Council will
,lJoId 01 'pu~llc hl'l!tlllll. .'1
So\....nbl'i' 25: 1!Ili3. for. pUblic'
inpul l'l'ilal'dhlll Ih"- prllpO!ll'd
Zonhlll Ol'dillallCI' for thl' CII~'
IIf.l.a PorII',
County of Harris
State of Texas
CHARLES HUDGINS
GENERAL MANAGER
L8 PorII' CII~'. Hall. 60-1 WI'R
Falrlllolll Park\\"a~'. bPllillllh'
al 6 p,nl: '
Cllllil'lIs wlshlllll III com. ' -
mrni ma~' do sO III \\" rilh'll
prior 10 Ihl' public hl'arhlll.
stich rorrl'spolldl'n!o'l' addrl'ss,
'I'it I~' tarl' nf' Ihl' ,CII~'
, S.crl'lal')'. P.O. B(lx 11I5. .I.a
PoriI', Tl'x'as' ;J5i1, CililplIs
wishllllllo SI.nk allhl' public
hl'arhllllna~' dO' So b~' slllnhlll
in fh'l' mlllulrs prior 10 Ih~
slarl of Ihl' 1IIf'f'lInll, ' .
Copll's of t hfo prollO!ll'd Zon:
, h'II, Ordinancl' I arl' nallabll'
for iil'wlnll in Ihl' F.lIllinl'l'rlnll
Draparlml'lll al CII~' Hall.
Cillzl'ns ,arl' I'ncouralll'd 10
lakl' Ihl' opporlunit~' 10 slud~'
lhl' Ordlnanrl' prior III Ihl'
Publlr Hparlnll.
('In' OF' 1,,\ PORTE
l, C.hl'rlp "lark
<:~~: ~~:.r..':~al'~ .. .... ..._...
This hl'arillll \\" III two h...ld In
Ih.' CoullciI Chalnhl'rs or Ihl'
...
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this date
came and appeared Sandra E. Bumgarner, duly authorized
agent of The Bayshore Sun, a bi-weekly newspaper published
in La Porte, Harris County, Texas, and who after being
duly sworn, says the attached notice was published in The
Bayshore Sun of November 13, 1985
~~.~
Sandra E. Bumgarner
Office Manager
Sworn and subscribed before me this 571./ day 09~ A.D.
19.&..
..,...~i..."
",~" "
44~4 '"- "",' I ".
.~.- ~. ~ ......... , 1.-,.
.- ........ ," '.. ( '.
.f ~ .., . fl." "CliO '. '" ''1.
; Ol- ., .:\,.... U'(.. ... ~
l' "'Itl.~* -&~." ':
Sf ....-.. . . -1. ..
Iii r.;: : · t
E ....... .~, ...:cn-:
'~ "\ -~ ~ J :
~ · 'f' ...~ ;:e
~ ":. l't 0' "..." ~.
. ~,~., ~. _'... .. Cl :
:;" J., ... ~Pllh'..~ 0) ..:~
.~~~. !P ............... .... OJ ,~'.... .'
~~I . ~ 6 ... "..' ...,.
''',I~~ ,... '., ,..." ,;0[
"ffi;l~i;iii'~i"
~~A, J~
Notary Public
Harris County, Texas
EXHIBIT
C
.
.' )
.
Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission
Sept. 5, 1985
Page 6
Chairman Wilson asked that Mr. Murphree file a report.
Does anyone make a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner Karl Johnston made a motion that we adjourn.
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at
8: 14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gwen Vann
Assistant City Secretary
Approved on
day of
19_
'.
\!'"'. -
'.
t.
.
/
TheB
eSun
911 S. Broadway
P.O. Box 1414
The Bayshore
Sun~~u~~
La Porte, Texas 77571
(713) 471.1234
... ... ..... ............
"Voice of The Bayshore Since 1947"
Published Every Wednesday and Sunday
County of Harri<s
State of Texas
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this date
came and appeared Sandra E. Bumgarner, duly authorized
agent of The Bayshore Sun, a semi-weekly newspaper
published in La Porte, Harris County, Texas, and who
after being duly sworn, says the attached notice was
published in The Bayshore Sun of November 02, 1986
~~.~
Sandra E. Bumgarner
Office Manager
Notary Public
Harris County, Texas
f A. --................",
o e.- ....,.. \ ~ 1'1 S ~~!l., "....
4 " 'l_ 1111I.
I "" ':............. . 0 i''\,
~.. \0 , " (It . ~
Ji l ~,.., ~'" ~.. IS' ,"'
. ~~ ~.
~~;' - ~~\ .I:
l' 3 i"J Cltl'
\ '" \ "'Q "-,~ ~ " 'IV :'
" ~" .. ~ I'''' ..i'/'
. ~ -. .-.
""" "'/II ......... ~ ' ,
. I, III ....'
.1,_ (\ ~".
. "i.".",.....""".
Sworn and subscribed before me this c:< ~ day
A.D. 19K.
c-+~ in
.
.
CITY OF LA PORTE
INTER-OFFICE MEMO
TO: Mayor Malone and City Council
FROM: Doug Latimer, Chairman La Porte Planning & Zoning Com.
DATE: 12/04/86
SUBJECT: Final Report-Zoning Ordinance
As you know, the Planning and Zoning Commission held its final Public
Hearing on the ,Zoning. Map 11/20/86. This hearing was the last of a
long input-gathering process. The Commission has reviewed the proposed
map and made the final changes that it reI t necessary based on the
public input.
I will be in attendance at your meeting of Monday 12/08/86 to present
the final report together with the final Land Use Map and Zoning Map.
I support the proposed adoption schedule and hope that you will set a
date of January 8, 1987 for your Public Hearing.
If I may answer any questions or supply any further information please
don't hesitate to call me.
~
.....
-.
.
TheB'
eSun
The Bayshore
Sun[3~lJ~~
La Porte, Texas 77571
(713) 471.1234
911 S. Broadway
P.O. Box 1414
... ... .... .,.........
"Voice of T~e Bayshore Since 1947"
Published Every Wednesday and Sunday
County of Harris
State of Texas
Before me, the undersigned authority, pn this date
came and appeared Sandra E. Bumgarner, duly authorized
agent of The Bayshore Sun, a semi-weekly newspaper
published in La Porte, Harris County, Texas, and who
after being duly sworn, says the attached notice was
published in The Bayshore Sun of Dec. 24, 1986
.~~.~
Sandra E. Bumgarner
Office Manager
..
Sworn and subscribed before me this S-pJ day o~~,,""~'~~'~'~'""',!!!.~..
~ ,,"\,. ........~.. 0 ..~~r,
A D 19 07 ~. ....,.. C ' -'f 6'!.
.. ..l:L-L. ~ h .d&l....l~.~>''- ~'~ \.~... ~~~
.;~. -:::::;1' ...~... .W
C . . .~~ ,,~ 1L~:"i
~. ...' ' "A.'''\ Oj4: tb,!,
-;. of! ~, '~~ I ~'S:
..' .. ,I, q.. ..,.. . ...
"~' ~'" "'. ..... I' ..~ ~.
"o"i: .;): '011"_,. ..... ~
':r~.;. 4 y..,i:........~_. ~~. ~-
.."...."...,~:J. ..... ~:>.~~'" ,
Notary Public
Harris County, Texas
. ~
. .
THE STATE OF TEXAS )
COUNTY OF HARRIS )
CITY OF LA PORTE )
I hereby certify that the attached and foregoing is a
true and correct copy of the Meeting Notice and Agenda for
the Regular Meeting of La Porte City Council on January 12,
1987, and that such Meeting Notice and Agenda were properly
posted according to law, prior to the date of the meeting.
To certify which, witness my hand and Seal of Office,
this the 12th day of January, 1987.
.,.-
~~L
City Secretary
.
.
A typographical error has been noted on the Meeting Notice for
the Regular Council Meeting on January 12, 1987. THE CORRECT
TIME FOR CONVENING THE MEETING SHOULD READ 6:00 P.M.
~~
CHERIE BLACK
CITY SECRETARY
.
-
..
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
In accordance with the provisions of
Ordinance 780, the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of La Porte, a public hear-
ing will be held at 7 :00 P .M, on
January 8, 1987. by the La Porte City
Council to consider the comprehensive
rezoning of all lands contained within
the City limits of the City of La Porte.
Harris County, Texas in accordance
with andpursuont to the map attached
to this notice. The Zoning Ordinance
of the City of La Porte, containing ap-
plicable zoning regulations concerning
the zoning classifIcation contained on
the map and further concerning the
regulatIon and restriction of height,
number of stories, size of buildings
and other structures, the percent~e
of lot that may be occupied, the site
of yards, courts and other open
spaces, the denisty of population, and
the use of buildings, structures, and
land. are on file in the office of the Ci-
ty Secretarv of the City of La Porte
and are available forfublic inspection
between the hours 0 8:00 A,M. and
5:00 P,M. Monday. Friday at the La
Porte City Hall, 604 West Fairmont
Parkway, La Porte, Harris County,
Texas.
This public hearing will be con-
ducted in the Council Chambers of the
La Porte City Hall, 604 West Fairmont
Parkway. Letters concerning this mat~
ter should be addressed to the City
Secretory, P.O. Box 1115, La Port..
Texas 77571, Those wishing to ad.
dress this matter pro or con during the
meeting will be reguired to sign in
before the meeting IS convened.
CITY OF LA PORTE
Cherie Block
City Secretary
...,
\ 7 \ . /
~ \ \ /
~'. liJ~~\.( .
.' .' \ -Jfb-l'~,
.. .. -I: = ~, .,.,..._'_'____,......'
' I.. , '.
~. . -, "'-'1' - '1"1' ....... .._.>.,...
,-""""'-.--0... " ...-' I I . _ '....
" "oo '. ~ - . _' " ,-.
. , ~, ,
~ , ~ 'U ----:-:;:: --..",. ___ ~ . . 'o.
J ~---" ~ ", _
c::;;;;; ." 111', ...... ',," ~ ''-..: 1-" ~
. \ .--..-.cJ--,,~.J....-....:.. _ ~
~ - - . oo.. ,. __, .
-- I . '. . __. ,_ n'" .
] -..; :' ,. --- ' ." '-I' -) I: ,.......,.., ~ L .
I L ~:l JiI ...---: "l1-.c.. -"'"": ":! I '~: r _ -----/
,< j I I .1 - . To... " t.,. _ . ... _ f1 _
r ~~i 'l' rlr :;=tu~.l ~I't':i_~ u ~ J~ ~ l~, :/"_
--. 1::-' 1 1'+1 m.oo _ I ~'. .y"" _ -', ~
I. 'j~' , '" .., .' .'1 . ~. , ,', ~ ---..ill' ~
I " " 'oo _ . ., . .. ..
.c:l.f;l',~ 'J . . ... ""'.\ 'I ~', ..I: -: .: LI -,'1 L' . -l ~lv~ ~ ~\
-..,.' ~ ~. .~. . ',,' b '1 " . ' ~...j""... ...... ~\
- '." ,,~. .. . ,.,., ,-,. "'"
~. .~'.,~ .... .., '.' -- -n · -r."-:;:,' ,~-:= , ",''i 1~~
II . --l E t.:..... :1 t-:=i'""': I 1 , " [GC ~;6 ~;1-',
-- . . t... . J ,__ '. oo' " . ^ .,,,
I ~ ~ ~ , c _._ " ._: '"'.. _ ,__ ,
'GC h_-=:~.. ~~. " .~":.- .c,,~~:'~'J': ".~_163 A'" 1:~ .1. ~ ' l!E'-_~~ ~ t?
~. ~ '~i7 '-"...., i I I 1.1. , ~'.~~2 ,
. ,- ". '~ '" . -noo ' ,.' I
. 4. ..,., ,,'-~ .' \oo "_." u I <~' .,
. --. .~.... .. . · --. u
,.. = ~ - - .Bl ..,,.... . '!iL i'\Y" .:",'-_:7 r T ~ .11 ~ ..1
-.... ~-. -- --"\"\~. ' ~J ~"
--::j , i'-;) ~"" '.-,- ..,' ~ - -:-:-;. - 'J: '-l, J r-"
1::::E~~~ll;=- ' . ,,- .. , . -~ '..'. ~ ':~ ~Sl
1.~ ~ .. -. , " \:. 1 ~._. -::':: 11
..~ '<0._..' \ 'i' , . _....__ . : _ I
. ,,,., 'iii.. ,
' u._, '-'~....;.:.'\::l::':._,.., LO '- .. _ ... 1
___"""U I ' .. i
. ..:It:- I' =-::= _ '
I,~ , . , ...
I ' . pu., ':==-;
, .. I.!! J \ _ Ft-..
.' I .~I~..
. '. , . .'.
" -.-.~-_.-.----i------. . r!! ~~. ';.! "
-.---. \., :1 .JS8'"lllai--"
\. . , .
\ , . --- ,-
\
-7
o
,
,
,
'0'
-
I:\. CITY OF LA PORTE
~ OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
......0'.....--....-,-..
_ _ ......-- ... -... ......... .. .,
~~ _.. ....CI...l.-........_I~
-- --
-:-
I
l
G:
( .
u _
. R..Z
' .. , .............
~'\. , ..
~~-- . _:~
.. -----.-.-... l.
~" ---- ,
' . '~------ 1
" 'F f
") J .
" .-' ------- I
" .-- .
" ,
"
"
"
'""
'\~
'\~,
"_.'~~c.-._
!;.L..:.I..- "- ..~~.-.....~
....,..... ........-.---.
-. -....-..-...........
:.."(......: .o::.-.o::...~:.;..~..~.
...-...........-..........--.
....-- ..-.- ...........
.... .......... ............-.
.... .......... ". _." .1....
._....... ......w....._
.' . - ...... ...'" ...... .. ...
..-.... .... .... ...... ..
........-.-.... ....-.-...
" -- . ...... "'......--
-...---.- ......
---,-- -'- .,: f'
. "-
. , . .
-==-==:i~..~._
" . .' I
I'
i,
~
I', .
~ ........ .
....;
...
L.~
- .
PUt>
I,.E,GEHO
... IlANJFACTUllf:D IQJSI~
R" .LOw DtNS.'T'Y RESIDENT&.&.,
II.., ~.DIN DE,." RESlD(llITl&..
R.) ~ DENSITy Rt$IDrrtnAt.
tC NEGtIOAttOOD COMMERC:~..
GC pENE'" ~EIIfC.IA..
. ~INESS IHCJSTIIIAL At.1t>'
LI LIGHT ItC.ISTII.L..
~ H[AVT Ir(DUSTlhA
""D J\.ANflft:D LlN!J DEV!LoPMt"'-
II
/
.............~
...:....
ct,.....
\
I
i
I
I
I
1
-...
"
.l
I
I
1
.1
I
':'J
I
. 1
I
'1
I
I
r
I
._ I
I
. I
I
,
I
I
I
-
"
,
..
-,.
;~.
~.
'1""
~ " ( \."
. . ,. ....,.
,- ", .~"
'.,.......;., e.
,
~ -
.R-2 ~
\
..,
'!f .----:;- ,
"'
.-
,....
~\..""" .....
.-,. ;; ~
. ~ I
f- " .'1 ! '
, , \ \ I
, ') r'-- U
. ,,~ '
, " ....._._._._.J ~'
" ~ /
" ~
" .
, : I
,\
,,~,
"~"
, :"i;,
'""
-
.'-
"
~
.!:..E~E~D
... MlliU'ACTURED tOJ$lN-:
1It.1 lOW DENS,,,, R(SIO(NTIA..
II_I WEll... D(NlITY RESIIX'NTIA..
R.I .... DrNStTT ft(51D[NTIAL
-re' NllGtt8ClRHOOD COMC'IClo1o..
GC. G(N(RAL CCWr.lERC......
81 BUSlIeSS INDUSTRI.... No...
U LIGtt1 INDUST..':'.
MfIIIA.
UN" DlVELQPM[N-
PuG P\.MPfED
-.~~ "
\ I
j' I
. I
l I
! ' ,I
L._._._._._.___._.____,._____
I,
I.
I
\
...-:.......-.....-.
~!7.?:" ...: ~~~'d;~e~~'
~~::::;..-:...:.:.:~~:t-.::.:':~~!;:._
....-.... .. .... .....,........
...... ".0", ,... .. ......... '_"
................. _....1.....
:l"'!'..;;.....:.."':!".;::.'::.--:... .
......... ..... . ..........0
.......-.-... ....... --."
0.._ . ...... ........ .....
-..._....... .....0
,\[
--
--...-
~ CITY OF L
~ OFFICIAL za
.......a...._.........
--.............--
~
- ,-
- -
- -
- -.
- -
---
-----
---
-
.,
I
~.J'
I
. I
I
.\
,
,
r
, ,
-'
I
I
.L
I
I
I
I
I
I
-~
i
I
I
I
I
\
i
i
i
\
i
",.....
/ [
~
I
"'"
~
=;':~I":'~J':;:~~:=~...:
~
-'- .: . I
==r:==::=.t..-=-=r.;.,....
, .' I .
,.
I'
,\
~.,
-'.
~ .
. LI . .-
TI
.',
r
'-.....)
,./
=
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
In accordance with the provisions of
Ordinance 780, the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of La Porte, a public hear-
ing will be held at 7 :00 P ,M. on
Januarr 8, 1987, by the La Porte City
Counci to consider the comprehensive
rezoning of 011 lands contained within
the City limits of the City of La Porte.
Harris County, Texas in accordance
with and pursuant to the map attached
to this notice, The Zoning Ordinance
of the City of La Porte, containing ap-
plicable zoning regulations concerning
the zoning classification contained on
the mop and further concerning the
regulation and restriction of height.
number of stories, size of buildings
and other structures, the percentage
of lot that may be occupied, the size
of yards, courts and other open
spaces. the denisty of population, and
the use of buildings, structures, and
land, ore on file in the office of the Ci-
ty Secretarv of the City of La Porte
and ore aVOllable forrublic inspection
between the hours 0 8:00 A.M. and
5:00 P,M. Monday - Friday at the La
Porte City Hall, 604 West Fairmont
Parkway, La Porte, Harris County,
Texas,
This public hearing will be con-
ducted in the Council Chambers of the
La Porte City Hall, 604 West Fairmont
Parkway, Letters concerning this mat-
ter should be addressed to the City
Secretary. P,O. Box 1115, La Porte,
Texas 77571. Those wishing to ad-
dress this matter pro or con during the
meeting will be reguired to sign in
before the meeting IS conven.ed,
CITY OF LA PORTE
Cherie Block
City Secretary
:,..., '.' -.-----' -,- T .
. . . ~ \ r '\
..... --.... . \
II' ::::=r;_..:r:;I:.-":':J'..T. - "
, ; .'..'..' I .. , .' \ \. ,.-
:;:, ";:':--: t . I - V: \ 'J
,L~ I'" \.
" . ., . .- .. ".
, ""0 I'j '~'~_. ' = '.'..,
. ...... . , ~.,
. LI " '-'. .. . .......,.,. .. - ..
Ge I ... ,.' .. -..
. ~ 1" " ~~ . ~ 7". . , . --.--.--.."..
, ,_ , 'LI -.....::::::::: La I f-l.. . , . ,:....,.
"~,:'c -I, <J. i , , '-:--'., 1 'il~ I L1 : - ''-'"''
. _..~ ~ r tt,1 l\' ..' , i enGe ESl --e:. "'.
I ,.. .~n.. . I. ' ...'...., ~~ ,- "'"
. I .-;:j , ,-,",,' '
! 1,\ 0'" ..;:: . .f. _. -- -.-.
!f IS. H. I' - t' ." ,- ~ f ... - " !it.. . . - .
. " _'_' 1- .' .
.._ '\;, rM ',' 1,:at;::W . '~;; :~ LI '..... 7' ..'
, .00--1 Y 1]Li I I MH r IJ\ . !' . ow ' '
. ~!. " ~ . I, l,~ '
l'~'. ' ", I II 'H, ~
_1""'-' ,. . ,
, .,_~:\ I ..' . ~\ He. ~
ac~..=,~ J' .,., .:- -' ",~:".. I- .'..'
.... 'y /T _~'-:', '-:' ':S:; ~' I , ' .. T '/
~ ''l..'}.:~ .,' . ~ · 00 ,.........'... . '~.....
~('.,. . ~ :::..::;::;;;::;::" . .,; -, ~I .~ LI .1 lilt . OJ rTiI:~'
v, ~\ ...."._ -::- : _. 1 ,I 1, , 001 ... ~A.. ~
I- :co Pl&. ... ',' ..... '
," ," I :'1 .... ...:.... iI< ....~~, \.'
'Ge loci':' .\ <j T' :,,' , .' l~ .... ~ ... ().
,00 a~' _:. il ~ .". .,.. '..1: ..;c).;,~ ~,
~....= ~..::, ~ ,-'- '.., ".:~':j" 1'': ~ C--,......:.., 'E':' ,Ge" ~ ~':}~~ ~ ..
.I ~......'- Ge ~". ~I ,.. -- 'U. . '., " "'\ ~ ~"'"\"
, __: ::....r. ~ .r..~ ,.. ." ~ '" " '~ .. ,~\. '~"'" :-... .'
_ ...f"'ooC..- ,.. 1 ll. .,. "...,..., ....,'^-- ""J..,
_:::. ...:.~~.\..:~ :.., ~-."''' . ,iff ':i...., i ,~>c "\..\~.',:.,!;:1-.
;;:;-~~~ ~. ... ,;so;' . ,'': l5'-_~ .~'
__ 11-,...;' ~l .., ~.- fi' ' . .. 'A' ,.J:"T('
IF~ ~ " ~-.J':, r LI - ' ./ \\..' rlJr'
~ __ I .'-- _ . _._._ '\.. l :' j ,... '" '
.' x-= _" 7777rrrfI .- ~ ' \~~ .. 1
~ %T,~~ i~ ~ ~ .:'. " ,.: f1i~lj
...... _ "GC ;;;;;;;;;;;.- \ ,ac f II .
_.... \ ' .. Ge " ~ ; Ii. 'r .-
" . .~. I..J ...:::.; -- ./,
, . "\:~~';~?~~ . ~1"JH~
~. ,,' ' --.--../::7
. - ... ),
, =-:==- "''''''"'''1!
. OUD '. , : ~z:....
! .~,
. I \ _ =J...,:
'~ Ej'!,
.j "
i tIC" R.c
~.~';-".~
l. - I. "'-fF.?\l ..~ I .. , ,...,
..' F' .
'-j
I ..
I
~..,
,
"-
"
-
I:\. CITY OF LA PORTE
fW' OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
_........._,.....__._c..
--.............-...-.. ..,
;...:.- -.. .._rl...I............_'I~
-. ..-. ---.
"'-.J
,
LI
I
I
I
I
I
L._._._._____._._._._.~.---.-.-
l
\
,
\
....,......._....h.
~~.:.~:~~;~~e~~.
=:v:.,t;~.::.:..: ::..;.;.!:..:~~~::.-_~
.......... '" _.0 .... ...Ia."
:;-:::'....:.;.:;.. ;:'_"':i:':;',~-:.',:.
i'!..:..;t~".J.:~:~ .:.~'"::;:;: ::
..- .....-.--. . ...-.-....
....- . .... . . ....... .....
-...-.-.-..... ..
u
\.., I:'
.,
Ge
..._. _1...........:. .__'1="
OOO.....<I..._M~;lIo_I....._..
. .
~
I.
i:
I
\
hE,!!E~D
MU&F&CTI'UO IOJSIN;
I LOt IJ(NSITY H(SUNTtAl.
Ill... D(~T'f HfSlCfNT1A1o.
I HIIiM alNSln RlSlDlHTlAL'
ICGHIIDRMDOD COMMERCIA..
Gl"NERA&. COMMERCIA..
I a51NUSINClUST........
I L~T INDuSTR.:..
I .c.VY IND'JSTRIA.
; ....IP#<<D ""T DlvE.LOPMfr.-
.;
.
-~_!
I
r
.r
ii ' . I I ~ _
.:" .!! ,.'j-.
.. .. ,.....1.... ,
;;'I'T\.lCIIIWD 1na:m.LU, IlmlCf uuCllolha .~ aUl_1
. I .AUID U ... .D11I IA. Of' . ii."'J:" :
....
./
, to
n--'.. -.-- .,..
.. '."
'l-\ : ' . :';: ~
I ,
, i
, ,
'.
, .c,
~ ~. '--f .'1
~ ::r:ll
811& :
::.J'.l::\
)~"I ~I t
~.,'
'... ~,
...1
~ ."...c .,,:. .". .
'..' '" " '
, "'. 'r.m.n~-:.n;:a-~~I:I~~~" O_lM*1 IU.
I.-:--y:-----~-----'--'--,'~.l. . '" '. . .~.~ I... .
L_~~__.___.J.~._._.__
~
",
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
In accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 780,
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte, a public
hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. on November 20,
1986; by the La Porte Planning and Zoning Comlrtis-
sian to consider the comprehensive rezoning of all
~.I;lnd~ !:{'"t~!m~d with the City limits of the City of La
'Porte, Harris County, Texas in accordance with and
pursuant to the map attached to this notice. The zon-
ing Ordinaote of the City of 'La Porte; containing ap-
plicable zoning regulations concerning the zoning
'classification contaQled on the map and further con-
"t.rniii~j~':.the regu'liition and restriction: of height,
iiuij1ber-.~f':stories, size of buildings and other struc-
-tures, the, percentage of lot that may be occupied, the
..!!.!!' !i" Y!!rdS/ ~c~~~<and other open spaces, the dens i-
.... .1.:.....~ _ '(. ~.. ~..._._ .. .. . I
.
:"!T,'-- .~-:-. -T I
, i
i
i ...
i .'-.' '..' . "" i
\
\
\
,
\,
,
f. ; :(. I
)' ~ '. .,~~.~.
. ._" 0"
~
.' \
, '
\., /'
'. ...
.......:...
r....',
, h:.
I,
l,r\
',j U
'!t.
\
--.---..,j
,
,\
I
,\
OFFICIAL ZOflIG MAP
_.,.CIOI9tI._.___
------.-....
-- .--........-
LEGEM)
... ........~---
... LOW ..."...~
... ____-.n.~
..,.....Dt.IISrft~
IIC:_~~
QC~",,~
. ....sa .....,..." ,....
u UGIft'_fIIM.
......" _lIUL
.... ...........,. ~
ty of population, and the use of buildings, structures,
and land, are on file in the office of the City Secretary
I
of the City of La Porte and are available for public in-
spection between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Monday-Friday, at the La Porte City Hall, 604 West
Fairmont Parkway, La Porte, Harris County, Texas.
This public hearing will be conducted in the Council
Chambers of the La. Porte City Hall, 604 West Fair-
mont Parkway. Letters concerning this matter should
be addressed to the City Secretary, P.O. Box 1115, La
Porte, Texas 77571. Those wishing to address this
matter pro or con during the meeting will be required
to sign in before the meeting is convened.
. ; r 4
CITY OF LA'PORTE
Cherie Black
City Secretary
~
.
,; r "
.,
il
. I
I
I -
. ,I ."j-
"0 ;. : .......l~... "
............. l_~'DlsnlCT DtUGDUu .~ .ut..J.a
. lit lUlU 011 rw: .D11I IMr or D I 1"~,
~ - - .
. l~
/
\'
'0---.---- ..-.
. .,'
i' '
ill!' , :';; r
, I ','
, ,
, ~;"
"f<.A
~
IH
IIIl
, . IIIl
, \. " '
," . &AYPOn IIrtlUft'IUL DunsCT AI iD'r1:Iu;~ " OIDSUICE 1101
,. . '&SlID _,tll InI"" Of J~'.:. '''0.,,- .
, \,) r.-::..--.-.------------.--~~"'"". ,I .
i '" ,'" 1'.1
':'\ ;,:.-.-----...1 r ' , ..
_'~ . '. ii. , . ".. . . _':~~, ,
_ ' ,~~ '. l.---:~__.___.J.~._.~__.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
In accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 780,
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Porte, a public
hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. on November 20,
1986, by the La Porte Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion to consider the comprehensive rezoning of all
:
~'ands contained with the City limits of the City of La
"~:''Porte, Harris County, Texas in accordance with and
pursuant to the map attached to this notice. The zon-
ing Ordinance of the City of La Porte, containing ap-
plicable zon'ing regulations concerning the zoning
classification contained on the map and further con-
'cerRing the regulation and restriction of height,
-number of stories, size of buildings and other struc-
tures, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the
,,:size of yards, courts, a~'lCfother open spaces, the densi-
.. ,'!I'-" .. ., ,,',' .
~..
.
:'"(.'-- ,---:.-:-- --r I
!
~~.~'4.:'
............
. .~
. . ~. ...............
. .. , , . . ....:...,---...........
".
"'"
'.
N ...., ,',
. .
.~~\
-;7
-~
.-' I
.
i'l
I
'Jl
,'tl u
'l.
\
'-'-'--1
OFFICIAl. ZONING MAP
_.'.-'._0__.
-- --...-........
--.. .-................
--
i"I.
LEGEND
.. .....AC'1\IIED __
., LOW DDIIIn..~
::: ::..-::m.-:=.........
tIC -IGHNIMIOOD ~
cae: ....... c--=-.
. .....u ICIUI'1IIII. ...
u UGII1'_TIUL
II IllAn_,--
.. ~"'.-.....-r
ty of population, and the use of buildings, structures,
and land, are on file in the office of the City Secretary
of the City of La Porte and are available for public in-
spection between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Monday-Friday, at the La Porte City Hall, 604 West
'Fairmont Parkway, La Porte, Harris County, Texas.
This public hearing will be conducted in the Council
Chambers of the La Porte City Hall, 604 West Fair-
mont Parkway. Letters concerning this matter should
be addressed to the City Secretary, P.O. Box 1115, La
Porte, Texas 77571. Those wishing to address this
matter pro or con during the meeting will be required
to sign in before the meeting is convened.
CITY OF LA PORTE
Cherie Black
City Secretary
.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF LA PORTE CITY COUNCIL TO BE HELD JANUARY 12,
1987, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL, 604 WEST FAIRMONT
PARKWAY, LA PORTE, TEXAS, BEGINNING AT 6:00 P.M., TO CONSIDER
AND, IF APPROPRIATE, ACT UPON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS
Next Ord. 1526
Next Res. 87-1
1-
2.
CALL TO ORDER
3.
INVOCATION BY COUNCILPERSON SKELTON
CONSIDER APPROVING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF COUNCIL
HELD DECEMBER 15, 1986
CONSIDER APPROVING MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING BY CITY
COUNCIL REGARDING THE PROPOSED ZONING MAP, HELD JANUAR~ 8,
1987
4.
5.
PRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER AWARD -
SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER 1986
6.
PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND CITIZENS AND
TAXPAYERS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL
CONSIDER ORDINANCE ADOPTING PROPOSED CITY OF LA PORTE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND MAP (Ord. 1501) - J. Joerns/D. Paulissen
CONSIDER ORDINANCE CALLING THE REGULAR ANNUAL ELECTION OF
THE CITY OF LA PORTE (Ord. 1526) - K. Askins
CONSIDER ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDED AGREEMENT BETWEEN HARRIS
COUNTY AND THE CITY OF LA PORTE REGARDING SYLVAN BEACH PARK
(Ord. 1527) - R. Herrera
10. CONSIDER ORDINANCE CLOSING ALLEY IN BLOCK 708, TOWN OF LA
PORTE (Ord. 1528) - R. Herrera
1 .
8.
9.
11. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL NO. 63,
RELATING TO THE COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT OF THE PORT
COMMISSION AND NAVIGATION BOARD OF THE PORT OF HOUSTON
AUTHORITY (Res. 87-1) - B. D. Skelton
12. CONSIDER APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH HARRIS COUNTY FOR FIRE
PROTECTION SERVICES - J. Sease
13. CONSIDER AWARDING BID FOR DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS -
D. Paulissen/M. Lewis
14. CONSIDER AWARDING BID FOR REPAIR/REPLACEMENT OF GROUND
STORAGE TANK AT 10220 HILLRIDGE - S. Gillett/T. Blackwell
15. CONSIDER AWARDING BID FOR REPAIRS TO SYLVAN BEACH PAVILION -
E. Griffith
16. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
UPDATE ON CAER PROGRAM
17. COUNCIL ACTION
18. EXECUTIVE SESSION - V.A.T.S. - ARTICLE 6252-17, SECTION 2(E),
(F), (G) - (LEGAL, LAND ACQUISITION AND PERSONNEL)
LAND ACQUISITION: REGARDING PURCHASE OF LAND FOR PARK
PURPOSES AT JENNY RILEY COMMUNITY CENTER - S. Sherwood
LEGAL: DISCUSSION WITH ATTORNEY REGARDING PENDING
HEARING ON ORDINANCE VIOLATION BY SWEET PEA'S PO BOY
AND SANDWICH SHOPPE
18. ADJOURNMENT
A.
B.
'. .
THE STATE OF TEXAS )
COUNTY OF HARRIS )
CITY OF LA PORTE )
I hereby certify that the attached and foregoing is a
true and correct cOPY/of the notice of meeting of City
Council for June 9. 1986, as posted on the 5th day of June,
1986. The meeting was properly posted according to law,
prior to the date of the meeting.
To certify which, witness my hand and Seal of Office,
this the 5th day of June, 1986.
_~~~~S.~"2\\ ,
I~;~-~ ....~~;c ..
-- , j~, ~ '~,,'.
8 .- :':<,,)~/ . [
"J'. .. - ,,~t
, -::; ~, /......... .I..: . ,1
......;,~ ;:.: :... .. -, ',' c
'" - t.. ~ ;...~ ~~;f;-
'. !o>.::-,::"~
'.'\'~~~""-: .
r!LA~< .ttA"L.
City Secretary
EXHIBIT
E
"THE STATE OF TEXAS. )
COUNTY OF HARRIS )
CITY OF LA PORTE )
.
NOTICE OF MEETING
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of
La Porte will meet in Regular Session at 6:00 P.M. on the 9th day
of June, 1986, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 604 West
Fairmont Parkway, La Porte, Texas. A copy of the agenda for said
meeting, showing the subjects of such meeting, is attached hereto.
I hereby certify that I posted this notice on the bulletin
board located at a place convenient to the public in the City Hall
of the City of La Porte, at 5:00 P.H. on the 5th day of June,
1986, and that said notice was posted for at least three days
preceding the day of the meeting, that such notice was posted
before the meeting was convened, or called to order, and that said
meeting was called because of an emergency of urgent public
necessity.
Witness my hand and the Seal of the City of La Porte, Texas,
this the 5th day of June, 1986.
,
.~ \ J.
.." "\ I ~ t I I , I . I
, .
.
,
"
, ,
,
" ':: '),
.
,
CITY OF LA PORTE
.
,
"
II
\
I,
a~,~/~
Cherie Black
City Sec reta t"Y
THE STATE OF T~S
COUNTY OF HARRIS
CITY OF LA PORTE
)
)
)
.
NOTICE OF MEETING
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of
La Porte will meet in Regular Session on the 12th day of January,
1987, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 604 West Fairmont
Parkway, La Porte, Texas, beginning at 7:00 P.M. A copy of the
agenda for said meeting, showing the subjects of such meeting, is
attached hereto.
I hereby certify that I posted this notice on the bulletin
board located at a place convenient to the public in the City Hall
of the City of La Porte, at 5:00 P.M. on the 8th day of January,
1987, and that said notice was posted for at least the three days
preceding the day of the meeting, that such notice was posted
before the meeting was convened, or called to order, and that said
meeting was called because of an emergency of urgent public
necessity.
Witness my hand and the Seal of the City of La Porte, Texas,
this the 8th day of January, 1987.
, ,\
.'
..' . . ' \\ ,: I,
- \ II .
,,:'~ \ )lll'.'I" l
.. . ... .
! )..... (...
,I ,I
1 I ~ . r I
~" .. \ I , \ ... .',
I ' , .
II, ';) ", .' (
I, , I " '- ~
., I. I" l , ' I. t .
'I, I' ',' I \ I
'\ . ,
\, "',
"',-;/ :,
" ,I I ~~
" I
~ ~ Z
: ~
CITY OF LA PORTE
(l7;) . '. j) I J
l/fu/'vU...- Uti.. eft'
, ~
Cherie Black
City Secretary
.I
.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF LA PORTE CITY COUNCIL TO BE HELD JUNE 9, 1986,
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL, 604 WEST FAIRMONT
PARKWAY, LA PORTE, TEXAS, BEGINNING AT 6:00 P.M.
Next Ord. 1500
Next Res. 86-14
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION BY COUNCILPERSON GAY
3. CONSIDER APPROVING MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 12,
1986
4. CONSIDER APPROVING MINUTES OF EMERGENCY MEETING HELD MAY 14,
1986
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATION TO DELBERT WALKER
6. PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND CITIZENS AND
TAXPAYERS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL
1. CONSIDER RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT BONDS TO DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY (Res. 86-14) - K.
Askins
8. CONSIDER ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING NEW EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
RATE STRUCTURE (Ord. 1500) - R. Hare
9. CONSIDER APPROVING ANNUAL CONTRACTS WITH PORT OF HOUSTON AND
WEST GULF MARITIME - R. Hare
10. CONSIDER ADOPTING ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT (Ord. 1501) -
D. Paulissen
11. CONSIDER ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO JUNK VEHICLE ORDINANCE (Ord.
1387-A) - D. Paulissen
12. CONSIDER APPROVING RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF LAND
TO HARRIS COUNTY FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR WIDENING OF BARBOUR'S
CUT BOULEVARD (Res. 86-15) - K. Askins
13. CONSIDER RESOLUTION APPROVING A $1.00 ADMISSION CHARGE TO
SYLVAN BEACH PARK FOR PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT'S 4TH OF
JULY FESTIVITIES (Res. 86-16) - S. Sherwood
14. CONSIDER PROPOSED RATE INCREASE OF JAMES BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES - R. Hare
15. CONSIDER APPROVING JAIL MODIFICATION AND AUTHORIZING BUDGET
TRANSFER OF $3,500.00 FROM CONTINGENCY FUND TO COVER COST
C. Smith
16. CONSIDER CONTRACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF LITTLE CEDAR
BAYOU PARK - S. Sherwood
17. CONSIDER APPROVING MASTER PLAN FOR LITTLE CEDAR BAYOU PARK -
S. Sherwood
18. CONSENT AGENDA - ANY ITEM MAY BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL
A. CONSIDER AWARDING BID FOR BANK SAND - S. Gillett
B. CONSIDER AWARDING BID FOR AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIES - S.
Gillett
C. CONSIDER AWARDING BID FOR FRONT LOAD CONTAINERS - S.
Gillett
19. WORKSHOP ITEM: REPORT FROM ADMINISTRATION ON REVISIONS OF
CHAPTERS 7 AND 8 OF THE PERSONNEL POLICIES - R. Hare
"
." ~
.
.
20. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
21. COUNCIL ACTION
22. EXECUTIVE SESSION - V.A.T.S. - ARTICLE 6252-17, SECTION 2(E),
(F), (G) - (LEGAL, LAND ACQUISITION AND PERSONNEL)
A. LEGAL: DISCUSS CLAIM OF AMERICAN CONSTRUCTORS, INC.,
WITH CITY ATTORNEY
B. LAND ACQUISITION:. CONFER WITH CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING
NORTHWEST PARK PROPERTY AND LITTLE CEDAR BAYOU GOLF
COURSE PROPERTY
23. ADJOURNMENT