HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-07-15 Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting• •
• MINUTES
OF THE
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
LA PORTE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 1981
1. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Meza at 7:00 P.M.
Members of the City Council Present: Mayor Meza, Council-
persons Norman Malone, John Longley, Gus Faris, Tom Simons,
Deotis Gay, Don Skelton, Linda Westergren
Members of the City Council Absent: Councilperson I. J.
Kibodeaux
City Officials Present: City Manager J. R. Hudgens; City
Attorney Knox Askins; City Secretary Betty T. Waters; Police
• Chief H. F. Freeman, Jr.; Public Works Director Jerry Hodge;
Inspector David Paulissen; Fire Chief Joe Sease; Fire Marshal
Paul Hickenbottom; Parks Director Stanley Sherwood
Others Present: Keith Johnson, Bayshore Sun; Freda Beatty,
Baytown Sun; Lou Lawler, President of the La Porte-Bayshore
Chamber of Commerce; Dave Corbin, Busch, Hutchison Engineering;
86 other persons were present in the Council Chambers
Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission Present: Pat
Muston, Lindsay Pfeiffer, Ragan Franks, Red Westen
Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission Absent: Dallie
Wright, R. J. Blackwell, Karl Johnston
2. The invocation was given by City Attorney Askins.
3. Mayor Meza stated the reason for this Public Hearing was to
consider zoning the Lomax Area to the district boundaries as
they existed prior to the consolidation (map a part of these
minutes). Mayor Meza asked that anyone wishing to address
this joint hearing come forward and state their name and
address.
Donnas Cooper - 11806 Plainbrook Drive, Pinegrove Valley
Subdivision: I have 4 lots in Lomax in 1960-62. These lots
are 50 x 125 and at that time there was no Lomax (time of
•
•
• Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting,
July 15, 1981, Page 2
sub-division). It was
out we could not build
Lomax zoning. I would
lots. I think you sho
permit us in Pinegrove
you.
not a City at that time. We found
on just one of these lots due to the
like to be able to build on my 50 foot
ald consider our deed restrictions and
Valley to build on our lots. Thank
Meza: What were the deed restrictions at the time?
Cooper: They are 50 foot lots, and we could build on each
lot. I don't remember what the square footage for the house
was.
Meza: At this time Planning and Zoning wishes to rezone
Lomax back to its original status with the exception that
residential areas be zoned R-2, which would permit 850 square
foot residences as a minimum.
Cooper: That would probably be all right. I was unaware of
what that was.
• Faris: The property requirements are a minimum of 6,000
square feet in the La Porte Zoning Ordinance and your 50' x
125' would be 6,250 square feet, so your lots would more than
meet the minimum lot requirements under this ordinance.
Pfeiffer: Only in Old La Porte does the ordinance permit
50' x 125' lots; the ordinance calls for 60 foot frontage.
Faris: In the proposed rezoning, I don't think that was
pointed out, was it?
Pfeiffer: We had proposed to allow those subdivisions in
Lomax platted to 50' lots to allow them to build.
Faris: So she would be allowed to build on these 50' lots?
Pfeiffer: Yes, sir.
Askins: Let me clarify a few points. The if I'm wrong, some-
one correct me. We have consistently allowed building of a
single family residence on a building site containing 6,000
square feet or more. I think Booth homes is an example where
houses were built on 50 foot lots. I think the prohibition
may be for 60 foot lots or more will be Fairmont Park, and
that's the developer's choice. Because they have less depth,
110 feet, I believe. Certainly in Old La Porte - by that I
•. mean the part that was platted in the 1890's, it is common
that if you have two (2) 25 foot lots you have been permitted
• •
• Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting,
July 15, 1981, Page 3
to build on them. Secondly, if we come across some situa-
tions in our discussion of Lomax tonight where someone has
a building site prior to the consolidation that does not
comply, there is a clause in our zoning ordinance called the
grandfather clause that says that if you have a building site
that does not conform, let's say has less than 6,000 feet
and it could be established that this was under one common
ownership prior to the date of the consolidation, this would
come into La Porte under the grandfather clause. So I think
the lady who spoke would qualify under one of those clauses.
Norma Hutchins - 10503 North Avenue "P": I would like to
ask if there are any changes in the Commercial, Residential,
and Industrial areas, and I would like for Planning and Zoning
to tell me what their plans are for that area.
Meza: Madam Chairman, would you explain what your recommenda-
tions are, please?
Muston: If I understand the question, I will try. The bound-
aries of those. original zones have not changed, but the classi-
•. fications don't quite agree with the La Porte ordinance. The
original commercial along both sides of 26th Street and Under-
wood Road would stay the same; we have recommended R-2 for
the original residential zone with no change in the boundaries;
and since there is no Light Industrial classification in our
ordinance we don't recommend an industrial zoning for that
area previously zoned Light Industrial along and south of the
Southern Pacific tracks. We recommend that area be zoned
commercial to give the Council tighter control.
Delbert Walker - 11438 North "P" Street: We were wondering
if the P & Z has any plans for future mobile home parks other
than what we already have, and also if they are recommending
any commercial zones for Lomax School Road?
Muston: We have no definite plans at this time. However, we
do see the need for the City as a whole for less expensive
housing such as mobile homes and mobile home parks and modular
homes somewhere to satisfy the need to provide needed housing.
We have no plans to zone anything along Lomax School Road
commercial.
Faris: Was any of that property commercial prior to consoli-
dation?
Walker: No.
•
• Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting,
July 15, 1981, Page 4
Faris: Then it would be back to the same thing it was prior
to the merger.
Johnny Miller - 11011 San Jacinto (Lomax): We were wondering
if you received the letter from John Cole. I didn't know if
you were going to read that into the minutes or not. Several
of the people are concerned about reducing housing to 850
square feet. I would like to read the letter. (Letter a
part of these minutes.)
Westergren: It is my understanding that lot sizes would not
change. Also, it is my understanding that elevations out
there won't change due to zoning changes.
Askins: That is right. This doesn't have anything to do with
flood insurance.
Faris: You mean to say that regardless of what size the lot
is or the house built on it, that the requirements for it to
be built in any flood plain would not change, regardless of
what happens?
• Askins: That is correct.
Janie Yeary - 10910 San Jacinto Drive (Lomax): There is not
much I can. add to the letter that was just read. But I just
want to voice my opinion as to being in full agreeance with
the letter.
J. E. Miller - 11011 San Jacinto Drive (Lomax): We were in
pretty close communications with Mr. Cole and. some of the other
neighbors when this came to light. I would also like to ex-
press my feelings on it. I do not feel the present drainage
and the sewer system can handle one more house, much less
what we are talking about here. It is just going back to
several years ago when the City had no money and they put in
a drainage system and also a sewage system which was completely
inadequate. The only way they could justify that was that
that was all the money they could rake up. We've been out
there for 20 years and we know what we are talking about.
Out there now during a moderate to heavy rain, your seal around
your bathtub leaks, your commode backs up and some of the
neighbors out there have raw sewage backs up into their house.
Now this has happened for a long time, and it's awful easy
to say, well, this is going to be fixed in a year or two or
even five, but it's just as easy to say that this inflation is
going to be brought under control and people are going to be
able to build a bigger house. Now we don't have any objec-
tions to people building a smaller house, but our facilities
•
• Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting,
July 15, 1981, Page 5
out there can't stand any more. If they come in there and
build us some adequate drainage and put storm sewer out
there to handle the run-off, that will change things. As
of right now, it is not feasible to put one more house out
there, much less what we are talking about here now.
Walter Valentine - 10915 San Jacinto Drive (Lomax): On top
of the fact that we don't have adequate drainage in Lomax,
the crime rate is going up. Tuesday night of last week
somebody slashed the tires on my daughter's car and also my
car. Before there is so many houses goes up, we need the
sanitary sewer in the whole area and police protection, and
also the drainage. I have lived out there 7 years, and in
the last two years when it rains there is no place for the
water to go. The ditches next to Santa Anna and Louisiana
Chemical haven't been cleansed, so the water just backs up.
Faris: Is there somebody planning a housing addition in
Lomax that I'm not aware of?
Stan Ballard - 11000 San Jacinto (Lomax): We have a flooding
• problem out there and it's getting worse. Santa Anna, which
runs along the east side of the subdivision out there, acts
as a dam. It's got to get up high enough to go over Santa
Anna before we get any relief. The sewage problem, when we
get a one-inch rain we can't flush our commode. We've only
been there two years, so we're a fairly new house. You start
adding more houses in there and it can't do anything but get
worse. I am in total agreement with the letter that was read,
and am totally against 850 square foot houses.
C. E. Furlow - 11030 North "H" Street: I object to lowering
the standards.
Howard Potts - 1210 Travis: I object to it. That is one of
the reasons why I moved to Lomax, because of the quality of
housing out there. I like the larger houses. When you start
building smaller houses there are going to be more of them.
You can build 850 square foot house for $34,000; you build
one 1250 square feet and you are going to spend $50,000. So
it stands to reason you are going to get more 850 than 1200.
So I am totally against it.
Westergren: Mrs. Muston, would you clarify something for me?
Are we talking about changing them to 1200 square foot houses
or 1050 square foot houses? If we go back to the standard
• residential in La Porte, isn't it 1050 square feet?
•
• Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting
July 15, 1981, Page 6
Muston: In the La Porte ordinance, R-2 is 850 square feet
and R-l is 1050 square feet.
Westergrens 1200 is not relevant to this discussion, then.
Skelton: Right now it is 1050 square feet.
Malone.:. The reason they. are saying 1250 is because that is
what it was prior to consolidation. There are some awfully
nice homes out there. The people out there, like myself,
moved out there to have a larger home on a larger lot. The
problem is not objecting to the smaller home because of its
soaking up water, because the lot size will be the same..
That's not. the question. We're going to get our water and
sewer problems straightened out. What our citizens want for
that area is a home a little larger-and a little better than
an 850 square foot home. In California, a home costs $250,000.
the same house here costs $90,000. We really can't worry
about the prices of homes. When most of us up here built our
homes we were probably making $7,000 per year and a home cost
$13,000. If you multiply that by .the increased inflation, the
houses are going to cost that much more but salaries have
increased also. Now if these people can buy boats, yachts,
and go on ski trips and vacations all year, they can afford
to spend something on a home that's going to last them a life-
time. So I think this is what the people want. They want a
nice home along side what they have. Because most of the
homes out there are 1250 square feet or more except the ones
that came under the grandfather clause 10 years ago.
Paul Neuman - 1801 Lomax School Road: I am 100 percent against
the 850 square foot houses. I agree with this gentlemen here
about you can't get but so many houses in so many square feet,
but you're not going to lower the standard. of housing out
there. This is food for thought. Think of the size of your
house and put 850 square foot house in it. I bet you don't
think you have room now. I think an 850 square foot house is
no house at all. I have a fairly nice home, and I don't want
somebody moving across the street from me in an $50 square
foot house because it's going to drop the value of my place.
The people got together back when Lomax zoned and it was a
big fight back then. We did not want anything that small then,
and we still don't.
Clarence Perdel - 4619 La Paz in Pasadena: I bought a piece
of property in Lomax for the simple reason that it was a pretty
nice place. The restrictions were real nice, the houses were a
• nice size and I felt like it would be a nice place to build a
• •
• Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting
July 15, 1981, Page 7
nice home. But this 850 square. feet business, it looks to
me like instead of going forward you are trying to go back-
wards. Twill fight it as far as I can.
James Sitton - 10706 North "P" Street: T am also against
the 850 square foot houses.. One reason is because of the
type of people we will attract. and because the value of
your property goes down. I assure you if you get this type
of houses the people are more transient, they don't mind
going off and leaving that kind of house. You will find our
community will go down if we go to houses this small. I
wouldn't want to see it go less than R-1 but I would rather
see it stay 1250 as it was in Lomax.
Byron Bussey - 10902 Deaf Smith: I am definitely against it.
Developers have several lots out there and they will wind up
building little old 850 square foot houses. on each one of
them, and. it will wind up being a very bad community as far
as I am concerned.
Janie Yeary: You are speaking of the 850 and 1050; I don't
• know, I can't remember but I think our. zoning was 1250, was
it not, Mr. Malone? We are not talking about 1050. We are
talking about 1250 when we are talking about not changing
our ordinance.
Askins: On the. consolidation, the ordinances of Lomax were
no more. Lomax, since the date of the consolidation, has
been in a temporary holding pattern, so to speak. Every bit
of Lomax has been or is R-1 which is the very highest resi-
dential rate we have under the La Porte zoning. Several
property owners have come in, in the last year, because of
their needs for rezoning. Even the previously commercial
property was zoned R-l. From a legal standpoint, at this
hearing we are not talking about reviving the old Lomax zoning
ordinance, because Lomax is now an area of La Porte and comes
under the La Porte ordinance. What we are trying to do tonight
is establish the same commercial districts as "C" commercial,
retail and apartments; Industrial as "C" commercial, retail
and apartments, and the balance as before, residential. Now
this is still a temporary situation because the entire City
is under study and has been for a year or more. I think the
basic question before us tonight is the two choices permitted
under the La Porte zoning ordinance; that is, Rol with a mini-
mum living area of 1050 square feet, or R-2 with a minimum
living area of 850 square feet. Nemerous people here tonight
• have addressed that topic, and I wanted to clarify that because
•
LJ
Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting,
July 15, 1981, Page 8
we don't have a classification in the La Porte ordinance
that has as minimum square feet of 1250. I think the input
here tonight will be valuable to P & Z on the new permanent
ordinance for the entire City. T look at what is being
proposed tonight as a temporary holding pattern thing until
the entire zoning can be done, and when that comes up every-
body in La Porte will get a mail notice. To have an oppor-
tunity to be heard. The. last time we did this we made it
available in the newspaper so everybody could make themselves
familiar with it and be heard. at that time.. What I am trying
to say is that the most Council can do for you tonight under
the existing ordinances is a minimum of 1050 square feet.
That is the highest under the present ordinance. Now the
second issue I would like. to speak to you have some areas in
Lomax where those outlots and acreage have been subdivided
and deed restrictions have been placed on your deed. Now,
those of you who live in such subdivisions, there is a para-
graph in the La Porte zoning ordinance to the effect that if
your deed restriction requires a greater size or amount, your
deed restriction is going to control. Example: If some of
you live in a recorded subdivision and your deed restrictions
• calls for a minimum of 1500 square feet, it will have to be
built regardless of what the City's restrictions are. There
is a clause in the zoning ordinance that says., "If there is a
conflict between the deed restrictions and the Zoning Ordinance,
the higher one will prevail." You may have a situation where
the zoning is more. stringent; in that case, the zoning ordi-
nance will prevail. Should your deed restrictions out there
be in conflict,. then the higher standard will apply.
Malone: What can we do to set the minimum square footage at
1250 square feet?
Askins: Well, we would have to have a, well, the hearing be-
fore us tonight is for a classification change. The unusual
thing about it is that it is for a vast area, more than a
square mile or so. We would have to change the square footage
by creating another classification in the .zoning ordinance
and a public hearing would have to be held on the language.
Then there would be a hearing on the decision as to what areas
would go into this classification.
Faris: How long would it take to go through that? Eighteen to
24 months?
Askins: It would be pretty severe, and. actually that is what
we are about. And after hearing what has been said here to-
night., it seems to be pretty uniform as to the feelings of
the public on that issue. It should be very helpful to P & Z
• •
• Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting,
July 15, 1981, Page 9
and the City Council. For those of you who are not aware,
the City Council going on two years ago now, entered into an
agreement with Texas A&M to do some study and a master plan
and recommendations for the zoning ordinance. That is some-
thing that is ongoing even before the consolidation. It is
going a little slower than was hoped and is a little behind
so.hedule, but we hope to use. their input and present a brand
new ordinance to the community within the next year. The
community will then make comment as to the type of develop-
ment that you want.
Westergren: But that would affect the entire City.
Norma Hutchins: I would. like for you to consider is that
maybe 20 percent of the Lomax area is subdivided. That leaves
80 percent in acreage. Most of the people here that you are
talking about is on acreage, so that's the reason why we are
concerned about permitting these small homes. Subdivisions
have deed restrictions; those of us on acreage have nothing.
We would like for you to consider large square footage for
our acreage. It's not like town, like in the City of La Porte.
•- We feel like the bigger homes on bigger acreage is more benefit
to us.
Malone: Mrs. Hutchins, how many subdivisions are in Lomax
that are not paved?
Hutchins: I would say five.
Faris: Mrs. Hutchins, I think I speak for the P & Z, if not
I know they wall correct me. One. of the biggest problems the
P & Z is facing in zoning the whole city, is just what do we
do with Lomax? Because of the. acreage and the farm type atmos-
phere in some areas. The housing areas and the different re-
quirements each group has. Certainly there are areas in Lomax
that confound La Porte planners a great deal after the merger
took place because it doesn't meet any classification that we
have. That is something P & Z will take a look at after what
they have heard tonight. There are real problems in Lomax,
such as our requirements for a barn don't fit a piece of prop-
erty 750 feet deep and 150 feet wide.. These things are in
the uppermost part of our minds.
Hutchins: That's why we are here, is to make you aware of
these things. We all want our horses, our barns and our nice
homes with our acreage.
C7
~~
• Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting,
July 15, 1981, Page 10
Faris: We certainly don't intend to deprive you of the
things you intended to have originally. The problem is
that what you have out there just doesn't fit into the scheme
of things today. We are trying to make a program today that
will take care of today's needs. The entire program to take
care of everyone's needs is in the mill and is under way.
We have not forgotten Lomax.
Hutchins: Like you say, if an area of say, 20 acres, were
to be subdivided they would have their own deed restrictions,
but for those of us sitting on acreage with. our homes right
in the middle, don't try to put us under the same restrictions
as the rest of La Porte. You just can't do that.
Askins: I think the new zoning ordinance, and again I think
what is being done tonight should be looked at as a holding
pattern, I th-ink the new ordinance is going to have to look
at a classification called rural. residential or something of
that sort., that will require a lot size of an acre or maybe
more. As Gus pointed out, with provisions for barns and for
animals that would be different than the rest of the City be-
• cause of the nature of the neighborhood.
Hutchins: Our minimum lot size was 75' x 100'.
Askins: Well., see, the La Porte ordinance requires 60 feet
x 100 feet; that's not a great deal of difference.
Hutchins: Of course, a lot of developers went through the
Board of Adjustments to get a variance on lot size.
Askins: I might give you some history on ours, because we
had to amend our zoning ordinance several years. ago because
as land got higher and higher and has become more valuable,
we felt forced to go to smaller lots. Fairmont Park, Sec-
tion 1, is much larger than the other sections out there.
La Porte has one of the strictest subdivision ordinance prob-
ably in Harris County, by what we require. Over the years
in order for the developer to build a house.a person can af-
ford to buy, lot sizes have gotten smaller. You are getting
down to typical lot sizes are going to 60 feet x 110 feet in
California. They are going to zero lot lines and lots even
smaller than that as land development gets more and more
expensive.
Hutchins: Well, we are not against subdivisions as such if
a developer wants to come in and-build in accordance with
La Porte rules and regulations. I don't think anyone here is
against that. We are opposed to small houses on this acreage.
• •
• Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting,
July 15, 1981,. Page 11
Simons: From what I hear, I think you are not .against the
zoning, you are against the R-2.
Hutchins: Yes, we would like to see an R-3.
Simons: R-3 would be smaller.
Hutchins: R-3 with 1250 square foot minimum.
Faris: May I repeat - all of us know a little bit more about
Lomax after tonight, and again, we have to do something to-
night to fit the zoning of Lomax into the present La Porte
zoning ordinance. This is not permanent.
Hutchins: This is a Public Hearing, right?
Meza: Yes.
Hutchins:. Is the City Council going to pass anything tonight
on the zoning?
Meza: Yes.
Hutchins: Can it be tabled until such time as a 12.50 class
is created?
Meza: No, ma'am.
Faris: Right now, all of Lomax is R-1; this was required by
law. What we are going to do tonight is place back in com-
mercial all that property that was commercial before, rather
than take each piece of property one by one as everybody
parades through for Council to look at each one for everybody
to get back to status quo. At the same time, we are taking
the industrial area and down-grading it to commercial.
Meza: We are up-grading the industrial area.
Hutchins: I'm sorry we are up-grading residentially the
industrial area. Tonight the residential area will either
end up R-1 or R-2. That is the issue.
Skelton: The main purpose for smaller houses is for energy
conservation, a you are going to see a lot more of it in the
future. I hate to see the large houses go; they are real nice,
but land has become so valuable and there is only so much.
•
•
• Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting,
July 15, 1981, Page 12
Hutchins: T understand that. in a town or subdivision that
has 6,000 square foot lots, then I could understand the
850 square foot house, but I cannot understand it when you've
got acreage and that's what most of Lomax is.
C. E. Furlow: I bought a piece of property down the street
from me a couple of year ago and people were living in it at
the time that I bought it. I thought that the house was un-
desirable. I came to the conclusion the people who would
rent this house were not the type I wanted to live next to.
Now, Mrs. Waters knows my family and she knows we don't have
any gold in our back yard, but I do know that you have a lot
of people that when they get into a little house they don't
do much to try to improve it. T would venture to say that
most of you people live in a Fairmont Park type house or
better. I think the people in our area would like that, and
we will not get it with a chicken coop of a house, 850 square
feet. I'm not a speaker, but I do know that when you lower
your standards, you are not going forward.
• Danny Jeanes - 10930 North "L" Street: I'd like to say I'm
not really concerned with small houses. We paid good money
for that land out there and we want a good place for our kids
to grow up in. We want the larger houses and I think I can
speak for most of them, we don't want any more trailer parks.
The low housing, you can provide low cost housing here in
La Porte. We would like. to keep our larger houses. That's
what we paid for and that's why we are out there.
D. Walker: What I would like. to suggest to Council is that
you leave Lomax in R-1 until such time as the overall plan
is developed, to prevent someone from buying 20 acres and
throwing up a bunch of these 850 foot houses in. Maybe you
would consider that.
Westergren: Wait a minute; am I to understand you want us
to leave all of Lomax R-1?
Walker: No, I mean the residential aspect. I think everyone
is happy with the commercial back like it was. I'm talking
about the residential in the heart of the City. If it can be
left R-1 with a minimum of 1050 square feet until you get your
overall program, then let's take a look at it.
Faris: Mr. Walker, I think everybody has been speaking
directly to that issue tonight.
• Walker: I think we have talked all around it. Nobody has
just out and asked the Council for this.
Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting,
July 15, 1981, Page 13
Faris: Well, P & Z is going to make a recommendation in a
few minutes and come back to Coucnil. I certainly hope it
doesn't take two to three years to get that overall plan
done. I'm hopeful we get it done this year.
Walker: I guess this leaves me a good opening to job the
streets; we have been hoping to get some for quite a while.
Longley: Do you have a time frame for the new zoning plan?
Could you make a guess?
Muston: The new Commission has not yet met to begin work on
the plan. We will meet on the 20th to begin to bring our
new members up to date and lay plans for the future.
4. Meza: Please retire to consider your recommendation on the
matter at hand. There will be a brief recess. (7:55 P.M.)
5. The regular meeting of the La Porte City Council was called
to order at 8:00 P.M. by Mayor Meza.
• 6. Motion was made by Councilperson Faris- to accept and approve
t-minutes of the Regular Meeting o t e La Porte City
Council, July 1, 1981, as presented.. Seconded. by Councilperson
Skelton. The motion Carrie , ayes and 0 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Malone, Longley, Faris, Simons, Gay,
Skelton, Westergren and Mayor Meza
Nays: None
7. Mayor Meza asked for the recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Commission concerning the zoning of the Lomax area.
Chairperson Muston read the commission's recommendation to
City Council. It was their recommendation to rezone the areas
along either side of 26th Street to "C" Commercial and Apart-
ment classification, as it was prior to the consolidation; the
area along Underwood Road (east side) "C" as it was prior to
consolidation. The area formerly "Light Industrial" south of
the S.P. tracks to be zoned "C" - Commercial and Apartment.
The balance of the area to be zoned "R-1" Residential (1050
square foot living area minimum).
Ordinance No. 780-PPP was read by City Attorney Askins:
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE POLICY OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE
CONCERNING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS UNDER THE FORMER CITY
OF LOMAX ZONING ORDINANCE.
C.
•
• Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting,
July 15, 1981, Page 14
Motion was made by Councilperson Malone to adopt Ordinance
No. 780-PPP as read. Seconded by Councilperson Skelton.
The motion carried, 8 ayes and 0 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Malone, Longley, Faris, Simons, Gay,
Skelton, Westergren and Mayor Meza
Nays: None
8. Council considered a request for variance by Jesse Stovall
to construct a barn on his property in Lomax.
Motion was made by Councilperson Faris to grant the variance
in compliance with P & Z's recommendation (barn to be located
some 300 feet from front property line and centered. on property
between east and west property line Seconded by Council-
person Simons. The motion carried, 8 ayes and 0 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Malone, Longley, Faris, Simons, Gay,
Skelton, Westergren and Mayor Meza
Nays: None
9. Council considered a request for. variance by Ronald C. Rod-
riguez, 9942 Rocky Hollow Road. A motion was made by Council-
person Malone to deny the variance. Seconded by Councilperson
Longley. Lindsay Pfeiffer .reminded Council that a detached
building may be built within 3 to 5 feet of a utility easement.
The motion was defeated, 3 ayes and 5 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Malone, Longley, Faris
Nays: Simons, Gay, Skelton, Westergren and Mayor Meza
Motion was made by Councilperson Skelton to grant the variance
to construct a room on the rear of Mr. Rodriguez's house at
9942 Rocky Hollow Road. Seconded. by Councilperson Gay.
Motion was made by Councilperson Malone to table the request
for variance for further study. Seconded by Councilperson
Longley.
Malone reminded the Mayor a motion to table takes precedence.
The motion was defeated, 3 ayes and 5 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Malone, Longley, Faris
Nays: Councilpersons Simons., Gay, Skelton, Westergren and
Mayor Meza
Mayor Meza called for a vote on Councilperson Skelton's motion,
and Councilperson Gay seconded. The motion to grant the vari-
ance carried, 5 ayes and 3 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Simons, Gay, Skelton, Westergren and
Mayor Meza
Nays: Councilpersons Malone, Longley, Faris
•
•
Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting,
July 15, 1981, Page 15
10. Council considered declaring an emergency and authorizing
$9,100 for water well motor and repairs for water well #4.
Mot-ion was made by Councilperson Faris to declare an emer-
gency and authorize 9,100 for well motor and well repairs
for water well 4. Seconded by Councilperson Westergren.
The motion carried, 8 ayes and 0 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Malone, Longley, Faris, Simons, Gay,
Skelton, Westergren and. Mayor Meza
Nays: None
•
11. .Motion was made by Councilperson Faris to authorize a utilit
extension agreement by Eddie Gray and appropriating 8,690.50
for oversizing the line rom the water and sewer improvement
fund. Seconded by Councilperson Malone. The motion carried,
8 ayes and O nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Malone, Longley, Faris, Simons, Gay,
Skelton, Westergren and Mayor Meza
Nays: None
12. Administrative Reports:
City Manager Hudgens advised the Council that the owners of
the Top Hat Lounge has posted the required money for their
sewer connection.
City Manager Hudgens informed Council the contractor painting
and refurbishing the water tower at Fairmont Park found, upon
arrival this morning, a fire had been started .and locks filed
off the doors out at the tower. Minor damage was done.
City Manager Hudgens announced a Revenue Sharing Pre-budget
hearing was set for 7:00 P.M., Wednesday, July 29, 1981, in
the Council Chambers of City Hall.
Hudgens brought before the Council the recommendation from
Fire Chief Joe Sease concerning purchase of a fire truck. Due
to Seagraves, Inc., changing their contract price and delivery
time, Sease recommended the City award the contract to a new
bidder, Fire Fox Corporation, in the amount of $115,741.00.
This will be an increase of $20,496. This money to be budgeted
in the upcoming budget (1981-82).
•..
Motion was made by Councilperson Simons to approve the recom-
men a ion o ire ie ease an awar e i or a new ire
truc to Fire Fox Corp, in t e amount o ., t e overage
to e u Bete in t o - u get wit e every o t e ve icle
Minutes, Joint Pu is Hearing and Regular Me ng,
July 15, 1981, P~ 16
• approximately five months. Seconded by Councilperson Skelton.
The motion carried, 8 ayes and 0 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Malone, Longley, Faris, Simons, Gay,
Skelton, Westergren and Mayor Meza
Nays: None
Hudgens called Council's attention to a memo dated July 14,
1981, concerning a second ambulance for the La Porte Area
Emergency Ambulance Corps (a part of these minutes). Hudgens
requested the Council to declare an emergency waive bid re-
quirements and authorize him to execute a full equity lease
agreement for a remounted Modulance ambulance from Superior
Southwest in Dallas.. The monthly lease payment on the vehicle
to be deducted from the monthly payments by the City to the
Ambulance Corp per Paragraph XIII of our contract.
Motion was made by .Councilperson Faris waiving the bid require-
ments due to an emergency and authorizing the City Manager to
enter into a lease purchase agreement with Superior Southwest
for a remounted Modulance ambulance. Seconded. y Councilperson
Malone. The motion carried, 8 ayes and 0 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Malone, Longley, Faris, Simons, Gay,
Skelton, Westergren and Mayor Meza
Nays: None
• City Manager Hudgens announced August 22, 1981, has been set
as the date for the annual City Employee picnic to be held at
Klein's Retreat. In order to defray some of the expenses in-
curred for the picnic, Hudgens asked permission to sell scrap
metal accumulated aound the old sewer plant.
Motion was made by Councilperson Faris, seconded by Council-
person Simons, to authorize sale of scrap metal to assist in
finances for the Annual City Employee Picnic. The motion car-
ried, 8 ayes and 0 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Malone, Longley, Faris, Simons, Gay,
Skelton, Westergren and Mayor Meza
Nays: None
13. Council Action:
Malone: I wish to thank the citizens of District 1 for dis-
playing their concern during the Joint Public Hearing tonight.
Longley: I too, am please, and thank the citizens for showing
up tonight. I would like to make Council aware, Southern
Pacific is up to its old tricks. A train kept the tracks
blocked last Monday for approximately 25 to 30 minutes along
State Highway 225; from 5:30 to about 6:05. A Harris County
Sheriff Deputy was in the line and managed to get to a phone.
Shortly thereafter they broke the train to permit traffic to
clear. We need to try to schedule trains at a time when there
won't be such a back up of traffic.
•
• Minutes, Joint Public Hearing and Regular Meeting,
July 15, 1981, Page 17
Faris: I have two things. One, last week Mr. Hudgens came
over to the Optimists Club meeting and gave us a talk on the
water and sewer system and tomorrow, Stan Sherwood will address
that organization concerning the function of his department.
Secondly, as far as the railroad issue is concerned, Knox and
I had lunch and we both came away with some better ideas as
to how we want to handle the matter.
Simons: I have nothing, but would request an executive session
on personnel.
6 ~: I kind of wanted the Council to be aware of the need for
a park in the area of La Porte around La Porte Terrace and the
Booth Homes. I go that way every day and I see children play-
ing in the streets. When we go to work on the budget, I expect
you will see me asking for money for parks in that area.
Skelton: I am real happy to see the participation here tonight.
i think it is good. Speaking of budgets, I see a great need
for streets and drainage.
• Westergren: I appreciate the citizens who take an interest in
the City and care enough to come out and become involved.
14. Meza: We will retire into executive session at this time, and
we hope to see all of you at our next meeting. (8:29 P.M.)
Council returned to the Council table at 8:40 P.M.
Motion was made by Councilperson Faris to adjourn. Seconded
y Counci person S e ton. There being no further business to
be brought before the Council, the meeting was duly adjourned
at 8:42 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
~~GZ~~
tty Waters
City Secretary
Passed and Approved this
the 3rd day of August,
1981
J. J. Meza, May
•
La Porte, Texas 77571
City of La Porte
The Honorable J. J. Meza, Mayor
Members of the City Council
P. 0. Box 115
•
P. 0. Box 455
10910 Monument Drive
La Porte, Texas 77571
July 13, 1981
Re: Zoning Ordinance
Gentlemen:
Upon receipt of the "Notice of Public Hearing", I drove by the
City Hall to discuss the agenda with Betty Waters. During our
conversation, I was informed that one of the items that would
be discussed would be a change iri the. building code for private
dwellings. This change, would allow the construction of homes
with a living area of~$50 square feet. The present code calls
for a minimum of 1,2~ square feet. The land requirements would
remain the same as t~iey are now, which is 6,000 square feet of land
per lot.
I have discussed this matter at length with Mr. Malone and Mr.
Simons, and with my neighbors. The citizens of this area with
whom I have discussed the lowering of these restrictions are much
concerned. In most cases, private enterprise development are
producing homes in the medium price range with square footage of
approximately 1,700 square feet on up. My own home has 2200 square
feet of living area with a detached garage. If you should vote
to lower the standards of the building code to 850 square feet, it
is projected that the following conditions would become a reality.
1. The value of our property would decline.
2. The building of medium priced homes would cease.
3. It is a proven fact, that when housing code standards
are lowered, the crime rate increases.
4. The sewer system during moderately heavy rains become
flooded as water pours under the man hole covers. Some
of my neighbors are experiencing water from the sewer
lines coming up in their bath tubs. Since we have no storm
sewers to carry off the water that fills the ditches
during these rains, this condition would be worsened
by the addition of a heavier concentration of housing
units per line. Obviously this becomes a health hazard.
•
City of La Porte
Zoning Ordinance
July 13, 1981
Page 2
Mr. Malone compared the proposed building code with those of some
of the sections of La Porte, which as I now understand the
requirements, the construction of such housing is from 800 square
feet on up. I certainly do not wish to hart the feelings of any
citizen, but if one should look as the houses around the City Hall
of La Porte, one would find that many of these dwellings are run
down, and in many cases have been patched up over the years. Quite
frankly, if these homes are placed in the City of Houston, they
would in all honesty possibly be classified as slum dwellings.
We would face the same conditions here, as such a home would
probably be built on a basic slab on lots that would have an
elevation which would permit flooding, such as we now see on 26th
street.
On the basis of the above comments, I urge the City Council
to retain the deed restrictions as they now are, and not make it
difficult for those of us who have spent considerable moneys in
building reasonably nice homes in this sub-division which are, in
• most cases, on heavy floating slabs and placed upon lots which
dirt has been brought in to assure that flooding would not occur.
My own home has never had any problem with water coming in from
rains, because it was properly planned in the beginning.
I request that this letter be read into the minutes of this meeting.
ORDINANCE NO. 7~G ~fJ~
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE POLICY OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE
CONCERNING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS UNDER THE FORMER CITY
OF LOMAX ZONING ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
HEREOF.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
l
Section 1. The former City of Lomax has heretofore been
consolidated with the City of La Porte. The former City of
Lomax had a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The City of
La Porte has a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The Planning
and Zoning Commission of the City of La Porte is presently
• studying the existing City of La Porte Zoning Ordinance, with
a view to recommending substantial changes and revisions.
Section 2. Upon its consolidation with the City of
La Porte, the territory of the former City of Lomax came under
the coverage of the City of La Porte Zoning Ordinance, with a
temporary classification of "R-1 Residential." Because of the
substantial number of land parcels involved, and because of
the ongoing revision process on the City of La Porte Zoning
Ordinance, it would be a duplication of effort by the Planning
and Zoning Commission, and an inconvenience to the property
owners involved, ~to have individual hearings. on all of the
land parcels in the territory of the former City of Lomax,
for a permanent zoning classification, prior to the enactment
• of the new revised City of La Porte Zoning Ordinance. There-
fore, the City Council of the City of La Porte, upon the
recommendation of the City of La Porte Planning and Zoning
Commission, hereby adopts and carries forward, the zoning
classifications which were in effect on the various parcels
of land in the territory comprising the former City of Lomax,
and the same shall have the same zoning classifications as
they were classified under the former City of Lomax Zoning
• i
Ord
nance, according to the following table, to-wit:
~~
•
C~
J
Ordinance No. ~~D~jO~ , page 2.
FORMER CITY OF LOr1AX
ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
CITY OF LA PORTE
ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS
R-~ Residential j
C-Commercial and Apartment District
C-Commercial and Apartment District
Section 3. The City Council officially finds, deter-
mines, recites and declares that a sufficient written notice
of the date, hour, place and subject of this meeting of the
City Council was posted at a place convenient to the public
at the City Hall of the City for the time required by law
preceding this meeting, as required by the Open Meetings Law,
Article 6252-17, Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated; and
that this meeting has been open to the public as required by
law at all times during which this ordinance and the subject
matter thereof has been discussed, considered and formally
acted upon. The City Council further ratifies, approves and
confirms such written .notice and the contents and posting
thereof.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force from and after its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the ~ day o ,
1981.
CITY OF LA PORTE
By
J. J. Meza, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ci-'ty Secretary
APPROVED:
City Attorney
~ °'~.
•
~~
~
ca
~
~~ n ~
~
o
~
C° ~
w ~
~
~
~
(~ ~
~.
~
~
~
~
t~
• ::f
t
City oP Lomax--Zoning Map "
4-11-72
~~
_r.i ~.3. ~' ., _ . __ ,
•
._ ,. 4~2n=7v ti.w4*M1ic~e ra .:.,+-.~.tT~t~M'~~'..x~e,+.ii±!yr.•,v;. <Y.tir. `.I t3~e~f*^`¢. ws, _,..
~ ~ ._
1
June 17, 1981
• Pat Muston, Chairperson
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of La Porte
P.O. Box 1115
La Porte, Texas 77571
Dear Mrs. Muston:
We own a tract of land 125' wide by 870' deep on North P
Street in the Lomax Subdivision. We want to build our home at
that location and have requested a permit to build a barn for
our feed and equipment.
City Ordinance says the barn must be located 100' from
any property line. I am enclosing a hand drawn plat showing
the ideal location for my use of the land. I am requesting a
variance to the Zoning Ordinance to permit this use of my land.
Sincerely,
~~ .~~~
Jesse Stovall
JS/cb
• Enc.
t
C.~
•
...-"+4~C` "'e'.if?'*d:~+~:~~.z%t~~x-1W v+.af...a.a•,s°..~...~v.~f!'e"~'K-,~-*4' +.a w ~~
. _ . r _ +«... -s.,-'; rr-w.•tr"t..c~.~,vBra'~1pYK`E~s:.~'"~C;` V,ilF~:ar.~r 3:Y.t.+-~'~ +`tirt%:lc:
. .. MI .. , ,,,~ - -. .... , -. ... .. .
CITY OF LA PORTE _
STREET ADDRESS: D D /V, '
~ M
a ~7' L b __
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT' `~y~~g BI,O~ SUB+
OWNER : ~ ~ ra Y ~ r. a /tit a ~ ~ t~ -- ~ ~ n . ~.l-~G2h~ (/a? f ~/L ~~~
CONTRACTOR:
,~•
a
Q
n
LJ
~l
c
r-
~-~
0
C-
~~
.'
~r~ FerT~~ t_ ~~c 5fir~~~
-1-
a,
v
~`
~~
~~
e)
c
1
r
. ~
0
d
~ a-
T
k
0
0
00
Z
0
.;~ ~
4
V
Q
a
J
Q
..~ O
-~ ~
.:~
(O~
:~ `~
2
0
~~
L
v '
~- Q
I
•y
• ?
0
_ G
__
~~
h
~~
- ~.
.;;
J
9
V
~v
a t
.:
L
i
~d~
~$I
s
~'
ppo'
K:d
w
i' u
~~
~'
~N
WI
~' QI
~~
I
~~
-}-(
dl
~
L(
~ Q
Y'
~ p~
~
V j,
a
~ o
a
j
i
-?'""' r
3~ tz~ ~
~ ~i Q
~ ~y a
~i ol~
~'~ ~~ i
C3
~~ ! ~~
-i'~ ~
` 3
L
^CLI
L'
~I
Z
_0
Z
Q~
ti
..
.,
~f'+~«`.CP-~Gi~..~'7k'~'2~L'+:54!1^..Ytt~'~ )..gist'~r-a~5-~ihiaw./Yi•"fi~T.+'rj'fw~!Ft~It4+N-n,W~'Y:~'f~.cw+,F..7~: ~..L:.we 2n.::ti •c4a:raw l'. ~.iG~:a
~.htt+.r.'iFG'u -
.. ti
MEMORANDUM
June 30, 1981
T0: Mayor and City Council
• FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission
SUBJECT: Request for Variance to Build Barn - Jesse Stovall
On June 29, 1981, Mr. Jesse Stovall met with Planning and
Zoning to request a variance to enable him to construct a barn
on his property at 10720 North "P" Street. Mr. Stovall's prop-
erty is 125' wide and 870' deep.
Our present zoning ordinance requires housing for livestock
to be located 100 feet from any property line. Although subject
property contains approximately 2~ acres, the dimensions would
make it impossible to comply with the ordinance in the place-
ment of a barn.
The next-door neighbors on both sides of the property,
James Sitton and Carl Womack, have stated that they have no ob-
jections to the barn.
Planning and Zoning recommends that the variance be granted,
with the stipulation that the barn be placed at least 300 feet
from the front property line of "P" Street and centered on the
property with 43.S.feet between the barn and each side property
line.
. Respectfully,
~~~
Pat Muston, Chairman
PM/cb
~~
__...._.~ ~r_'an",'~~~.v,~...::. ~ -++ti,4:.i+6~ '~,;,y~-;c= ..~:.?r~:.-.:s~ =:~.7G
_ ~' ~.:.
•
i
T~+~'~~, .M. w..-4'tis~e~t~L~'i~S°#"-'+ h' e;..w-~y~n.r,.Ne~;r ~.~.•::K~~.'~;y.. ~^:~.r"~WdGj7yf~y4 - .._ - ... . ~:... . .
\ _ .. .. '.`e~is%v~,~.~,.,rcw-+~^-.+~r~:`:~......irt'~',T.rs~sy~~,y.: ~,<.... ~. ~?L.if:'r~: tl+
j
~/
Mai' 27, 1981
City of La Porte
Planning and Zoning Commission
La Porte, Texas 77571
Re: Zone Variance Request
Gentlemen,
'I aim planning to build a 24' X 13~ addition to my ~ ~ ~~ -
house at 9912 Rocky Hollow Road.
I am a supervisor for U.S. Steel and am required
to work all three shifts. I intend to have my children
and visitors use the room while I am sleeping as it is
necessary for me to sleep .at different times. It is
crucial that I get enough sleep so I can Prork safely
and effectively.
I find it necessary to request a zone variance because
the 13~ southward addition shall :extend 5' into the 10~
distance away from the 8' utility easement. l~closed
please find copies _o-f the land survey and blueprints for
the new addition.
Your consideration is gratefully appreciated.
cc Inspection
Very truly yours,
~~-
G.
Rolando C. Rodriguez
~ .
MORTGAGE SURVEY
r.¢.a-4
1.OT J ~ BLOCiK ~Q. ~ FAQ QwnN[' Pe-Q~c w cr SU9avl~`ION RE.C_.vo` .'1g~
MA, KRIS CO-, TC}r,^g ~> _qj
H G M.R
~~
ROGKY H OLLQW RCAD
Go.3g'
~-
I
• I
c
I DRG
i
~ N.
~
"' I
J ~ L-
r .
z S' H' ~'
I.I 20 ? I I
I•I
F
o ~ ~
I~ I
i.. a I.I
ii
L. s~ ,8;
~__J~,
~.8
0
o a,
m
N
t~-Srl.BR.~ FR.RF.,S.
SQ N o . 9 9 4Z,
J ' L,
r.~
' I Pe.T l0 I t ~'
~' _ . -I
L__:J
g' u. E. • ~ O
<0 0.3e•'
/V.
D a-
~ Z5.4
T tt
7
Q -
~ {
Z i
Q
Z
J
J
3 ~
0
0
5!~' '-
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I
i
•
.. ,. .. _
..
.,~,rnyvC••c~iycr:..F'.:-a~•>~+s..,..~w+ar',p:~.«..r. ~sti~r's+ o' :- ---,.-sz:t.~n~°.'l'4`* ~ .Y;r~ 'Y°:MF.;.iri~i ':+.~rs. 1i`S+.d't t
.. _ . _.. -~?4-~-
«+~u.-
MEMORANDUM
June 30, 1981
TO: Mayor and City Council
• FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission
SUBJECT: Variance for Rear Building Line - Rolando Rodriguez
i4rs. Rolando Rodriguez met with Planning and Zoning on
June 29, 1981, to request a variance to allow .an addition to
a home at 9942 Rocky Hollow Road.
The addition would encroach upon the required distance
from the utility easement. Rather than maintaining 10 feet
from the easement, they are requesting that they be allowed
to build within 5 feet of the easement.
In considering this request, it was noted by Planning and
Zoning that a garage or other accessory building can be placed
within 3 feet of the property line or utility easement.
Planning and Zoning recommends that this variance be
granted.
• PM/cb
Respectfully,
~o.~ t'rw
Pat Muston, Chairman
D3
.~j~a,_..f..rc+'5:.~, -+~`:'iFIZ!!w'R4+c!l:C,•i~:.,a+~icr_ .w.~'-;?::a..'~ o.ar'+M..~ .. ~ _.;~:*c.,_ ..,.` ......eS: .., r,~.-~•~•.'~; tee.: _. ::`_, y~.~..: i. ~..~wr-.~.:~0-S~. ~i~;,~•.
~.::. ~_
;,.,;~,,~:•,.s•~ ..-.-v'rgaofaR~s'~zs~J~~•+:_ .,y..*: M=~« .~~:t+e-,; .~t~~ ~. _
r .. '!y.a .:i>i.Y'. ^'~;Jl'-.c~.~y:.ti l:T -3 v'yt~';+t wyy.ssL'`M~: .';t" .w,..•iaar~ a:A_.•.~awa~•.ic;f~~••n - - .
CITY OF LA PORTE
INTER-OFFICE r1EMORANDUM
TO: Jerry Hodge Director of Public Works DATE:, June 29, 1981
FROJ1: Ri W ,, Water/Wastewater Superintendent
• SUIIJECT: Water Well
On June 3, 1981 during an electrical storm, water well ~ 4 was hit by
lightning destroying the motor. The motor is a 1958, 125 HP, General
Electric and has previously been rewound three (3) times. The cost,to
rewind this motor is $2,700. and the cost of a new motor, 1981, 125 HP
U.S. Electrical, is $4,500.00
Layne Texas was contacted for a rental motor, in order to install a
rental well motor Layne Texas had to pull the first ten (10) feet of
well casing to replace motor shaft. After pulling the first ten (10).'
feet of well casing, the`well caved in at the bottom. Also the first
section of well casing bearings were badly damaged, due to wear from
years of service. When shaft and motor frame was remodified for new ..
service there was one ten (10) foot section eliminated due to cave-in
and bad bearings in first section of casing, since adjustments have
been made for rent motor, no further adjustments will need to be made
for a new motor. Delivery time on a new motor will be four (4) to
six (G} weeks.
The total cost of the work completed by Layne Texas was appro:cimately
$4,500., bringing the grand total of the motor and work to $9,100.
If you should have any questions on the above, please advise.
RW/ct
NOTE:
This item needs to be placed on the Council meeting of July 1, 1981 as an
emergency item.
The well motor has been ordered and the work by Layne Texas has been completed.
We have just recently gathered together the information to present to Council.
There are funds available in the Water/Sewer budget.
'dr.!~;S.xa+r: ,, .. :`""',':.ai~r'fi,'i'G~Y-~C..~:,,{.s. .~ .-~~+c~r.~.c. ~..~•„ •r.*.«?. - - - ..,=-;n •.a~-.+=
Se1'!iG:s•`.!•.99~y-''J'Sr+ri*3•~C~\:=aSI~J-~'~~.`.~~ rF :.~.d.~~ ~ .. L.fTt~;l..l k~.~~w, o ~• '.s ;- . e~~./" :7 a.• .? ~.-• Y
ti
•
•
1
~•~ y w
:r~..•~
~1 ~I
.; 1,
vr~ :1
July 2, 1981
T0: J. R. Hudgens
FROM: John Joerns
MEMORANDUM
f
SUBJECT: Utility Extension by E. Gray - Request for Oversizing
Carlos Smith & Associates have presented the City with
preliminary plans for an eight-inch water main extension along
Fairmont Parkway to Underwood Road.
The Engineering Department requests that the City partici-
pate in the cost of oversizing (materials only) the main to a
12-inch. This would allow the City, at a future date, to
install a twelve-inch line northward to tie-in to the existing
12-inch main at Spencer Highway. This, as you mentioned to me
earlier, has been apart of your earlier water system improve-
ment planning.
According to preliminary discussion with the contractor,
the approximate additional cost per foot would be $6.50/foot
x 1,337 feet, for a total of $8,690.50.
JJ/cb
John Joern
• •
OFFICE OF THE FIRE CHIEF
CITY OF LA PORTE
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
T0: J. R. Hudgens DATE: July 13, 1981
FROM: J. L. Sease
SUBJECT: Awarding new fire apparatus contract
Due to Seagraves Inc. changing thier contract price and delivery time I
reco~ex~d the City award the contract to a new bidder. Listed below are quotations
from the other original bidders. I recarmend we award the contract to the law bid
from Fire Fox Corp. for $115,741.00. This is an increase of $20,496.00. This money
can be provided for in the coming budget.
Bidders:
Fire Fox Corp. $3.15,741.00 4 to 5 mths delivery
Claude t~tright & Assoc. $126,000.00 2 months
Superior Southwest Inc. $126,113.00 4 to 5 mths
Respectfully,
J. L. Sease
•